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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
415892733
label
[Statements of Administration Policy, 10/1/90-2/7/91]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
415892733
contentType
document
title
[Statements of Administration Policy, 10/1/90-2/7/91]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13900-002
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Tony Snow Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
415892733
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
6f2ad43452d3fe8e
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
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:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Tony, Files
Subseries:
Subject File, 1988-1993
OA/ID Number:
13900
Folder ID Number:
13900-002
Folder Title:
[Statements of Administration Policy, 10/1/90-2/7/91]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
18
29
3
1
B
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 1, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5063 - Ft. McDowell Indian Water Rights Settlement
(Udall (D) AZ and Rhodes (R) AZ)
The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 5063
because the bill would set a dangerous legal precedent, require
Federal contributions far in excess of the Government's legal and
trust responsibilities, and fail to extinguish certain related
Indian claims.
For these reasons, if H.R. 5063 were presented to the President
in its current form, the Secretary of the Interior would
recommend a veto of the bill. Each of the bill's serious flaws
is addressed below.
Legal and Precedential Concerns
H.R. 5063 would contradict long-standing Federal policy on the
validation of water rights. It would do this by statutorily
creating a Federal water right for a non-federal entity. If any
right exists, it does so exclusively under State rather than
Federal law. Thus, by creating a new water right, H.R. 5063
could give rise to legal challenges if it is interpreted to
create an unconstitutional taking of property rights. This would
create a dangerous precedent for future water settlements and
could adversely affect the water rights claims of other Indian
communities not a party to this settlement.
Unjustified Federal Contribution
The bill would require the Federal Government to contribute up to
$78 million, which represents approximately two-thirds of the
settlement cost, to resolve a dispute that exists largely between
the Indian community and the State of Arizona. Specifically, the
Government would be required to contribute $23 million to a
Community Development Trust Fund. Additionally, the United
States would have to acquire and provide for the delivery of
13,933 acre-feet of water to the Community. Assuming recently
estimated water prices of $3,000 per acre-foot, the cost of this
requirement would be $42 million. Finally, the Community would
receive a $13 million interest-free reclamation loan to be paid
back over 50 years. State and local entities would be required
to contribute $38 million -- one-third of the settlement cost.
2
Extinguishment of Claims
The bill fails to extinguish all claims against the United States
despite the Federal contribution to the settlement package.
H.R. 5063 contains specific language preserving claims against
the United States for failure to protect the Community from
adverse affects related to the authorization and planning for
Orme Dam. The result -- a "settlement" lacking finality --
violates the basic tenets of equity and is unacceptable.
*****
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 1, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4300 - Family Unity and Employment Opportunity
Immigration Act of 1990
(Morrison (D) Connecticut and 32 others)
If H.R. 4300 were presented to the President in its current form,
the Attorney General and the Secretaries of Labor and
Transportation would recommend a veto. The Administration's
principal concerns are that H.R. 4300 would:
-- Grant the immediate relatives of lawful permanent
residents the same immigration privileges as those of U.S.
citizens. H.R. 4300 would eliminate an incentive for
lawful permanent residents to seek naturalized
citizenship, impeding the full integration into U.S.
society of certain immigrants.
-- Fail to ensure that a sufficient number of employment-
related immigration visas would be utilized by skilled
workers.
-- Fail to provide for an appropriate balance between the
levels of employment-related and family-connected
immigration, as provided for in S. 358 as passed by the
Senate.
-- Rewrite the law relating to "temporary" immigrants, i.e.,
non-immigrants. Revision to the admissions system for
non-immigrants would be premature until the effect of
changes to permanent immigration classifications on the
demand for non-immigrant visas is ascertained.
-- As reported by the Judiciary Committee, assess a fee
against employers who petition for the admission of
foreign workers, even when the employers have attested
that they have attempted unsuccessfully to recruit U.S.
workers.
-- Increase FY 1991 outlays by $296 million by expanding the
scope of the State Legalization Impact Assistance Grant
(SLIAG) mandatory program.
-- Impose longshore employer sanctions requirements on owners
of foreign vessels that would be unnecessary,
inappropriate, and extremely burdensome.
2
Among the Administration's other concerns with H.R. 4300 are that
it would:
-- Provide conditional permanent resident status to aliens
from so-called "adversely-affected" foreign states. This
would effectively create an amnesty for certain illegal
aliens who entered the U.S. prior to January 1, 1990. The
Administration opposes any expansion of the amnesty
granted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
-- Remove the Attorney General's discretion to determine
which immigration emergencies warrant the disbursement of
"immigration emergency funds."
-- Establish a math and science scholarship program. The
Administration urges, instead, enactment of the
President's proposed National Science Scholars program.
-- Create an administrative burden which could not be borne
under current budget constraints. The increased numbers
of immigrants would require corresponding increases in
consular officers in embassies throughout the world.
-- Eliminate an essential element in the examination of
applications for non-immigrant visas (i.e., whether the
applicant had sought an immigrant visa or other permanent
status). This provision could result in issuance of
non-immigrant visas to all applicants, even those who
clearly intend to remain indefinitely in the U.S.
-- Remove the requirement for exhaustion of administrative
remedies and abandon current law regarding the limits of
judicial remedies in immigration disputes.
-- Introduce an "attestation" process for permanent
immigrants to replace the current labor certification
process for foreign workers. This provision could weaken
protections for U.S. workers and would be more costly and
difficult to administer than the current process. As one
example, it could result in fraudulent "employer" schemes
for illegal immigration.
The Administration supports legal immigration reform that would
enhance skill-based immigration while facilitating the
unification of families. It also supports an increase in
immigration levels above those in current law.
*****
PRESIDENT SERVIS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
October 1, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5732 - Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990
(Oberstar (D) Minnesota and 46 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 5732 in its current
form.
The Administration supports the report of the President's
Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism and is already
acting to implement most of its recommendations. In addition,
the Administration urges prompt Senate ratification of Montreal
Protocol 3 to assure prompt and fair compensation for victims of
terrorism in the air.
The Administration particularly objects to provisions of
H.R. 5732 which conflict with Presidential prerogatives and
micromanage Federal progams. The most seriously troublesome
provisions would:
-- impose counterproductive organizational requirements
(section 101) ;
--
interfere with the prompt deployment of explosives
detection systems (section 108) ;
--
impose threat evaluation and notification requirements
which would not only be imprudently rigid, but
improperly expose the Federal Government to financial
liability (section 109) ;
--
infringe on the President's authority under the
Constitution to conduct foreign relations (sections 201
and 216) i and
lay the groundwork for exposing the Federal Government
to unknown financial liability, create a narrow tax
exemption, and infringe on the President's
constitutional authority to recommend legislation
(section 212)
OF PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 1, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5732 - Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990
(Oberstar (D) Minnesota and 46 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 5732 in its current
form.
The Administration supports the report of the President's
Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism and is already
acting to implement most of its recommendations. In addition,
the Administration urges prompt Senate ratification of Montreal
Protocol 3 to assure prompt and fair compensation for victims of
terrorism in the air.
The Administration particularly objects to provisions of
H.R. 5732 which conflict with Presidential prerogatives and
micromanage Federal progams. The most seriously troublesome
provisions would:
:
impose counterproductive organizational requirements
(section 101) ;
:
interfere with the prompt deployment of explosives
detection systems (section 108) i
:
impose threat evaluation and notification requirements
which would not only be imprudently rigid, but
improperly expose the Federal Government to financial
liability (section 109) ;
--
infringe on the President's authority under the
Constitution to conduct foreign relations (sections 201
and 216) i and
--
lay the groundwork for exposing the Federal Government
to unknown financial liability, create a narrow tax
exemption, and infringe on the President's
constitutional authority to recommend legislation
(section 212)
BEI
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OF
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 1, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5063 - Ft. McDowell Indian Water Rights Settlement
(Udall (D) AZ and Rhodes (R) AZ)
The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 5063
because the bill would set a dangerous legal precedent, require
Federal contributions far in excess of the Government's legal and
trust responsibilities, and fail to extinguish certain related
Indian claims.
For these reasons, if H.R. 5063 were presented to the President
in its current form, the Secretary of the Interior would
recommend a veto of the bill. Each of the bill's serious flaws
is addressed below.
Legal and Precedential Concerns
H.R. 5063 would contradict long-standing Federal policy on the
validation of water rights. It would do this by statutorily
creating a Federal water right for a non-federal entity. If any
right exists, it does so exclusively under State rather than
Federal law. Thus, by creating a new water right, H.R. 5063
could give rise to legal challenges if it is interpreted to
create an unconstitutional taking of property rights. This would
create a dangerous precedent for future water settlements and
could adversely affect the water rights claims of other Indian
communities not a party to this settlement.
Unjustified Federal Contribution
The bill would require the Federal Government to contribute up to
$78 million, which represents approximately two-thirds of the
settlement cost, to resolve a dispute that exists largely between
the Indian community and the State of Arizona. Specifically, the
Government would be required to contribute $23 million to a
Community Development Trust Fund. Additionally, the United
States would have to acquire and provide for the delivery of
13,933 acre-feet of water to the Community. Assuming recently
estimated water prices of $3,000 per acre-foot, the cost of this
requirement would be $42 million. Finally, the Community would
receive a $13 million interest-free reclamation loan to be paid
back over 50 years. State and local entities would be required
to contribute $38 million -- one-third of the settlement cost.
2
Extinquishment of Claims
The bill fails to extinguish all claims against the United States
despite the Federal contribution to the settlement package.
H.R. 5063 contains specific language preserving claims against
the United States for failure to protect the Community from
adverse affects related to the authorization and planning for
Orme Dam. The result -- a "settlement" lacking finality --
violates the basic tenets of equity and is unacceptable.
*****
OF
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 2, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.J.Res. 649 - Approving Extension of MFN to Czechoslovakia
(Gephardt (D) MO and Michael (R) IL)
The Administration supports enactment of H.J.Res. 649, which
would approve the extension of nondiscriminatory tariff treatment
(most-favored-nation treatment) to products of Czechoslovakia.
*****
OFFICE the STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 2, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.J.Res. 647 - Resolution of Disapproval of President's
Decision to Extend MFN to China
(Solomon (R) New York and 17 others)
If H.J.Res. 647 were presented to the President, his senior
advisers would recommend that he veto it. H.J.Res. 647 would
deny China most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status. Passage of
this bill would hurt U.S. business and consumers, damage Hong
Kong's economy, reduce our influence with China on global issues,
and adversely affect those Chinese who have a direct stake in the
reform and opening of China to the outside world.
In May, the President determined that China met the requirements
of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and that continuing MFN would
serve broad U.S. economic and foreign policy interests. The
Administration shares the sponsors' desire to promote human
rights in China but believes this can be done best by keeping
China's economy open to. the outside world and maintaining the
broadest possible range of people-to-people contacts. Trade and
investment provide a vital link with those Chinese who want
positive change.
Our continued economic involvement with China has encouraged
important positive steps. The Chinese authorities have released
almost 900 political prisoners this year and, following the
President's decision to renew China's MFN status, have permitted
Fang Lizhi and his family to depart the country. Beijing has
supported all eight UN Security Council resolutions on the
Persian Gulf crisis and acted decisively to enforce the UN-
approved trade embargo. China's active intervention was crucial
for achieving the latest breakthrough toward a peaceful
settlement in Cambodia.
The United States cannot return to doing business as usual with
China. The Administration will continue to press for the release
of the estimated 300-400 political detainees resulting from the
brutal suppression of the prodemocracy movement of June 1989.
But a sound working relationship with China is still necessary so
that issues of vital concern to us can be addressed.
*****
OFFICE WTS PRESIDENT SEAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 2, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 1511 - Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
(Pryor (D) AR and 45 others)
Although S. 1511, as amended, is a significant improvement over
the version which was originally introduced in the Senate, the
Administration opposes its enactment. The Administration
strongly supports the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and a
carefully crafted response to the Betts decision. However, this
bill continues to cause concern because it would:
-- unduly restrict the ability of State and local governments
and private employers to integrate benefits in employee
benefit plans;
-- require that a retiree's health plan must have a specified
minimum value before an employer is permitted to offset its
value from severance payments otherwise due the employee;
-- continue to permit an employer to offset the value of
pension sweeteners from severance payments, but only in the
case of immediate and unreduced pensions; and
-- create a dual standard of what constitutes age
discrimination by prohibiting practices by State and local
governments and private employers that are permitted for
Federal employee benefit plans.
********
OF PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 3, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5269 - Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990
(Brooks (D) Texas and Hughes (D) New Jersey)
If H.R. 5269 were presented to the President in its current form,
his senior advisors would recommend a veto.
The President supports anti-crime legislation along the lines of
the "Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1989" that he
transmitted to Congress last year. Major provisions of that
measure (H.R. 2709) would: (1) establish the procedures
necessary to institute the death penalty for certain Federal
offenses; (2) restore an appropriate degree of finality to State
and Federal criminal convictions by curtailing abuses of the writ
of habeas corpus; and (3) reform the "exclusionary rule" by
making admissible evidence obtained as a result of a search or
seizure undertaken in objectively reasonable good faith in cases
where warrants are not required.
H.R. 5269 would accomplish none of these objectives. On the
contrary, it would:
Effectively abolish the death penalty in the United
States by increasing delay in State cases and imposing
a racial quota system on both State and Federal capital
punishment cases.
Reduce the degree of finality of convictions by
weakening procedures relating to habeas corpus.
Establish "exclusionary rule" procedures that would
narrow existing case law by creating additional
barriers to the admissibility of evidence.
Excessively increase authorization levels beyond those
provided in the President's 1991 Budget for Federal
grants for State and local law enforcement and criminal
justice systems. The President's Budget already
provides for a 21 percent increase in State and local
drug assistance, which will expand funding 161 percent
since FY 1989.
The Administration urges the House to adopt the following
amendments:
The Hyde amendment, which embodies the President's
proposal on habeas corpus reform. By enacting these
habeas corpus reforms proposed by the Powell Committee,
the Hyde amendment would curb the abuse of habeas
corpus that has virtually nullified the death penalty
laws of the States through a seemingly endless system
of repetitive litigation and review. In contrast, both
the current habeas corpus provisions of H.R. 5269
(title XIII and section 2212), and the Hughes habeas
corpus amendment, would increase abuse and delay in
both capital and non-capital cases.
The Douglas amendment to reform the exclusionary rule.
This would strike the regressive exclusionary rule
provisions that now appear in H.R. 5269, and extend the
objective reasonableness ("good faith") exception to
cases where a warrant is not required.
The Sensenbrenner amendment to strike the so-called
"Racial Justice Act." This would eliminate provisions
of H.R. 5269 (title XVIII) which are neither necessary
nor appropriate to guard against racial discrimination
in capital punishment, but would actually make
continued use of the death penalty impossible in the
United States. The proposed Hughes amendment to title
XVIII would have the same unacceptable effect as the
provisions now contained in H.R. 5269.
The Gekas amendment to reinstate an enforceable death
penalty for highly aggravated Federal crimes and to
establish effective death penalty procedures. Based on
the Administration's proposals, this amendment would
provide fair and effective procedures and adequate
authorizations for using the death penalty against the
most heinous Federal crimes. In contrast, the current
death penalty provisions of H.R. 5269 (title II) and
the Hughes amendment incorporate procedures that would
thwart the death penalty. The Hughes amendment also
severely limits the availability of capital punishment
for offenses it purports to include within its scope of
coverage.
The McCollum amendment to provide a death penalty for
drug kingpins. This incorporates the critical reform
of extending the death penalty to the most aggravated
drug offenses and offenders.
*****
OTHER FR PRESIDENT MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 3, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 3037 - Money Laundering Enforcement Amendments of 1990
(Riegle (D) Michigan)
The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 3037, but will
seek an amendment to delete Title V, which would require the
redesign of United States coins. The Administration opposes
Title V because:
-- Stable coin designs are important symbols of a sound and
stable national economy and of a continuity of national
purpose.
-- The public does not support the redesign of U.S. coinage.
-- Public confusion will result from concurrent circulation of
coins having two designs.
-- Redesign will not produce any appreciable revenue to the
Treasury.
-- The initial redesign commemorating the Bicentennial of the
United States Constitution is inappropriate because the
Constitution has already been commemorated by the minting of
a commemorative coin.
The Administration recommends that legislation proposed by the
Department of the Treasury, the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund
Act, be substituted for Title V of the bill.
OFFICE WASHINGTON
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 4, 1990
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 1425 - Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1989
(Metzenbaum (D) OH and 7 others)
The Administration recognizes that changes in nutrition labeling
are needed. However, the Administration opposes S. 1425 because
it is overly prescriptive and unnecessary in light of the Food
and Drug Administration's (FDA) current efforts in this area.
The FDA has moved quickly to implement nutrition labeling reforms
as demonstrated by the proposed rules published in the July 19,
1990, Federal Register. Final regulations will be developed
after considering the public comments submitted on these
proposals. The FDA has already committed significant time and
resources to the reform of nutrition labeling. The pursuit of
legislative reform concurrent with regulatory reform is
needlessly duplicative.
********
OFFERE WIN PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 4, 1990
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 865 - The Consumer Protection Against
Price-Fixing Act of 1989
(Metzenbaum (D) Ohio and 19 others)
If S. 865 were presented to the President in its current form,
the President's senior advisors would recommend that the bill be
vetoed.
The Administration opposes S. 865 because it would inhibit
manufacturers and distributors from entering into pro-competitive
distribution agreements for products in a wide variety of
markets.
Under existing antitrust law, and notwithstanding the short title
of the bill, distribution agreements that set resale prices are
already per se illegal. S. 865 would reduce the level of
evidence needed to proceed to trial by creating a new evidentiary
standard for a finding of unlawful conspiracy in certain cases.
The new standard could create an inference of conspiratorial
wrongdoing from evidence that is consistent with lawful
unilateral conduct. Because of the availability of treble
damages, S. 865 could invite a substantial increase in complex
antitrust litigation.
S. 865 could also render certain nonprice distribution agreements
per se illegal, even though such agreements should be considered,
instead, under the antitrust "rule of reason." Consideration
under the "rule of reason" provides for the evaluation of
pro-competitive effects.
*****
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATE
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20503
ADMINISTRATION POLICY STATEMENTS RELEASED
OCTOBER 5, 1990 AS OF 7:40 PM
H.R. 3095
SAFE MEDICAL DEVICES ACT OF 1990
H.R. 4765
PUERTO RICO SELF DETERMINATION ACT
H.R. 4939
ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES WHICH CHINA MUST MEET
TO RECEIVE MFN
H.R. 5422
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY91
STREET THE PRESIDENT SERVIS MASSACHUSETTS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
0
October 5, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3095 - Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990
(Waxman (D) CA and 3 others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 3095.
*
OF PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 5, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 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.
*******
BIR
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 5, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4939 - Additional Objectives Which China
Must Meet to Receive MFN
(Pease (D) Ohio and 19 others)
The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 4939.
While the bill would permit China's MFN status to continue, it
introduces criteria for its extension next year that go
substantially beyond those contained in the Jackson-Vanik
amendment. Additional MFN criteria would inevitably place U.S.
companies at a commercial disadvantage with competitors in
Europe, Japan, and other industrial countries. None of our
competitors plan to introduce conditionality in extending MFN.
If H.R. 4939 is amended to further restrict the President's
flexibility, his senior advisers would also recommend that he
veto the bill.
In May, the President determined that China met the requirements
of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and that continuing MFN would
serve broad U.S. economic and foreign policy interests. The
Administration shares the sponsors' desire to promote human
rights in China but believes this can be done best by keeping
China's economy open to the outside world and maintaining the
broadest possible range of people-to-people contacts. Trade and
investment provide a vital link with those Chinese who want
positive change.
Our continued economic involvement with China has encouraged
important positive steps. The Chinese authorities have released
almost 900 political prisoners this year and, following the
President's decision to renew China's MFN status, have permitted
Fang Lizhi and his family to depart the country. Beijing has
supported all eight UN Security Council resolutions on the
Persian Gulf crisis and acted decisively to enforce the UN-
approved trade embargo. China's active intervention was crucial
for achieving the latest breakthrough toward a peaceful
settlement in Cambodia.
The United States cannot return to doing business as usual with
China. The Administration will continue to press for the release
of the estimated 300-400 political detainees resulting from the
brutal suppression of the prodemocracy movement of June 1989.
But a sound working relationship with China is still necessary so
that issues of vital concern to us can be addressed.
*****
WINE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 5, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5422 - Intelligence Authorization Act
For Fiscal Year 1991
(Beilenson (D) California)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 5422, but will
seek to restore the requested authorization levels in certain
high priority programs during conference. Furthermore, the
Administration urges the House to delete certain burdensome
reporting requirements contained in section 503 regarding DOD
intelligence collection activities.
*****
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ON
STATES
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20503
ADMINISTRATION POLICY STATEMENTS RELEASED
OCTOBER 10, 1990 AS OF 6:30 PM
H.R. 3789
STEWART B. McKINNEY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
AMENDMENT ACT OF 1990
H.R. 5679
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND
BILL OF RIGHTS ACT
S. 1178
COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1990
S. 2100
VETERANS BENEFITS AND HEALTH CARE AMENDMENTS
OF 1990
UNITED OFFICE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 10, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3789 - Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Amendment Act of 1990
(Vento (D) MN and 113 others)
The Administration supports reauthorization of programs to assist
the homeless authorized by the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act. For FY 1991, the Administration has requested
$784.5 million for the McKinney Act programs.
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 3789, but will
work later in the legislative process to:
-- Delete the new authority for loans to families for security
deposits. This program is not designed to assist the
homeless who are most in need, since the most needy
would not have income sufficient to repay the loan.
-- Delete authority for grants for construction of
housing combined with supportive services. Existing
facilities can be modified or rehabilitated to serve
the homeless without costly new construction.
-- Delete authority for emergency shelter grants that do not
require State or local matching shares. These grants
should be subject to a match consistent with current
law.
-- Delete the new authority for demonstration grants to State
and local educational agencies for support services
for homeless youth. These activities can be
accomplished under the current exemplary grant
program in section 723 of the McKinney Act.
Delete the provision in current law requiring States to
provide data on the number and location of homeless
children. The data provided are not reliable.
-- Delete the special authority for the homeless to
participate in the Job Corps program. Homeless
individuals are already eligible and participating in
the program.
PRESIDENT
DEFICE WTM UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 10, 1990
a
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5679 - Amendments to the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act
(Madigan (R) IL and 4 others)
The Administration does not object to House passage of H.R. 5679.
*******
OFFICE PTM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 10, 1990
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 1178 - Coastal Protection Act of 1990
(Mitchell (D) Maine and 12 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of S. 1178. The bill would
impede current Federal regulatory efforts to protect coastal
resources. It would disrupt the existing Federal/State
relationship established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The bill
would duplicate existing Federal efforts, and impose unreasonable
time-frames, unworkable standards, and excessive reporting
requirements on States and Federal agencies. Finally, the bill
would require mandatory programs where discretionary use of
authority is most appropriate.
Among its most objectionable provisions, S. 1178 would require
the mandatory use of chemical-specific numerical sediment quality
criteria for dredged materials. Although the Administration does
not oppose the eventual use of such criteria, it does oppose
their mandatory application in the near term as required by
S. 1178. This requirement may not necessarily provide additional
environmental benefits. It would, however, dramatically increase
the cost of maintaining harbor access for shipping and generate
additional paperwork, laboratory expense, and other staff costs.
An equally objectionable provision would authorize States to
adopt their own more stringent rules, regulations, and criteria
relating to ocean dumping within their jurisdictions. This
provision would severely impinge upon the ability of the Federal
Government to exercise its responsibilities for maintaining
navigation for interstate commerce and public vessels.
If S. 1178 were enacted containing the above two provisions, the
Secretary of Defense would recommend to the President that the
bill be vetoed.
Additionally, the Administration objects to provisions which
would:
-- require the elimination of combined sewer overflows
(CSO) and the implementation of stringent storm event
design standards. The requirements would disrupt the
extensive correction program already underway,
2
unnecessarily escalate costs, and require expensive
CSO controls with little additional environmental
benefit;
create an overlap between CWA and MPRSA requirements.
Such overlap could require expensive and unnecessary
formal redesignation of hundreds of dredged material
disposal sites;
-- require the EPA Administrator to consider applying
ocean discharge criteria to all those who discharge
into priority designated waters. This would
significantly delay permit issuance and increase the
resources required to permit such discharges without
necessarily resulting in significant environmental
gains;
-- authorize costly coastal monitoring and research
programs that are administratively burdensome and
duplicate existing programs. Rather than allocating
scarce research and monitoring funds where the
scientific and management needs are greatest, the
bill would fund new national and regional
bureaucracies at an annual cost of $45 million; and
--
set an undesirable precedent in the National Estuary
Program by authorizing funds to implement
comprehensive conservation and management plans for
the Long Island Sound. Federal agencies are
authorized to implement such plans through their
normal programs. States and localities, however,
must continue to be responsible for the incremental
cost of implementing the plans in their estuaries.
Finally, the bill would impermissibly infringe on the President's
authority under Article II of the Constitution. It would do this
by:
vesting significant governmental authority in members
of the Lake Champlain and Onondaga Lake Conferences
who are not presidential appointees;
-- requiring the President to accomplish certain tasks
in conjunction with the Government of Canada; and
-- requiring Executive branch officers to make
legislative recommendations to Congress.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 10, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 2100 - Veterans Benefits and Health Care Amendments of 1990
(Cranston (D) CA and 16 others)
The Administration strongly opposes the enactment of S. 2100
because it would exempt the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Medical Care appropriation from sequestration under Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings (GRH). The importance of health care for veterans, and
the need to cushion the effect of a sequester, is already
recognized under current law. The VA Medical Care program,
Medicare, and other health care programs are protected by a two
percent cap on sequestration of certain activities. Exemption of
the VA Medical Care appropriation from sequester is ill-advised
and could encourage program-by-program exemptions that circumvent
the discipline of sequestration.
Unless S. 2100 is amended to delete the exemption from
sequestration, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the
President's other senior advisers will recommend that the bill be
vetoed.
S. 2100 also contains other objectionable provisions, which the
Administration will seek to correct during House consideration of
the bill. The most seriously objectionable provisions would:
-- Extend the presumption of service-connection for radiation-
exposure to veterans who participated in certain military
activities. The Administration believes that compensation
benefits should only be awarded after considering documented
radiation dose and be based on scientific and medical
evidence. Section 113 could have disastrous consequences on
future military projects and harm our national security.
-- Create statutory presumptions of service-connection for
Agent Orange among Vietnam veterans who suffer non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma or soft-tissue sarcomas. VA has already utilized
its authority to decide cases involving these diseases.
Presumptions, without scientific evidence, as contained in
Section 122, undermine the principle that there exists a
relationship between service and disability.
-- Direct VA to furnish priority medical care to any veteran of
a war who seeks treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). Section 201 bypasses VA's adjudication process and
treats the veteran with PTSD as service-connected even
though service-connection had not been granted. In
2
addition, it would, for the first time, give certain
veterans a priority for care based on a particular diagnosis
without regard to those veterans' actual need.
The Administration supports the bill's provisions providing an
annual increase in the rates of compensation for service-
disabled veterans and the survivors of veterans who die as a
result of service.
*******
PRESIDENT
OFFICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STENDITY
STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
October 11, 1990
(House Floor)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1991
(Sponsors: Whitten (D), Mississippi; Yates (D), Illinois)
The Administration supports the passage of appropriations
bills that are consistent with the Bipartisan Budget Summit
Agreement (except as modified for defense by the Conference
Report accompanying H.Con.Res. 310). The President's senior
advisers will recommend that the President veto any appropria-
tions bill that is not substantially consistent with that
Agreement. The purpose of this statement is to express views on
H.R. 5769, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, FY 1991, as reported by the House
Appropriations Committee.
The Administration urges the House to reduce funding in the
bill to ensure that it meets the 302 (b) reallocation. Using OMB
scoring, the bill provides $113 million more than the 302 (b)
reallocation in discretionary budget authority and $23 million
more in discretionary outlays.
The bill exceeds the President's request by $2.0 billion in
discretionary budget authority and $0.7 billion in discretionary
outlays. Significant increases over the President's request
include $235 million for Interior Department construction, $237
million for Interior Department operating accounts, and $295
million for Indian health.
The Administration strongly opposes the extension and
addition of continued legislative moratoria on oil and gas
preleasing, leasing, and drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). The inclusion of new leasing moratoria in areas addressed
by the President's June 26th OCS decisions is unnecessary and
serves only to polarize the debate. The President's decisions
resolve the near and mid-term concerns of leasing and development
in controversial and sensitive areas.
Extension of legislative moratoria to include the OCS areas
of high oil and gas potential off the Florida Panhandle, as well
as the continued ban on drilling on existing leases in Bristol
Bay off Alaska, are particularly onerous and inappropriate.
Continuing and expanding "one-year" legislative moratoria are not
acceptable means for resolving the concerns regarding OCS
development. Moreover, legislative moratoria on preleasing
activities raise major legal and procedural questions about what
OCS activities would be allowable under the Committee bill
language. This could seriously disrupt the type of consultations
and environmental assessment that the Committee has previously
endorsed and that contribute to prudent, balanced decisions.
The Administration strongly objects to the omission of
funding for the cost-share component of the President's tree
planting initiative that was requested in the Forest Service's
proposed America the Beautiful appropriation. The Administration
endorses the $20 million added by the full Committee to the State
and Private Forestry account for the Foundation component, but
funding ($90 million) for the cost-share portion has not been
provided. This funding would ensure substantial progress
towards the President's goal of planting a billion trees per
year, and the House is strongly urged to add it to the bill.
With the levels currently approved in the Committee bill, we
would fall far, far short of that number -- with fewer than 30
million trees being planted.
The Administration strongly objects to bill language
intended to prevent the transfer of technical responsibility for
dam safety from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to the Bureau
of Reclamation. This language is similar to report language
accompanying the House-passed Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill. There are serious and long-standing safety
deficiencies at various BIA dams, and now lives are at stake.
BIA has failed to correct the deficiencies, so the Administration
must be permitted to take steps to do so before a tragedy occurs.
The Administration strongly objects to language that
precludes use of appropriated funds for leasing oil for the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Congress has recently
passed legislation authorizing creative and cost-effective
approaches to financing further fill of the SPR through
negotiated agreements with major oil producers. This language
would rule out the consideration of such an approach, which could
have significant cost savings.
The Administration opposes the provision to extend permanent
coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act to tribal contractors or
their employees. The treatment of these contractors or their
employees as employees of the Federal government would establish
an adverse precedent. It is the Administration's view that the
Federal government should not accept direct fiscal responsibility
for professional negligence in the absence of an adequate
opportunity to control and supervise professional conduct.
These and other concerns are discussed more fully in the
attachment.
Attachment
2
(House Floor)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1991
MAJOR PROVISIONS OPPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION
A.
Funding Levels
Department of the Interior
Interior Construction. The Administration objects to
the funding level for construction in the House
Committee's bill. The Committee mark is $235
million, or 97 percent, above the President's request
for Interior's land management agencies and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Much of the
additional funding is unnecessary and directed at
low-priority projects not in the Department's backlog
of needed health and safety projects. The additional
construction projects are generally non-critical and
can be postponed or foregone. New construction is a
lower priority than providing quality operations,
maintenance, and rehabilitation of existing
facilities.
Interior Operating Accounts. The Administration
opposes increases over the President's request in
various Interior operating accounts. The Committee
mark increases funding for these accounts by $237
million, exclusive of $245 million that provides
forward funding for BIA elementary and secondary
schools. The additional funding is unnecessary. The
need for fiscal restraint dictates that all Federal
spending be limited to necessary Federal
responsibilities.
Low-Priority Grants. The Administration opposes
increased funding above the President's request for
various lower priority grant programs. These include
Land and Water Conservation Fund State grants ($47
million added), Abandoned Mine Land State grants ($33
million added), and Urban Park grants not funded by
Congress since FY 1985 ($20 million added). Many of
the purposes of these grants are admirable but are
the responsibility of the private sector and/or State
and local governments.
Palau Funding. The additional $21 million above the
request for Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
(Palau) is unnecessary. This increase would undercut
the efforts of the Department of the Interior to
restrain uncontrolled spending by the last Trust
Territory and far exceeds the Federal government's
commitment to Palau. Interior continues its efforts
to assist Palau in attempting to control local
spending and achieve responsible management of funds.
Past experience has shown Palau unable to handle
large grants efficiently.
Indian Health Service
Overall Funding Level. The Administration objects to
the excessive increase in funding for the Indian
Health Service (IHS). The bill would provide $1,587
million, or a 23-percent increase above the
President's request and a 27-percent increase above
the FY 1990 enacted level. The President's Budget
requested a three-percent increase over FY 1990,
which takes into account inflation and the
limitations of the IHS in managing its spending and
accounting for its funds. The rapid funding increase
that would be provided by the Committee bill would
lead to a waste of funds as the agency struggles to
find uses for new appropriations.
Commission of Fine Arts
National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Grant.
The Administration objects to the appropriation of
$6.3 million for general operating support on a non-
competitive grant basis to Washington, D.C., arts and
cultural organizations. This funding is unnecessary
as it duplicates existing Federal nationwide
competitive grants.
Various Agencies
Pay and Administrative Support. The Committee bill
fails to recognize potential savings in salaries and
administrative support expenses. The Administration
has serious concerns over the Committee's restoration
in full of the cost of the January 1991 pay raise.
Other appropriations bills have incorporated
reasonable levels of pay absorption as a method of
controlling spending. In addition, the Committee
rejected proposed savings made for administrative and
staffing efficiency, which would have little or no
effect on existing programs.
2
B. Language Provisions
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Moratoria. The
Administration strongly objects to the extension and
addition of continued legislative moratoria on oil
and gas preleasing, leasing, and drilling on the OCS.
The Committee recommends new leasing moratoria in
areas addressed by the President's June 26th OCS
decisions. This language is unnecessary and serves
only to polarize the debate. The President's
decisions resolve the near- and mid-term concerns of
leasing and development in controversial and
sensitive areas.
In addition, the Committee extends legislative
preleasing and leasing moratoria to include the OCS
areas of high oil and gas potential off the Florida
Panhandle, as well as the continued ban on drilling
on existing leases in Bristol Bay off Alaska.
Continuing and expanding "one-year" legislative
moratoria on preleasing activities raises major legal
and procedural questions about what OCS activities
would be allowable under the Committee bill language.
This could seriously disrupt the type of
consultations and environmental assessments that the
Committee has previously endorsed and that contribute
to prudent, balanced decisions.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Management
Improvement. The Administration strongly objects to
the Committee's denial of funding and authority for
several short-term corrective actions to address
serious and long-standing management problems in the
BIA. The requested measures include establishing an
Office of Quality Assurance to oversee and monitor
management weaknesses in BIA and other Interior
bureaus, transferring technical responsibility for
the safety of Indian dams to the Bureau of
Reclamation, and providing additional resources for
BIA to conduct needed internal program reviews and
properly execute its fiduciary responsibility as
trustee of $1.7 billion in Indian trust assets. The
Administration must be provided flexibility to
correct identified management weaknesses, especially
those involving the safety of communities and
millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
Particularly objectionable is bill language intended
to prevent the transfer of technical responsibility
for dam safety from BIA to the Bureau of Reclamation.
This language is similar to report language
accompanying the House-passed Energy and Water
3
Development Appropriations Bill. There are serious
and long-standing safety deficiencies at various BIA
dams, and now lives are at stake. BIA has failed to
correct these deficiencies, so the Administration
must be permitted to take steps before a tragedy
occurs.
The Administration further objects, on constitutional
and policy grounds, to bill language that attempts to
prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from
implementing any reorganization related to the BIA
without the approval of the Appropriations
Committees. The Secretary of the Interior is charged
with overseeing BIA annual spending of about $1.4
billion in discretionary appropriations and of about
$500 million in permanent funds. The management of
these substantial resources of the taxpayers and the
Indian people requires the Executive Branch,
specifically the Secretary of the Interior, to devise
the most effective organizational arrangements
possible. If attempts to improve management of
Federal Indian programs are stymied by Congressional
action, it will be impossible to move meaningfully
toward the goal of Indian self-determination or to
ensure proper stewardship of Federal funds.
Moreover, because the language conditions exercise of
authority vested in the Secretary by law on approval
by the Appropriations Committees, it would be a
legislative veto unconstitutional under the Supreme
Court's decision in INS V. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919
(1983).
Federal Tort Claims Act. The Administration opposes
the provision to extend permanent coverage of the
Federal Tort Claims Act to tribal contractors or
their employees. The treatment of these contractors
or their employees as employees of the Federal
government would establish an adverse precedent. It
is the Administration's view that the Federal
government should not accept direct fiscal
responsibility for professional negligence in the
absence of an adequate opportunity to control and
supervise professional conduct.
Emergency Transfer Authority. The Administration
opposes the failure of the Committee to provide
emergency transfer authority for the Secretary of the
Interior. The elimination of this authority would
drastically curtail the Department's ability to
address emergency situations that threaten public
4
health and safety. There would be no way without
this authority for Interior to respond to major
natural disasters or fund fire suppression costs that
exceed the amounts appropriated.
Helium Facility Sales. The Administration objects to
bill language that would prohibit the sale of Federal
helium processing facilities currently in operation.
The language would block the Administration from
carrying out the fiscally responsible plan of
privatizing the nation's helium operations.
Report language that directs Interior's Bureau of
Mines (BOM) to examine the development of "a state-
of-the art helium facility" and to make improvements
to the existing facilities is also objectionable.
The Administration has developed a credible plan to
phase out current helium operations and replace them
with private sector activities. The Committee's
language would impede this measure and suggests that
millions of dollars be spent on an unnecessary state-
of-the-art facility.
The Helium Act Amendments of 1960 ordered the BOM to
encourage the private development of the helium
market. The Bureau has been successful in doing SO.
The Federal government once provided 100 percent of
the nation's refined helium. Today, it provides only
about 15 percent of all the refined helium sold.
Current studies reveal that "the private sector will
have the crude and pure helium capacity available for
BOM to close its helium production facilities
beginning in 1991."
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Mineral Patents.
The Administration objects to language preventing BLM
from issuing mineral patents that transfer title of
land to mining claimants who, having satisfied all
statutory requirements, are otherwise entitled to a
patent under the Mining Law of 1872. While the
Administration agrees that various provisions of the
mining law need to be reviewed, the provision in the
bill appears to be an attempt to force changes in the
underlying philosophy of mining on Federal lands. If
enacted, this moratorium on patenting would be a
piecemeal and inefficient attempt to reform Federal
land management policy and procedures and would not
solve the problems of concern to the Congress, the
agencies, and the public.
5
Directed Scorekeeping. The Administration opposes
Fish and Wildlife Service and Geological Survey
language that would treat contributions from non-
Federal sources for cooperative programs as
intragovernmental funds. The Committee's action is
contrary to established budgetary and accounting
principles and as such sets a highly adverse
precedent. The Administration opposes budgetary
gimmicks that are intended to circumvent the controls
of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law.
America the Beautiful Accounts. The Administration
objects to the Committee's rejection of separate
America the Beautiful accounts for Agriculture's
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior.
It does appear that many of the requested activities
under the President's America the Beautiful
initiative in Interior are funded in separate bureaus
and several appropriation accounts. However, the
lack of a single Interior and single Agriculture
account would reduce both Government and public focus
on the needs and accomplishments of the America the
Beautiful programs.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) Oil Leasing. The
Administration strongly objects to bill language that
precludes the use of appropriated funds for leasing
oil for the SPR. Congress has recently passed
legislation authorizing creative and cost-effective
approaches to financing further fill of the SPR
through negotiated agreements with major oil
producers. This language would rule out the
consideration of such an approach, which could have
significant cost savings.
Natural Gas Receipts. The Administration objects to
bill language specifying that receipts from producing
and selling natural gas are to be deposited in a
spending account rather than credited, as proposed in
the budget and as has been done in the past, to the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Under the
language, these receipts would be made available to
the Department of Energy at its discretion and
without the review of the normal appropriations
process. This would discourage the efficient use of
Federal funds because there would not be an effective
check on the spending of these receipts.
Employment Floors. The Administration opposes
language that would establish a new employment floor
of 90 full-time Federal employees for the Department
of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program. This
6
would be in addition to the existing employment floor
for fossil energy research and development. The
Administration also opposes several bill and/or
report language provisions that would require
maintenance of specific staffing levels for Interior
Department programs such as the Bureau of Mines;
Office of Surface Mining (OSM) inspectors and
troubleshooters; and the OSM Wilkes-Barre,
Pennsylvania, field office. Such provisions restrict
the Departments from managing efficiently and often
require excessive spending of administrative funds
that are needed to carry out important program
purposes.
Energy Conservation Earmark. The Administration
objects to language that would earmark $1.25 million
for a pilot Metal Casting Research Center at the
University of Alabama. Legislation authorizing four
such centers is currently in conference, but the
centers would be selected competitively under
provisions of that legislation. This proposed
earmarking would thwart the intent of that
legislation and prevent the Department of Energy from
ensuring that funds go to the most qualified
researchers.
Landsat Reimbursements. The Administration objects
to report language disapproving further
reimbursements from the Department of the Interior to
the Department of Commerce for Landsat operations.
While at least one Landsat satellite is expected to
remain operational through 1991, flexibility is
required to deal with the uncertainty in the
operational life of these satellites. This includes
the possibility of reimbursement from the user
agencies, including the Department of the Interior.
Indian Health Service Micromanagement. The
Administration strongly objects to bill language that
would inhibit the performance of management
responsibilities of the Indian Health Service (IHS).
Language is included that would circumvent
established rulemaking procedures by prohibiting the
implementation of the September 16, 1987, final rule
on eligibility for IHS health services. The
Committee also includes highly objectionable language
that would dictate the Executive Branch's
apportionment and accounting formats.
Committee Approval Provisions. The Administration
objects to bill language that purports to restrict
the use of funds or to limit agency actions unless
7
approval is granted by Congressional committees.
Such provisions are unconstitutional (see INS V.
Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)) In any event, the
Executive Branch will continue to provide the
Committee notification and consultation that inter-
branch comity requires in matters in which Congress
has indicated such a special interest.
Employment Ceilings. The Administration opposes bill
language to exempt programs funded by the bill from
employment ceilings. The provision is objectionable
because it would prevent effective and efficient
management of agency programs and would promote
wasteful spending.
8
OFFICE WTM PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
October 11, 1990
(House)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1991
(Sponsors: Whitten (D), Mississippi; Murtha (D), Pennsylvania)
The Administration supports the passage of appropriations
bills that are consistent with the Bipartisan Budget Summit
Agreement (except as modified for defense by the Conference
Report accompanying H.Con.Res. 310). The President's senior
advisers will recommend that the President veto any
appropriations bill that is not substantially consistent with the
Agreement, as modified.
The Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY 1991, as
reported by the House Full Committee, would provide $267.7
billion in budget authority for defense purposes, a level
slightly below that provided in the Agreement. In addition, the
bill provides $0.5 billion in budget authority for domestic
programs.
The President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto
the bill as reported from Committee because it provides (1)
insufficient funding for crucial strategic modernization
programs; (2) insufficient funding to pursue effectively the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI); and, (3) funds for items not
needed for the national defense.
The bill eliminates or underfunds crucial strategic 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; and
--
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.
The bill adds funds for low-priority or unneeded items. For
example, the bill includes funds for the V-22 Osprey aircraft
program and for items not requested for National Guard and
Reserve programs, as well as undesirable earmarks for research
and development grants to certain institutions.
The bill includes programs that should be funded in other
appropriations bills. Examples are $300 million for Coast Guard
programs, up to $100 million for Department of Labor job training
programs, $96 million for Commerce Department economic adjustment
programs, $36 million for Customs Service Aerostats, $30 million
for the Nuclear Fuel Facility at Apollo, Pennsylvania, $10
million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, $5 million for
a parliament building in the Solomon Islands, and $912,000 for
the Library of Congress. The Defense bill should not be used to
fund programs of such low priority that they cannot be funded in
the appropriate bills.
The House is urged to eliminate provisions that would:
-- restrict competition by directing the purchase of
certain items from American producers;
-- create an unnecessary National Commission on Defense
and National Security; and
-- cap the level of U.S. military personnel stationed in
Japan at 50,000 and require a cut of 5,000 if, in the
preceding year, the Japanese did not pay for all the
direct costs of U.S. military personnel in Japan.
The House is urged to address the Administration's concerns
and pass a Department of Defense Appropriations Bill that the
President can support.
2
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
October 11, 1990
(House)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1991
(Sponsors: Whitten (D), Mississippi; Murtha (D), Pennsylvania)
The Administration supports the passage of appropriations
bills that are consistent with the Bipartisan Budget Summit
Agreement (except as modified for defense by the Conference
Report accompanying H.Con.Res. 310). The President's senior
advisers will recommend that the President veto any
appropriations bill that is not substantially consistent with the
Agreement, as modified.
The Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY 1991, as
reported by the House Full Committee, would provide $267.7
billion in budget authority for defense purposes, a level
slightly below that provided in the Agreement. In addition, the
bill provides $0.5 billion in budget authority for domestic
programs.
The President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto
the bill as reported from Committee because it provides (1)
insufficient funding for crucial strategic modernization
programs; (2) insufficient funding to pursue effectively the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) ; and, (3) funds for items not
needed for the national defense.
The bill eliminates or underfunds crucial strategic 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; and
--
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.
The bill adds funds for low-priority or unneeded items. For
example, the bill includes funds for the V-22 Osprey aircraft
program and for items not requested for National Guard and
Reserve programs, as well as undesirable earmarks for research
and development grants to certain institutions.
The bill includes programs that should be funded in other
appropriations bills. Examples are $300 million for Coast Guard
programs, up to $100 million for Department of Labor job training
programs, $96 million for Commerce Department economic adjustment
programs, $36 million for Customs Service Aerostats, $30 million
for the Nuclear Fuel Facility at Apollo, Pennsylvania, $10
million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, $5 million for
a parliament building in the Solomon Islands, and $912,000 for
the Library of Congress. The Defense bill should not be used to
fund programs of such low priority that they cannot be funded in
the appropriate bills.
The House is urged to eliminate provisions that would:
-- restrict competition by directing the purchase of
certain items from American producers;
-- create an unnecessary National Commission on Defense
and National Security; and
-- cap the level of U.S. military personnel stationed in
Japan at 50,000 and require a cut of 5,000 if, in the
preceding year, the Japanese did not pay for all the
direct costs of U.S. military personnel in Japan.
The House is urged to address the Administration's concerns
and pass a Department of Defense Appropriations Bill that the
President can support.
2
UTH
CARRIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SECURITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
October 12, 1990
(Senate Floor)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1991
(Sponsors: Byrd (D), West Virginia; Inouye (D), Hawaii)
The Administration supports the passage of appropriations
bills that are consistent with the Budget Summit Agreement
(except as modified for defense by the Conference Report
accompanying H. Con. Res. 310) The President's senior advisers
will recommend that the President veto any appropriations bill
that is not substantially consistent with the Agreement, as
modified.
The Committee is commended for producing a bill that is
substantially consistent in overall level with the budget
agreement and that provides adequate funding for the B-2 aircraft
and the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Passage of
amendments, however, that would result in the President being
presented with a bill that contains no procurement funding for
the B-2 and lower levels of SDI funding would result in the
President's senior advisers recommending that he veto the bill.
The Senate is urged to delete provisions that limit the
President's flexibility to allocate SDI funding in the most
effective manner. Earmarking of funds for specific projects
would limit our flexibility to exploit fast-paced technological
developments and hurt our ability to meet the President's SDI
objectives.
The Senate is urged to restore funds for key modernization
programs including the $1.1 billion requested for the MILSTAR
communications satellite program and the $158 million requested
for the National Aerospace Plane (NASP). MILSTAR will provide a
much needed major upgrade in our command, control and
communications capabilities and should be fully funded. The NASP
is an important part of the nation's space program with major
civilian and military applications.
The Committee bill reduces military end strength 100,000
below the FY 1990 level. A reduction of more than 80,000 would
require involuntary separations of personnel who otherwise may be
required to support Operation Desert Shield.
The bill adds funds for low priority or unneeded items and
provides for programs that should be included in other
appropriation bills. For example, the bill includes $238 million
for development of the V-22 Osprey aircraft program, $144 million
for M-1 tank upgrades, and $300 million for Coast Guard programs.
The Senate is urged to delete unrequested programs from the
Committee bill.
Section 8081 of the bill would give the classified annex to
the report the force of law even though provisions of the annex
have not been subject to debate or to review by the
Administration. Consequently, we are unable to comment on the
substance of the proposed report language which would be
statutorily significant if these sections were to be enacted. The
Senate is urged to delete this provision.
2
OP THE
THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNIVER
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
THE
STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
ADMINISTRATION POLICY STATEMENTS RELEASED
OCTOBER 12, 1990 AS OF 7:00 PM
H.R. 3069
DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS SELF-SUFFICIENCY ACT
H.R. 3911
ATTENDANT ALLOWANCE ADJUSTMENT ACT
H.R. 4515
HIGH SPEED RAIL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
H.R. 5093
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CODIFICATION
ACT
H.R. 5506
TRANSFER OF PERSHING HALL TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
H.R. 5657
U.S. COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS AMENDMENTS
H.R. 5814
SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1990
OFFECE OF PRESIDENT 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. 3069 - Displaced Homemakers Self-Sufficiency Act
(Martinez (D) CA)
The Administration supports providing employment and training
services to displaced homemakers. Such services are being
provided under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and the
Carl B. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act.
The Administration, therefore, objects to H.R. 3069 because it is
unnecessary. It would authorize a new grant program to serve
displaced homemakers at $50 million for FY 1991 and "such sums as
may be necessary" for each succeeding fiscal year. Displaced
homemakers can be served more effectively through the JTPA's
local delivery system and the Perkins Act programs.
*******
OFFECE OF 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. 3911 - Attendant Allowance Adjustment Act
(Kennedy (D) MA and 15 others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 3911.
*
*
*
OF RESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 12, 1990
o
(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.
*
OFFICE OF PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 12, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5093 - Department of Veterans Affairs Codification Act
(Montgomery (D) MS)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of
H.R. 5093, but will work with the Senate to make certain minor
technical changes to the bill.
*
*
*
LIFE PTM PRESIDENT UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 12, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5506 - Transfer of Pershing Hall to the Department of
Veterans Affairs
(Montgomery (D) MS and Stump (R) AZ)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 5506.
*******
OFFECE BYM PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 12, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5657 - U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals Amendments
(Montgomery (D) MS and Stump (R) AZ)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 5657.
*******
THE PRESIDENT STATE
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 5814 - Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act
Amendments of 1990
(Rep. Montgomery (D) MS and 2 others)
On October 9, 1990, the Administration transmitted to Congress a
draft legislative proposal "To amend the Soldiers' and Sailors'
Civil Relief Act of 1940." That proposal would address the
concerns of Reserve Forces activated for Operation Desert Shield.
It would provide Reservists on active duty with protection in
court proceedings and protection from adverse action by
creditors. It would also protect their dependents from eviction.
In addition, the Administration has transmitted to Congress draft
legislation to provide professional liability protection for
certain military personnel.
The Administration supports House passage of H.R.
. That
bill has the same goals as the Administration's proposals, but
differs in certain respects. The Administration will work with
the Senate to conform H.R.
more closely with the
Administration's proposals.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
October 12, 1990
(Senate Floor)
H.R. 5114 -- FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND
RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1991
(Sponsors: Byrd (D), West Virginia; Leahy (D), Vermont)
The Administration supports the passage of appropriations
bills that are consistent with the Budget Summit Agreement
(except as modified for defense by the Conference Report
accompanying H. Con. Res. 310). The President's senior advisers
will recommend that the President veto any appropriations bill
that is not substantially in accord with that Agreement.
The Administration opposes the earmarking of $15 million for
the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The Administration
has endorsed the approach used in the Smith amendment regarding
family planning assistance in Romania, which was adopted on the
House floor, and would consider other such alternatives. The
Smith amendment keeps intact the Kemp-Kasten provision and the
Mexico City policy. The President stated in his June 26th letter
to Congressman Obey that he will veto this bill if either policy
is changed.
The current language on El Salvador, including the language
intended as a substitute for the House-passed Moakley-Murtha
language, is unacceptable. The Administration is hopeful that
compromise language acceptable to both the Administration and
Congress will be crafted. Should the final bill, when it is
presented to the President, contain either of these provisions on
El Salvador or provisions similar to them, the President's senior
advisers would recommend a veto.
The reduction of almost $500 million in the Economic Support
Fund (ESF) is of particular concern. The Administration urges
that funds for the ESF be restored by reducing unrequested and
unwarranted increases of more than $750 million in AID programs,
the Export Import Bank, International Organizations, and a number
of other smaller programs.
There are several provisions in the bill that the
Administration welcomes. The Committee has provided language to
resolve the Egyptian debt issue -- a matter of high Presidential
priority. The World Bank has been fully funded, the provision in
the House bill relating to the Paris Club negotiation process has
been deleted, and there are several other provisions that give
more flexibility to the President in conducting foreign policy.
The Administration urges that language allowing continued
assistance to the Noncommunist Resistance in Cambodia be restored
to the bill. Other important provisions of concern to the
Administration are contained in this appropriation bill.
Administration views on a number of these provisions are outlined
in the attachment.
Attachment
2
(Senate Floor)
H.R. 5114 -- FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1991
MAJOR PROVISIONS OPPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION
Amendments Seeking to Reverse the Mexico City Policy and the
Kemp-Kasten Provision
The Kemp-Kasten provision states that "None of the funds
made available to Population, Development Assistance may be
made available to any organization or program which, as
determined by the President of the U.S., supports or
participates in the management of a program of coercive
abortion or involuntary sterilization."
Mexico City policy states that: "The United States does not
consider abortion an acceptable element of family planning
programs and will no longer contribute to those of which it
is a part. Accordingly, when dealing with nations which
support abortion with funds not provided by the United
States government, the U.S. will contribute to such nations
through segregated accounts which cannot be used for
abortion. Moreover, the United States will no longer
contribute to separate non-governmental organizations
(NGO's) which perform or actively promote abortion as a
method of family planning in other nations. With regard to
the United Nations Fund for Population Activity (UNFPA), the
U.S. will insist that no part of its contribution be used
for abortion. The U.S. will also call for concrete
assurances that the UNFPA is not engaged in, or does not
provide funding for, abortion or coercive family planning
programs; if such assurances are not forthcoming, the U.S.
will redirect the amount of its contribution to other, non-
UNFPA family planning programs."
The Administration continues to support both the Mexico City
policy and the Kemp-Kasten provision. Opposition to
abortion as a method of family planning is an important
matter of principle to this Administration. Consistent with
that principle, the President has decided to disassociate
the United States from foreign abortion advocates by making
them ineligible to participate in the AID population
assistance program. AID's implementation of the Mexico City
policy was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit on September 18, 1990. Using a segregated
account or other complicated procedures to provide support
for UNFPA would be perceived as a transparent bookkeeping
transaction and would undermine U.S. opposition to coercive
abortions.
The Administration opposes providing assistance specifically
through the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) for the
following specific reasons. Assistance provided through the
UNFPA would violate the Kemp-Kasten amendment because the
UNFPA supports or participates in the management of a
program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in
China. If the U.S. provides any funds to the UNFPA, the
U.S. would in effect be endorsing China's policy of coercive
abortion. Assistance provided through IPPF would violate
the President's continued advocacy of the Mexico City
policy. Allowing this non-governmental organization, which
performs or promotes abortion as a method of family
planning, to become eligible for U.S. funding would
undermine Administration principle and policy, and destroy
the pro-life and pro-human rights character of U.S.
population assistance programs.
El Salvador
The bill would withhold 50 percent of military assistance to
the government of El Salvador unless the President certifies
that the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN)
has failed to meet certain conditions relating to good-faith
negotiations. As currently drafted, the provision would
destroy the best chance for a negotiated end to the war and
would risk encouraging a new guerrilla offensive that may
target American citizens, as well as Salvadorans. The FMLN
would be encouraged to continue its intransigent position in
the peace talks now occurring under the leadership of the
Secretary General of the United Nations. This provision as
drafted would permit shipments of lethal military assistance
to the FMLN from outside El Salvador -- a violation of the
1987 Esquipulas Accord. The Administration supports tough
unequivocal provisions concerning the Jesuit murders, but
the provisions with regard to the FMLN have been so diluted
as to be meaningless.
The Congress and the Administration must come together on a
principled bipartisan position regarding assistance to El
Salvador that encourages all parties to negotiate a peace
accord. It is critically important that the two Branches
agree on an acceptable assistance package that sends a clear
signal to all parties that the United States government is
united in supporting a cease-fire and a negotiated
settlement.
Reductions in the Economic Support Fund (ESF)
The Senate Committee bill cuts $500 million out of the $3.6
billion request for the Economic Support Fund. Such
reductions constrain our ability to support Central and
2
South American democracies and to meet best-efforts pledges
to key friends such as Portugal and the Philippines, which
would complicate currently ongoing base-access negotiations.
In a period of significant global change, adequate and
flexible ESF resources are a particularly valuable tool of
U.S. foreign policy in providing needed and timely
assistance to countries of key interest to the United
States. There are few foreign policy and national security
interests that this shortfall in ESF would leave undamaged.
Unwarranted Increases in Other Programs
The Senate Committee bill provides for significant increases
above the budget request in Functional Development
Assistance, the Development Fund for Africa, Assistance for
Eastern Europe, the Export-Import Bank, and International
Organizations and Programs (IO&P) appropriations. These
increases total over $750 million more than the President's
request. The reallocation for these various programs and
activities is inconsistent with meeting the most urgent
priorities for our scarce foreign affairs resources. The
ability of the President to carry out his foreign policy
would be severely constrained by this shift.
Earmarkings in Foreign Military Financing (FMF), Economic
Assistance, International Organizations and Programs (IO&P),
Refugees Accounts, and Functional Development Assistance
The Administration must be able to respond to changing
conditions in the newly emerging democracies and elsewhere.
Therefore, the Administration opposes earmarking for
programs or countries in these various accounts because it
restricts the allocation of this assistance in a manner that
may not be most appropriate in addressing foreign policy
priorities. For instance, almost 90 percent of FMF is
earmarked. Earmarks hamstring the President in allocating
assistance, prevent the funding of more crucial, higher-
priority programs, and impair the ability of the executive
branch to respond to changing events.
Provision Relating to U.N. Sanction Against Iraq
The Administration opposes the provision requiring
unilateral U.S. action against countries not in
compliance with the U.N. sanctions against Iraq. The
Administration has to date been successful, through
multilateral diplomacy, in refuting Iraqi assertions
that current Gulf tensions are based on an Iraqi-U.S.
dispute rather than a dispute with the entire world.
The Administration is concerned that this provision
would undercut U.S. diplomatic efforts. If actions
3
against sanctions violators should become necessary, this
ought to occur on a multilateral basis through the U.N.
Security Council.
International Development Association (IDA)
Lending to China
This provision requires that the President reduce the amount
obligated for IDA by the U.S. proportionate share of any
loans approved by the Board of Directors for China since
January 1, 1990, for non-basic human needs. Withheld funds
may be obligated only if the President certifies that it is
in the national interest of the United States to do SO. The
Administration opposes this provision because it would
reduce the President's flexibility and the ability to shape
and limit overall lending to China. It could also result in
a larger overall lending program than could be shaped with
U.S. influence exerted on the lending process.
Aid to Cambodia
The Administration strongly opposes the Committee's
action to end the program of assistance to the
Cambodian Non-Communist Resistance that was approved by
the House. The Administration is encouraged by the
prospects of the U.N.-based plan and believes this
assistance is crucial to our active efforts to keep
pressure on the parties involved to accept a negotiated
solution to the tragic conflict in Cambodia. The
Administration accepts the language, sponsored by Mr.
Solarz in the House-passed bill, which provides
conditional funding as follows: "The President shall
terminate assistance under this section to any non-
communist resistance organization that he determines is
engaged in a pattern of military cooperation and
coordination designed to assist the Khmer Rouge."
EBRD: Reduced Funding and Withholding of Obligations
The Administration is opposed to the reduction of $13.2
million in funding and to the restrictions imposed on the
U.S. contribution to the EBRD. There is concern about the
effect of such a provision on the President's ability to
carry out his responsibilities under the Constitution with
respect to the conduct of foreign policy. The Committee
bill stresses the importance of assisting in the economic
rebirth of Eastern Europe yet thwarts the Administration's
efforts toward this end by placing unnecessary restrictions
on the U.S. ability to participate in the EBRD. The
provision of funds for EBRD should not be linked to Polish
debt negotiations but should stand on its own merits.
4
Export-Import Bank
The Committee's increase in direct lending from $500 million
to $750 million would increase the recipients' debt without
contributing significantly to United States export capacity.
United States capital goods exports grew by $58 billion over
the last three years without significant changes in Eximbank
authority.
An unrequested $25 million for the Bank's Interest
Equalization Program (IEP) is another gimmick in the
expansion of credit programs. The program is unnecessary
because United States exports have grown dramatically in the
absence of IEP. Further, the program is inefficient in that
it increases the cost to the United States Government of
providing credit to borrowers on competitive terms.
Finally, the IEP expands the base of risky, long-term
government liabilities.
Operating Expenses for AID
The Committee bill reduces the $448 million request for
AID's operating expenses by $13 million, but restores this
amount by providing the agency authority to use up to $12.5
million of program funds for operating expenses related to
population programs. It also provides for up to $40 million
or five percent of Development Fund for Africa funds being
used to meet operating expenses. As well, it provides $1
million each for AID's operating expenses and those of the
Inspector General from Eastern Europe program funds. The
Administration welcomes the Senate's recognition of the need
to provide sufficient funding for personnel and financial
management systems to enable the Agency to provide adequate
levels of programmatic effectiveness and accountability.
However, the funding should be provided in the appropriate
operating expenses account.
Administrative Charges for Military Sales
The Administration opposes the provision to limit the
availability of administrative charges for payment of the
costs of security assistance administrative personnel
because it would have a seriously disruptive effect on
foreign military sales (FMS). This provision would disrupt
acquisition and procurement activities, training, logistic
support, and financial management at a time of rapidly
evolving needs and requirements of major FMS purchasers.
The FMS program is self-sufficient, requiring no significant
subsidy. A spending cap could result in shortfalls having
to be made up with appropriated funds.
5
Assistance to Eastern Europe
While welcoming the significant degree of flexibility in
this bill afforded to the Administration regarding Eastern
Europe, we note that the bill provides for only project-
related assistance and does not provide for the possibility
of balance-of-payments support. Balance of payments support
may prove necessary as Eastern European countries undergo
significant economic restructuring and adjust to the effects
of the Persian Gulf crisis.
Human Rights Reporting
The Administration opposes the proposed provision on human
rights because it would introduce unnecessary rigidity into
the implementation of the foreign assistance program and the
human rights provisions of section 502b. In practice the
Administration seeks to bring about improvement in human
rights conditions through warning of the possibility of a
finding of a pattern of gross violations.
Assistance for Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia
The Administration opposes this provision on the grounds
that it could disrupt the sensitive discussions now under
way between Moscow and the Baltic States. These discussions
are intended to prepare for formal negotiations on the
future status of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. The
provision of U.S. assistance to the Baltic States at this
delicate moment could make it more difficult for these talks
to reach a successful conclusion. In addition, while
fostering the development of the private sector in the
Baltic States is an important goal which the Administration
supports, this proposal must be weighed against the large
number of requests for U.S. assistance from other countries,
many of which have a more immediate need for U.S. aid.
Proposed Lanquage Regarding Sections 522, 555, and Other
Provisions
Several provisions require that United States
representatives to international bodies be instructed to
vote for or against a particular position or otherwise be
required to take particular positions in international
negotiations. Such provisions must be construed as advisory
only, since they would otherwise unconstitutionally
interfere with the President's foreign affairs powers. Such
provisions should be deleted, or, to avoid ambiguity and
unnecessary disputes, clearly drafted as advisory only. As
well, section 599B on Judicial Reform in El Salvador has
language regarding establishing a Commission which raises
serious constitutional questions.
6
Proposed Language Regarding Leveraging
Section 569, which is identical to section 582 of P.L. No.
101-167, forbids providing funds to foreign governments "in
exchange for that foreign government or person undertaking
any action which is, if carried out by the United States
Government, a United States official or employee, expressly
prohibited by a provision of the United States law.' When
the President signed P.L. No. 101-167, he observed that
although the provision could be construed narrowly in order
to avoid constitutional problems, "many routine and
unobjectionable diplomatic activities could be misconstrued
as somehow involving a forbidden 'exchange, ". He further
said that, therefore, "this type of provision can chill U.S.
diplomats in the proper discharge of their duties.' Section
569 should be deleted.
Montreal Protocol
This provision mandates that $10 million of AID development
assistance funds be used to support a fund to encourage
global participation in the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer. An interim financial
mechanism, to operate from FY 1991 through FY 1993, was
established by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol last
June in London. It is anticipated that the fund will
initially be established at $160 million, of which the U.S.
share would be $40 million (25 percent) for the three-year
period. Thus, the FY 1991 funding level would be about
$13.3 million, which has already been budgeted for and will
be funded by the Environmental Protection Agency. The
earmarking of $10 million of AID development assistance
funds is therefore unnecessary and should be deleted.
Restrictions on Assistance to Zaire
The Administration opposes the limitations on the provision
of military and economic assistance to Zaire. In the
foreign military financing account, the Administration is
not proposing to spend funds on new programs or for new or
replacement end items, nor would funds be used for lethal
systems. With regard to the international military
education and training account, this training and exposure
to the U.S. and our values is the most important part of our
military assistance program. U.S. economic assistance is
carefully controlled and monitored to ensure that no dollars
flow directly to or through the government of Zaire and that
projects benefit the poorest and neediest Zairians. We work
through private and voluntary organizations, universities,
and the private sector to the widest extent possible.
7
Excess Defense Articles
The Administration also opposes the requirement for
notification before issuing letters of offer to sell
excess defense articles as unnecessary. The
requirement would apply even in cases involving
relatively minor sales and could lead to an enormous
number of additional congressional notifications.
Inter-American Investment Corporation (IIC)
The Committee bill provides no funding for the IIC.
The request of $25.5 million is for payments to the IIC
that are more than two years overdue. Unlike other
multilateral development banks, the IIC cannot make
lending commitments that are contingent on a member
making a subscription payment at a later date. While
governments are willing to agree to projects that are
on hold until the funding becomes available, the
private sector -- to which all IIC operations are
directed -- is not. At a minimum, $12.5 million is
needed to fund a minimum operating program and keep
U.S. voting power just above the 20 percent level
needed to maintain a veto over charter amendments.
Conditioning Aid to Kenya
The Administration opposes this provision which conditions
aid to Kenya. One of the Administration's objectives in
Kenya is to encourage greater political pluralism and
respect for human rights, and the Kenyans have been engaged
repeatedly on this issue. To underscore further our concern
about human rights abuses, the Administration withheld
disbursement of all FY 1990 FMF monies, pending improvement
in Kenyan behavior. The Committee conditions, however, are
likely to undercut rather than help these efforts. The
Kenyan government tends to react defensively to public
pressure and will likely dig in rather than move in the
right direction.
Military Aid Limited to Democratic Governments
While the Administration sympathizes with the spirit of this
provision, it strongly opposes its enactment into law. In
an imperfect world, it can sometimes serve important United
States interests, including our interest in the long-term
trend toward democratic governments, to furnish assistance
to countries having different forms of government than our
own. Those interests are undercut by a requirement that the
President choose between severing assistance relationships
with a country or publicly criticizing its form of
government by exercising a waiver authority.
8
PRESIDENT STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 12, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4009 - Federal Maritime Commission Authorization
(Jones (D) North Carolina and 3 others)
The Administration has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 4009
as amended by the Senate.
The Administration would, however, oppose the enactment of any
amendments which would:
--
Permit vessels of the Soviet Union to enter
U.S. ports in addition to those currently
covered by the U.S.-Soviet Maritime Agreement
signed on June 1, 1990. Such an amendment
would constrain the President's exercise of
his constitutional responsibilities to
conduct foreign relations and protect the
national security.
--
Impose costs and paperwork for which no need
has been established by mandating new bonding
requirements for certain ocean common
carriers.
These two provisions were included in H.R. 4205 as passed by the
House.
and PRESIDENT SAVIS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
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.
* * * * *
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 15, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5687 - Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
(Conyers (D) Michigan)
The President supports legislation to improve the government's
management. In particular, the Administration supports the
establishment of a Deputy Director for Management and a
Government-wide Controller in the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). It also supports statutory establishment of Chief
Financial Officer positions in the each Department and major
independent agency.
However, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5687 in its
current form.
Section 303 would provide supplementary authority to secure
financial statements (as has been done for decades) and
ensure that they are audited. The provision is unnecessary
and could confuse the Administration's current effort to
ensure financial integrity.
Section 204 would establish a four-year term for the new
position of Controller in OMB. It would also establish
qualification requirements for appointment of the Controller
and require the President to report his reasons for removal
of the Controller to Congress. These conditions would
constitute an unprecedented restraint on Presidential
appointments within the Executive Office of the President.
The qualification requirements and the reporting requirement
also raise serious constitutional concerns.
Section 201 would redesignate the Deputy Director of OMB
Deputy Director for Budget. This redesignation would be
misleading; the Deputy Director is alter ego to the Director
on management as well as budget.
The Administration also opposes H.R. 5687 because it would:
Designate the Deputy Director for Management as "Chief
Financial Officer of the United States." This would create
confusion between the responsibilities vested in the
Treasury and OMB.
Require a study on the development of accounting standards.
The Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller General, and
the Director of OMB have agreed to establish a Federal
Accounting Standards Advisory Board which will address these
requirements, making a study unnecessary.
O.
Provide for a separate statement of appropriations for the
Office of Federal Financial Management. Such a provision
would unnecessarily complicate and bifurcate OMB's small
budget. It is not necessary.
*******
OF
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 16, 1990
House Floor
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5835 OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1990
The House version of Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990
produces budgetary savings that are generally consistent with the
Bipartisan Budget Summit Agreement. However, the President's
senior advisors would recommend that the President veto the bill
if it includes any of the following provisions.
Highway, Transit, and Aviation Trust Funds. The
Administration strongly opposes the inclusion of a number of
extraneous provisions for highways, transit and aviation.
In particular, the House bill would attempt to rewrite the
Budget Summit Agreement before it is even completed by
excluding transportation spending from discretionary
spending ceilings. This provision would disrupt the balance
of the Agreement by removing long-standing discretionary
programs from the caps on discretionary spending that were
agreed to after many weeks of negotiations by the
Congressional leadership, Appropriations Committees, and the
Executive Branch. Instead of a deficit reduction package
that produces $500 billion in savings over 5 years, the
package would produce only about $470 billion if these
increases to these funds provided for elsewhere in the bill
were removed from the discretionary caps and the caps not
reduced. In addition, the House bill would remove highways,
transit and aviation trust funds from the unified Federal
budget further disrupting the balance of the Budget
Agreement and eroding the fiscal discipline that is required
to control Federal spending. If either of these provisions
were included in the version of the bill that is presented
to the President for signature, the President's senior
advisors would recommend that the bill be vetoed. (If the
Panetta amendment on extraneous provisions were adopted,
these provisions would be deleted as extraneous. The
Administration supports the Panetta amendment.)
GATT Trigger. The GATT trigger provision would cancel
savings in the commodity price support programs on July 1,
1992, if a GATT agreement is not implemented by that time.
This provision could potentially reduce savings in these
programs by as much as $8 billion in FY 1993-1995. In
addition, this provision would create perverse incentives
for the U.S. agriculture community to ensure that a GATT
agreement is never consummated. If this provision is
included in the version of the bill that is presented to the
President for signature, the President's senior advisors
would recommend that the bill be vetoed.
OSHA and MSHA Fines. The House bill raises the ceilings on
OSHA fines seven-fold and on most MSHA fines five-fold,
establishes floors for most fines, and makes certain safety
and health violations of OSHA a criminal offense. While the
Administration has agreed that some increase in OSHA and
MSHA fines are acceptable, it strongly objects to including
floors in the amount of fines that may be levied and to
criminalizing certain OSHA violations. The reconciliation
bill, with its expedited rules and limited debate, is not
the proper place to enact legislation that has criminal
penalties. If the OSHA provisions with criminal penalties
and minimum fines were included in the version of bill
presented to the President for signature, the President's
senior advisors would recommend that the bill be vetoed.
In addition, the Administration has serious concerns about
several other provisions in the House bill, including but not
limited to the following:
Civil Penalties for Certain Unfair Labor Practice
Violations. The bill assesses a minimum fine of $1,000 and
a maximum fine of $10,000 per affected individual for
employer or union violations of the National Labor Relations
Act (NLRA). The fines apply to sections 8 (a) (3) and
8 (b) (2), which deal with discriminatory discharge, and
sections 8 (a) (5) and 8 (b) (3), which deal with bad faith
bargaining. This provision was not discussed by the
Bipartisan Budget Summit negotiators and it attempts to
enact legislation that has not been the subject of hearings
or debate. The National Labor Relations Board currently
pursues compensatory damage suits for affected individuals
successfully; it does not levy fines. Such fines,
especially a floor on the fines, will generate substantial
additional litigation and is apt to delay justice.
Restitution is not required while cases are contested.
Guaranteed Student Loans. The House included $1.7 billion
in savings from the Guaranteed Student Loan program, $.3
billion less than the original $2.0 billion target. The
House would eliminate subsidized loans at schools with
default rates of 35 percent or greater with specific
exemptions for certain types of schools, while the Senate
authorizing committee would eliminate all Title IV aid at
high default schools (40% in 1991, 30% in 1992 and 25% in
1993), without specific exemptions. The Administration
strongly prefers the Senate committee provision. If
subsidized loans are to be eliminated at bad schools, grants
2
and work-study funds backed either completely or
substantially by Federal dollars should also be eliminated
as would be done by the Senate committee language
EPA Fee Provisions. The Administration does not believe
that the savings claimed for these provisions by both the
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee ($21 million in FY
1991, $145 million over 5 years) and the Public Works and
Transportation Committee ($42 million in FY 1991, $212
million over 5 years) can be achieved unless language were
added to these provisions that specifically authorizes
pesticide registration fees.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) User Fees. The House
Judiciary Committee authorized increased PTO user fees, as
provided in the Budget Agreement, but it neglected to
prevent those fees from being spent under the discretionary
caps. As a consequence, no funds are returned to the
Treasury and no savings accrue to offset the deficit. This
situation can be rectified by a language change which
deposits the increased fees in a "Special Fund" in the
Treasury.
Budget Process Reforms. The Administration will continue to
work with the House to make the House language on budget
process reforms more consistent with the Bipartisan Budget
Summit Agreement.
3
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 16, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4939 - Additional Objectives Which China
Must Meet to Receive MFN
(Pease (D) Ohio and 19 others)
The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 4939.
While the bill would permit China's MFN status to continue, it
introduces criteria for its extension next year that go
substantially beyond those contained in the Jackson-Vanik
amendment. Additional MFN criteria would inevitably place U.S.
companies at a commercial disadvantage with competitors in
Europe, Japan, and other industrial countries. None of our
competitors plan to introduce conditionality in extending MFN.
If H.R. 4939 is amended to further restrict the President's
flexibility, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the
bill.
In May, the President determined that China met the requirements
of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and that continuing MFN would
serve broad U.S. economic and foreign policy interests. The
Administration shares the sponsors' desire to promote human
rights in China but believes this can be done best by keeping
China's economy open to the outside world and maintaining the
broadest possible range of people-to-people contacts. Trade and
investment provide a vital link with those Chinese who want
positive change.
Our continued economic involvement with China has encouraged
important positive steps. The Chinese authorities have released
almost 900 political prisoners this year and, following the
President's decision to renew China's MFN status, have permitted
Fang Lizhi and his family to depart the country. Beijing has
supported all eight UN Security Council resolutions on the
Persian Gulf crisis and acted decisively to enforce the UN-
approved trade embargo. China's active intervention was crucial
for achieving the latest breakthrough toward a peaceful
settlement in Cambodia.
The United States cannot return to doing business as usual with
China. The Administration will continue to press for the release
of the estimated 300-400 political detainees resulting from the
brutal suppression of the prodemocracy movement of June 1989.
But a sound working relationship with China is still necessary so
that issues of vital concern to us can be addressed.
*****
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 16, 1990
House Floor
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
THE "WAYS AND MEANS DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE" TO THE
OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1990
The "Ways and Means Democratic Alternative" relies
principally on increases in income taxes for people in all
brackets. Delaying the indexation of tax rates for inflation
will increase the income taxes paid by middle class families --
hardly an argument for fairness. In addition, there is nothing
in the package to encourage economic growth, the driving force
behind increases in the standard of living for all Americans.
Because of these serious flaws, the President's senior advisors
would recommend that he veto the "Ways and Means Democratic
Alternative" if it were presented to him for his signature.
The "Ways and Means Democratic Alternative" includes a $93.6
billion across-the-board income tax increase. Specifically:
-- The proposal reduces the tax benefits of the personal
exemption by removing indexing for inflation. This
will increase taxes on everyone except the wealthiest
one million taxpayers who lost their personal
exemptions in the 1986 tax bill.
--
The "Ways and Means Democratic Alternative" brings back
bracket creep with a vengeance. Since World War II
every taxpayer was subject to ever-increasing taxes
through inflation. Bracket creep was the favorite tool
of the tax and spenders. It was stopped in 1985 with
indexing of personal exemptions and tax brackets. By
reversing this policy, the "Ways and Means Democratic
Alternative" brings back silent rate increases for
everyone. This provision raises $36 billion over 5
years, largely on the backs of low and middle class
income families. This is advertised as a "one-year tax
increase." What will keep the Democratically-
controlled Congress from repeated extensions?
-- It increases income taxes for people in all brackets.
-
A married couple with two children, who have
taxable income of $34,000 in 1991 would pay income
taxes of $5,100 under current law. Under the no-
indexing provision of the "Ways and Means
Democratic Alternative," they would pay $5,413.50,
an increase of $313.50, more than six percent.
-
A single person with no dependents who has taxable
income of $21,000 in 1991 would pay income taxes
of $3,150 under current law. Under the no-
indexing provision of the "Ways and Means
Democratic Alternative," that person would pay
$3,301.50, an increase of nearly five percent.
--
These tax increases are permanent. Even if indexing
is delayed for just one year, the increase will apply
for every year thereafter.
******
2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 16, 1990
House Floor
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
THE "WAYS AND MEANS DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE" TO THE
OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1990
The "Ways and Means Democratic Alternative" relies
principally on increases in income taxes for people in all
brackets. Delaying the indexation of tax rates for inflation
will increase the income taxes paid by middle class families --
hardly an argument for fairness. In addition, there is nothing
in the package to encourage economic growth, the driving force
behind increases in the standard of living for all Americans.
Because of these serious flaws, the President's senior advisors
would recommend that he veto the "Ways and Means Democratic
Alternative" if it were presented to him for his signature.
The "Ways and Means Democratic Alternative" includes a $93.6
billion across-the-board income tax increase. Specifically:
-- The proposal reduces the tax benefits of the personal
exemption by removing indexing for inflation. This
will increase taxes on everyone except the wealthiest
one million taxpayers who lost their personal
exemptions in the 1986 tax bill.
-- The "Ways and Means Democratic Alternative" brings back
bracket creep with a vengeance. Since World War II
every taxpayer was subject to ever-increasing taxes
through inflation. Bracket creep was the favorite tool
of the tax and spenders. It was stopped in 1985 with
indexing of personal exemptions and tax brackets. By
reversing this policy, the "Ways and Means Democratic
Alternative" brings back silent rate increases for
everyone. This provision raises $36 billion over 5
years, largely on the backs of low and middle class
income families. This is advertised as a "one-year tax
increase." What will keep the Democratically-
controlled Congress from repeated extensions?
-- It increases income taxes for people in all brackets.
-
A married couple with two children, who have
taxable income of $34,000 in 1991 would pay income
taxes of $5,100 under current law. Under the no-
indexing provision of the "Ways and Means
Democratic Alternative," they would pay $5,413.50,
an increase of $313.50, more than six percent.
-
A single person with no dependents who has taxable
income of $21,000 in 1991 would pay income taxes
of $3,150 under current law. Under the no-
indexing provision of the "Ways and Means
Democratic Alternative," that person would pay
$3,301.50, an increase of nearly five percent.
-- These tax increases are permanent. Even if indexing
is delayed for just one year, the increase will apply
for every year thereafter.
******
2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 16, 1990
House Floor
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
THE "WAYS AND MEANS DEMOCRATIC ALTERNATIVE" TO THE
OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1990
The "Ways and Means Democratic Alternative" relies
principally on increases in income taxes for people in all
brackets. Delaying the indexation of tax rates for inflation
will increase the income taxes paid by middle class families --
hardly an argument for fairness. In addition, there is nothing
in the package to encourage economic growth, the driving force
behind increases in the standard of living for all Americans.
Because of these serious flaws, the President's senior advisors
would recommend that he veto the "Ways and Means Democratic
Alternative" if it were presented to him for his signature.
The "Ways and Means Democratic Alternative" includes a $93.6
billion across-the-board income tax increase. Specifically:
--
The proposal reduces the tax benefits of the personal
exemption by removing indexing for inflation. This
will increase taxes on everyone except the wealthiest
one million taxpayers who lost their personal
exemptions in the 1986 tax bill.
--
The "Ways and Means Democratic Alternative" brings back
bracket creep with a vengeance. Since World War II
every taxpayer was subject to ever-increasing taxes
through inflation. Bracket creep was the favorite tool
of the tax and spenders. It was stopped in 1985 with
indexing of personal exemptions and tax brackets. By
reversing this policy, the "Ways and Means Democratic
Alternative" brings back silent rate increases for
everyone. This provision raises $36 billion over 5
years, largely on the backs of low and middle class
income families. This is advertised as a "one-year tax
increase." What will keep the Democratically-
controlled Congress from repeated extensions?
-- It increases income taxes for people in all brackets.
-
A married couple with two children, who have
taxable income of $34,000 in 1991 would pay income
taxes of $5,100 under current law. Under the no-
indexing provision of the "Ways and Means
Democratic Alternative," they would pay $5,413.50,
an increase of $313.50, more than six percent.
-
A single person with no dependents who has taxable
income of $21,000 in 1991 would pay income taxes
of $3,150 under current law. Under the no-
indexing provision of the "Ways and Means
Democratic Alternative, If that person would pay
$3,301.50, an increase of nearly five percent.
--
These tax increases are permanent. Even if indexing
is delayed for just one year, the increase will apply
for every year thereafter.
******
2
OFFICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 17, 1990
(House Floor)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 2924 - Fish Safety Act of 1990
(Mitchell (D) ME)
The Administration supports an expansion of the existing seafood
inspection program in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The
Administration, however, opposes S. 2924, which would move
virtually the entire program to the Department of Agriculture for
reasons unrelated to public health and safety. If S. 2924 is
presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend a
veto.
The Administration prefers the amendment in the nature of a
substitute which will be offered on behalf of the Committees on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Energy and Commerce and
supports its passage. The amendment aggressively addresses the
primary health and safety concern -- shellfish contamination --
and allows the Administration to propose a comprehensive
inspection program to improve the safety of all fish products.
The Administration continues to believe that overall
responsibility for seafood safety should remain with the FDA, an
agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, and NOAA,
an agency of the Department of Commerce. The President's FY 1991
Budget includes an increase for the Federal seafood inspection
program directed toward those agencies. The Administration also
supports user fees to allow further enhancement of inspection
services that impart substantial private benefit to industry.
The seafood industry has requested additional Federal inspection,
which may increase public confidence and improve seafood
marketing opportunities. Thus, user fees are appropriate to
finance a portion of any expanded program.
FDA's seafood safety program currently includes mandatory, random
inspections and extensive research, and relies on longstanding
relationships with States, other Federal agencies, and foreign
countries. Many of the activities in FDA's program require
highly specialized knowledge and training, including expertise in
marine biology and related marine disciplines. FDA's program
should remain the cornerstone of the Federal regulatory system
for seafood.
NOAA is the only Federal agency authorized to control fishing
activities of vessels in Federal waters and has closed those
2
waters to harvesting when a FDA tolerance for a contaminant in
shellfish has been exceeded. NOAA has an unsurpassed knowledge
of fishing vessels and acceptability of catch. Like FDA, NOAA
has experience in inspecting seafood processors under its current
voluntary program. This program, which complements FDA's
mandatory program, includes grading and lot certification for
export, features important for international trade. NOAA is also
the lead Federal agency with respect to fisheries trade policy
and strategy.
The clearest health risk from seafood involves the consumption of
raw molluscan shellfish, although less than one percent of all
seafood is consumed that way. This risk stems largely from human
pollution of coastal waters. Monitoring the quality of local
growing waters is the only viable recourse to addressing this
problem. FDA and NOAA, working with the States, are uniquely
qualified to address the issue of seafood safety. All State
shellfish safety programs for monitoring growing waters are based
on FDA training and rely on FDA technical assistance.
Although the Energy and Commerce and Merchant Marine and
Fisheries substitute involves some objectionable provisions, it
is far preferable to S. 2924.
*****
PTM PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 17, 1990
(House Floor)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 2924 - Fish Safety Act of 1990
(Mitchell (D) ME)
The Administration supports an expansion of the existing seafood
inspection program in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The
Administration, however, opposes S. 2924, which would move
virtually the entire program to the Department of Agriculture for
reasons unrelated to public health and safety. If S. 2924 is
presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend a
veto.
The Administration prefers the amendment in the nature of a
substitute which will be offered on behalf of the Committees on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Energy and Commerce and
supports its passage. The amendment aggressively addresses the
primary health and safety concern -- shellfish contamination --
and allows the Administration to propose a comprehensive
inspection program to improve the safety of all fish products.
The Administration continues to believe that overall
responsibility for seafood safety should remain with the FDA, an
agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, and NOAA,
an agency of the Department of Commerce. The President's FY 1991
Budget includes an increase for the Federal seafood inspection
program directed toward those agencies. The Administration also
supports user fees to allow further enhancement of inspection
services that impart substantial private benefit to industry.
The seafood industry has requested additional Federal inspection,
which may increase public confidence and improve seafood
marketing opportunities. Thus, user fees are appropriate to
finance a portion of any expanded program.
FDA's seafood safety program currently includes mandatory, random
inspections and extensive research, and relies on longstanding
relationships with States, other Federal agencies, and foreign
countries. Many of the activities in FDA's program require
highly specialized knowledge and training, including expertise in
marine biology and related marine disciplines. FDA's program
should remain the cornerstone of the Federal regulatory system
for seafood.
NOAA is the only Federal agency authorized to control fishing
activities of vessels in Federal waters and has closed those
2
waters to harvesting when a FDA tolerance for a contaminant in
shellfish has been exceeded. NOAA has an unsurpassed knowledge
of fishing vessels and acceptability of catch. Like FDA, NOAA
has experience in inspecting seafood processors under its current
voluntary program. This program, which complements FDA's
mandatory program, includes grading and lot certification for
export, features important for international trade. NOAA is also
the lead Federal agency with respect to fisheries trade policy
and strategy.
The clearest health risk from seafood involves the consumption of
raw molluscan shellfish, although less than one percent of all
seafood is consumed that way. This risk stems largely from human
pollution of coastal waters. Monitoring the quality of local
growing waters is the only viable recourse to addressing this
problem. FDA and NOAA, working with the States, are uniquely
qualified to address the issue of seafood safety. All State
shellfish safety programs for monitoring growing waters are based
on FDA training and rely on FDA technical assistance.
Although the Energy and Commerce and Merchant Marine and
Fisheries substitute involves some objectionable provisions, it
is far preferable to S. 2924.
*****
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 17, 1990
(Senate Floor)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 3209 - OMNIBUS RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1990
The Senate version of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990
produces budgetary savings that are generally consistent with the
Bipartisan Budget Summit Agreement. However, the President's
senior advisors would recommend that the President veto the bill
if it includes either of the following provisions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization.
Many of the provisions in the Senate bill that reauthorize
the FAA are highly objectionable, in particular:
-
A labor protection provision establishing fixed
procedures and protections for resolving certain labor
conflicts; resolution of these conflicts should be left
to collective bargaining or other labor/management
negotiations.
-
Provisions changing landing and take-off rights at
three airports subject to the High Density Rule; these
provisions would enormously disrupt domestic passenger
air travel and would eliminate the use of market forces
for the exchange of landing and take-off rights.
-
Federally mandated actions on aviation noise would
unduly interfere with local airport authority
decisionmaking. This does not balance the widely
varying interests of concerned groups.
Unless the version of the bill that is presented to the
President for signature is amended to address these
concerns, the President's senior advisors would recommend
that the bill be vetoed.
OSHA and MSHA Fines. The Senate bill raises the ceilings on
most OSHA and MSHA fines, establishes floors for most fines,
and makes certain safety and health violations of OSHA a
criminal offense. While the Administration has agreed that
some increase in OSHA and MSHA fines may be acceptable, it
strongly objects to provisions that would include floors in
the amount of fines that may be levied and would criminalize
certain OSHA violations. If the floors on fines and the
OSHA criminal provisions are included in the version of the
bill that is submitted to the President for signature, the
President's senior advisors would recommend that the bill be
vetoed.
In addition, the Administration has serious concerns about
several other provisions in the Senate bill, including but not
limited to the following:
O
Rural Electrification Administration Loans. The
Administration supports the reconciliation package reported
by the Committee on Agriculture, including the provisions
that would shift 25 percent of the direct loans currently
provided by the REA to private loans with a Federal
guarantee. However, the Administration is concerned about
the provision that would provide for a 99 percent guarantee.
A 90 percent guarantee would be more consistent with
existing Federal practice and the goal of real deficit
reduction.
Coast Guard User Fees. Although the Administration strongly
supports collection of Coast Guard user fees, it objects to
the provision in the Senate bill that would only permit
collections from vessels operating "where Coast Guard has a
presence." Since there is no accepted legal definition of
waters where Coast Guard has a presence, collections could
be challenged in court. In addition, the language lacks a
specific schedule of fees for direct services. It would be
preferable to include a schedule of fees in order to ensure
that actual collection levels for 1991 match the levels
specified in the Budget Resolution.
Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Savings. The Senate
bill would apply Medicare payment limits for inpatient
hospital services to retired FEHB enrollees age 65 and older
who are not already covered by Medicare Part A. The
Administration supports this proposal, but notes that
savings arising from reduced payments to hospitals would not
occur unless the legislation has an enforcement provision
amending Title 18 of the Social Security Act. Such a
provision would require hospitals to adhere to Medicare
payment limits for FEHB enrollees age 65 and older as a
condition of the Hospital's participation in Medicare.
Reforms in Postal Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAS). The
Senate bill does not include provisions that would require
the Postal Service to bear a larger share of the cost of
COLAs provided to Postal retirees. Postal COLA reforms were
included in the Bipartisan Budget Summit Agreement and
adopted by the House. Continued taxpayer subsidies for
these costs are inappropriate. They are legitimate
2
operating expenses of the Postal Service that should be
covered by rates charged to Postal customers.
Moratorium on Emergency Assistance Regulations. These
provisions would prohibit HHS from finalizing any regulation
which changes the emergency assistance program in 1991. One
effect of this provision would be to allow New York City to
go back to putting homeless families with children in run-
down welfare hotels. The 1991 cost of this provision is
estimated at $35 million.
Tax Subsidy for Rail Pensions. This provision would
transfer $180 million from the Treasury to the rail sector
pension fund. Federal subsidies should not be used as a
substitute for rail sector contributions to its own private
sector pension fund.
Disregard of Trust Contributions. The effect of this
provision would be to create a "tax shelter" for
Supplemental Security Income, allowing well-to-do
individuals to avoid having their income and assets counted
for eligibility for this means-tested program.
Medically-Needy Income Levels for Certain Member Families.
This provision would expand Medicaid eligibility beyond
current interpretation of the statute and regulation. The
HCFA Actuary scores this provision as increasing spending by
$700 million over five years.
Extension of Provision on Voluntary Contributions and
Provider-Specific Taxes. Under this provision, States could
levy hospital-specific taxes on Medicaid providers, and use
the resulting revenues to satisfy the State match
requirements under the Medicaid program. The HCFA Actuary
scores this provision as increasing spending by $1.7 billion
over five years.
Uranium Enrichment. The Senate bill contains a $300 million
authorization for a Uranium Mill Tailings Program. This
authorization does not produce a change in outlays or
revenues and thus is not appropriate for inclusion in a
budget reconciliation measure.
Budget Process Reform Amendment. The Administration will
continue to work with the Senate to make the language of the
Senate amendment on budget process reforms more consistent with
the Bipartisan Budget Summit Agreement.
3
GREAT FRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 19, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5071 - Federal Triangle Development Act Amendments of 1990
(Bosco (D) California)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of
H.R. 5071.
However, the Administration will seek at a minimum the following
Senate amendments to:
Modify proposed new section 5 (h) (3) of the Federal Triangle
Development Act, which would authorize the Pennsylvania
Avenue Development Corporation (PADC) to enter into
agreements for the issuance of securities backed by the
General Services Administration (GSA). Any amendment to
the law should authorize and direct PADC to secure
financing directly from the Federal Financing Bank, not
from private sources.
Delete section 10 (c), which would authorize appropriations
to GSA to cover any shortfalls in lease payments by the
International Cultural and Trade Center Commission (ICTCC).
This provision authorizes unlimited appropriations to
underwrite the ICTCC. The original intent of the Act was
for the ICTCC to be self-sufficient.
*****
OFFICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
October 19, 1990
(Senate Floor)
H.R. 5769 -- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1991
(Sponsor: Byrd (D), West Virginia)
The Administration supports the passage of appropriations
bills that are consistent with the Budget Summit Agreement
(except as modified for defense by the Conference Report
accompanying H.Con.Res. 310). The President's senior advisers
will recommend that the President veto any appropriations bill
that is not substantially consistent with that Agreement.
The Administration strongly supports the Senate Committee's
decision to forego continued legislative moratoria on oil and gas
preleasing, leasing, and drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). The President's June 26th OCS decisions resolve the near
and mid-term concerns of leasing and development in controversial
and sensitive areas.
The Administration also supports the Senate Committee's
increase over the House level for the President's tree planting
initiative. However, the Administration urges the Senate to
include funding for the President's Tree Foundation. Funding
each component of this initiative would ensure substantial
progress towards the President's goal of planting a billion trees
per year.
The Administration objects to the Committee's provision of
$6 million for the initiation of construction planning for a one
billion barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Based upon
recent fill rates, the SPR would not reach the targeted 750
million barrels until 1999. Thus, any additional fill will not
be needed until after the year 2000. The Administration also
objects to related report language that is inconsistent with
recently enacted authorizing legislation. As required by law,
the Administration will amend the SPR Plan by September 1992, to
prescribe plans for completion of the storage of one billion
barrels. The Administration will not be able to 1) provide
detailed plans for a one billion barrel Reserve by March 1991, or
2) complete acquisition of facilities for a one billion barrel
SPR by 1999.
The Administration objects to language that would make
receipts from the sale of oil and gas from the Naval Petroleum
Reserves (NPR) that exceed $638 million available to buy SPR oil.
This treatment is an attempt to avoid budgetary controls by using
NPR receipts to offset discretionary spending that would
otherwise be directly appropriated by the Committee.
The Administration opposes the provision to extend permanent
coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act to tribal contractors or
their employees. The treatment of these contractors or their
employees as employees of the Federal government would establish
an adverse precedent. It is the Administration's view that the
Federal government should not accept direct fiscal responsibility
for professional negligence in the absence of an adequate
opportunity to control and supervise professional conduct.
The Administration urges the Senate to address these
concerns favorably in its consideration of this bill.
2
STATE OFFICE PREMIUM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 19, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 1890 - Correcting Inequities in Retirement Credit
for Certain National Guard Technician Service
(Thurmond (R) SC and 89 others)
The Administration supports enactment of S. 1890.
*******
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 25, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5756 - Campaign Advertising Act
(Dingell (D) Michigan and 12 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 5756, unless section
3 (3) is deleted or modified to avoid constitutional concerns.
That subsection would prohibit most preemption of campaign-
related broadcast advertising. It could prevent broadcast
licensees whose contracts reserve the right to preempt campaign-
related advertisements from exercising those rights. It could
also be understood to prohibit preemption of advertising by
affiliates who are not obligated by contract to carry a message
purchased from a network or other entity. This restriction could
violate the First Amendment by depriving broadcasters -- and
potentially cable television operators -- of the freedom to air
programming of their choice.
*****
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE STATE STATE UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
ADMINISTRATION POLICY STATEMENTS RELEASED
OCTOBER 22, 1990 AS OF 4:50 PM
H.R. 2567
RECLAMATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZATION AND
ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1990
H.R. 4638
ORPHAN DRUG AMENDMENTS OF 1990
H.R. 4939
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH CHINA MUST MEET
TO RECEIVE MOST FAVORED NATION (MFN)
H.R. 5237
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVE PROTECTION AND
REPATRIATION ACT
H.R. 5539
SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS
SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1990
H.R. 5693
FAMILY PLANNING REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1990
H.R. 5791
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION
S. 1270
INDIAN HEALTH CARE AMENDMENTS OF 1990
S. 2638
MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENTS OF 1990
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 22, 1990
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 2567 - Reclamation Projects Authorization
and Adjustment Act of 1990
(Thomas (R) Wyoming)
The Administration supports many of the projects contained in
H.R. 2567. If 1) the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Economic
Development Fund, 2) the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1990, and
3) the Lake Andes-Wagner/Marty II Irrigation Projects are removed
from H.R. 2567, the Administration would have no objection to
Senate passage of the bill.
Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Settlement Act (Title VII).
The Administration supports a settlement to fairly allocate water
rights of the Truckee and Carson Rivers and does not object to
the establishment of a $25 million fisheries development fund as
part of the settlement. The $50 million economic development
fund, to be paid to a small number of Paiute Indians, has been
included in the bill with no justification. If the $50 million
economic development fund is included in the version of the bill
that is presented to the President, the Secretary of the Interior
and the Attorney General would recommend that it be vetoed.
Irrigation Drainage Demonstration Program and Lake Andes-
Wagner/Marty II Projects (Title XI). Title XI must be amended.
The full-scale South Dakota irrigation project, which would cost
approximately $200 million, should be deleted. The project has
the potential of doing substantial environmental harm and may
well be without adequate benefits to justify any expenditures.
In addition, the demonstration program must be modified to
require significant non-Federal cost-sharing under terms
acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior. If these provisions
are included in the version of the bill that is presented to the
President, the Secretary of the Interior and the President's
senior advisers would recommend that it be vetoed.
Grand Canyon Protection (Title X). Title X would require the
that Secretary of the Interior operate the Glen Canyon Dam in a
manner that would minimize its effects on downstream
environmental and economic resources. The dam is located
upstream of the Grand Canyon National Park. This title is
unnecessary because the Secretary of the Interior has sufficient
authority and discretion to establish appropriate power operating
criteria for the dam.
The Administration strongly objects to Section 1007 of this
title, which specifies that the Federal Government bear the full
cost of preparing a Glen Canyon Environmental Impact Statement,
including the cost of supporting studies and long-term
monitoring. Such a requirement violates long-standing
congressional and Executive branch policy, which appropriately
allocates such costs to project purposes and beneficiaries. This
precedent could result in potentially significant costs to the
Federal taxpayer.
If these provisions are included in the version of the bill that
is presented to the President, the Secretary of Energy would
recommend that it be vetoed.
OFFICE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 22, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
o
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.
********
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
SERVICE OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 22, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4939 - Additional Requirements Which China
Must Meet to Receive Most Favored Nation (MFN)
(Pease (D) Ohio and 19 others)
If H.R. 4939 were presented to the President, his senior advisers
would recommend that he veto it. H.R. 4939, as passed by the
House, significantly resticts the President's flexibility to
recommend extension of MFN trade status to China in 1991. The
bill requires that before the President can recommend extending
MFN, he must certify that the Chinese government has:
-- accounted for any detained or accused citizens
and released those imprisoned because of their
actions at Tiananmen Square;
-- implemented and faithfully executed measures that
terminate specified repressive practices; and
-- adhered to the 1984 Joint Declaration on Hong Kong.
In May, the President determined that China met the requirements
of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and that continuing MFN would
serve broad U.S. economic and foreign policy interests. The
Administration shares the sponsors' desire to promote human
rights in China but believes this can be done best by keeping
China's economy open to the outside world and maintaining the
broadest possible range of people-to-people contacts. Trade and
investment provide a vital link with those Chinese who want
positive change.
Our continued economic involvement with China has encouraged
important positive steps. The Chinese authorities have released
almost 900 political prisoners this year and, following the
President's decision to renew China's MFN status, have permitted
Fang Lizhi and his family to depart the country. Beijing has
supported all nine UN Security Council resolutions on the Persian
Gulf crisis and acted decisively to enforce the UN-approved trade
embargo. We continue to need China's support in the Persian Gulf
Crisis. China's active intervention was crucial for achieving
the latest breakthrough toward a peaceful settlement in Cambodia.
The United States cannot return to doing business as usual with
China until a better human rights condition exists there. The
Administration will continue to press for the release of the
estimated 300-400 political detainees resulting from the brutal
suppression of the prodemocracy movement of June 1989. But a
2
suppression of the prodemocracy movement of June 1989. But a
sound working relationship with China is still necessary so that
issues of vital concern to us can be addressed.
*****
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 22, 1990
SIVIS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5237 - Native American Grave Protection
and Repatriation Act
(Udall (D) Arizona and three others)
The Administration supports the goals of H.R. 5237, but opposes
enactment in its current form. We will work in the Senate to
address the following issues:
-- If remains and funerary objects are not linked to
or claimed by a contemporary tribe, the Federal
government should maintain stewardship
responsibilities over the remains.
-- Aboriginal occupation should not be the sole
criteria for establishing affinity where no
affinity to contemporary groups can be
established.
-- Additional studies should be allowed where
necessary to ensure a correct determination of
affinity.
-- Because the time and costs for Federal agencies
to inventory their collections could be
substantial, Federal agencies should be given the
same opportunities for extensions of time for
inventorying items as would be provided to
museums.
-- The broad categories of "sacred objects" and
"objects of cultural patrimony" should be deleted
from the operation of this bill.
-- The review committee established in this bill
should be purely advisory in nature.
Additionally, conservative estimates suggest that full
implementation of H.R. 5237 could cost as much as $20 million.
Such costs are inappropriate given the current budget situation.
WE PRESIDENT STATE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 22, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5539 - San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights
Settlement Act of 1990
(Udall (D) Arizona and Rhodes (R) Arizona)
The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 5539. The
bill imposes a settlement about which there has been insufficient
congressional review and minimal Executive branch involvement.
Moreover, the settlement may not resolve the dispute between the
San Carlos Apache Indian Tribe, the United States, the State of
Arizona, and other parties.
Additionally, some of the parties involved have yet to agree on
the issues of water rights and sources, total settlement costs,
and the contributions, financial or otherwise, contained in the
bill. Furthermore, H.R. 5539 may resolve the water dispute to
the disadvantage of other nearby Indian communities. Finally,
proponents of H.R. 5539 have not provided justification for the
significant Federal funding, estimated at more than $50 million,
that would be required by the bill.
*****
OF PRESIDENT SERVICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 22, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5693 - Family Planning Reauthorization Act of 1990
(Waxman (D) CA)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 5693, which would
extend the current family planning program through FY 1994. This
bill is inconsistent with the proposal in the President's FY 1991
Budget to change the current family planning program from a
categorical grant program to a program of direct grants to
States. Continuation of the family planning program as a
categorical grant program would thwart the Administration's
efforts to provide maximum State and local control over the
delivery of family planning services. It would also undermine
the Administration's efforts to promote better integration of
family planning services with maternal and child health services.
*******
FRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
PROTIVE
STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 22, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5791 - National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Appropriations Authorization
(Hertel (D) Michigan and 6 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 5791 because it
would:
Authorize appropriations for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ocean and coastal
programs, totalling $470.8 million, that exceed the
FY 1991 Budget by over $143 million.
Limit the price of nautical charts and other nautical
products produced or published by NOAA. This would
restrict NOAA's flexibility to adjust prices to reflect
actual costs, as provided by existing law.
Exempt obligations to carry out certain real property
lease-purchase acquisitions from the Anti-Deficiency Act
and understate the true cost of such acquisitions for
budget purposes. This requirement would circumvent the
"full funding" agreement between the Executive and
Legislative branches to score these purchases to avoid
misrepresenting total project costs.
Require the Secretary of Commerce to provide notice to
Congress before reprogramming appropriated funds. The
Congressional oversight process makes this limitation
unnecessary and burdensome.
Require the Secretary of Commerce to submit a report to
the Congress on the status and modernization needs of the
NOAA fleet. This is unnecessary because NOAA is presently
conducting a study and intends to provide its findings and
recommendations to Congress early next year.
In addition, if the version of H.R. 5791 that is brought to the
House floor contains provisions in H.R. 4115 as reported by the
House Science Committee, the Administration would object to the
title that would establish within the Department of Agriculture
an Agricultural Weather Office. This office would duplicate
existing Federal, State, and private sector programs. It would
also be inconsistent with existing law which designates the
2
Department of Commerce as the lead Federal agency for providing
agricultural weather services.
*****
OFFICE STATES WIN ET PRESIDENT SERVICE WASHINGTON
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 22, 1990
o
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 1270 - Indian Health Care Amendments of 1990
(McCain (R) AZ)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of S. 1270.
********
OF PRESIDENT MASSACHUSETTS
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.)
S. 2628 - Mental Health Amendments of 1990
(Kennedy (D) MA)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of S. 2628.
*******
OFFICE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 22, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5855 - Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act of 1990
(Fascell (D) Florida and 10 others)
The Administration fully supports H.R. 5855, which provides for
part of the President's proposal for economic growth and
environmental improvement in Latin America and the Caribbean.
)
*****
OFFICE OF PRESIDENT UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 22, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5855 - Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act of 1990
(Fascell (D) Florida and 10 others)
The Administration fully supports H.R. 5855, which provides for
part of the President's proposal for economic growth and
environmental improvement in Latin America and the Caribbean.
*****
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
STATE STATE SECURE and OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
O
ADMINISTRATION POLICY STATEMENTS RELEASED
OCTOBER 23, 1990 AS OF 6:00 PM
H.R. 3695
PAPERWORK REDUCTION AND FEDERAL INFORMATION
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1989
H.R. 5322
SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ACT
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 23, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3695 - Paperwork Reduction and Federal Information Resource
Management Act of 1989
(Conyers (D) MI and Horton (R) NY)
The Administration opposes House passage of H.R. 3695 and urges
that it not be considered under suspension of the rules.
The Administration urges, instead, that the House await Senate
passage of S. 1742, which has been the vehicle for negotiations
between the Administration and the House and Senate oversight
committees.
*
*
OFFINI OFFICE OF TREATMENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 23, 1990
o
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5322 - Senior Executive Service Improvements Act
(Sikorski (D) MN and Morella (R) MD)
The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 5322.
*******
THE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 24, 1990
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 1742 Federal Information Resources Management Act
(Bingaman (D) NM and Lieberman (D) CT)
The Administration strongly supports passage of S. 1742 (with
Committee amendment substitute) reauthorizing the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for four full years
from enactment. While S. 1742, as reported by the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, contained a number of items on which Senior
Advisors recommended veto, a compromise has been reached which
accommodates Administration and small business concerns. The
amended S. 1742 would no longer significantly intrude on
Presidential oversight of regulatory review and paperwork
reduction.
The House passed last night a bill which the Administration and
small business strongly oppose, but indicated they would accept
the amended Senate bill. To not pass the Committee substitute
will significantly impair OIRA's ability to operate next year and
threaten OIRA appropriations.
Equally important, there is agreement by the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs to hold hearings early next year on
legislation which would remedy the problems created by the
Supreme Court's decision in Dole VS. Steelworkers.
*******
OF
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
February 7, 1991
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 330 - Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act
Amendments of 1991
(Cranston (D) CA and 32 others)
On January 25, 1991, the Administration transmitted to Congress a
draft legislative proposal, "To amend the Soldiers' and Sailors'
Civil Relief Act of 1940.' That proposal would address the
concerns of Reserve Forces activated for Operation Desert
Shield/Storm. It would provide Reservists on active duty with
protection in court proceedings and protection from adverse
action by creditors. It would also protect their dependents from
eviction. In addition, the Administration supports providing
professional liability protection for certain military personnel.
S. 330 has the same goals as the Administration's proposal. The
Administration supports Senate passage of S. 330.
The Administration, however, strongly opposes a proposed
amendment to S. 330 to be offered by Senator Heinz. As stated in
a February 7, 1991, letter (attached) from the Secretary of
Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Senate
leadership, this amendment is unwarranted and unwise. The
amendment would express the sense of the Senate that military
couples and single parents with minor children should be barred
from assignment to the Operation Desert Storm theater. The
Administration believes it would be a serious mistake, especially
in the midst of combat, to reverse the Department of Defense's
longstanding policy that such personnel are available for duty
worldwide. Moving them now would weaken combat capability by
undermining troop cohesion and esprit de corps. It would also be
unfair to single parents and military couples and to their
comrades who depend on them every day.
TEL:
Feb 7,91 10:35 No. .005 P.01
DE OF DATARTMENT
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
7 February 1991
:
The Honorable George Mitchell
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-1001
Dear Senator Mitchell:
a proposed resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that we take immediate
One of the matters raised in the session we had with the Senate yesterday was
action to ensure that no single parents or military couples with children serve in the
Desert Storm theater of operations. We both stated that we were strongly opposed
to such a resolution and to the policy it encourages. We would like to take this
opportunity to explain more fully the reasons for our opposition to the policy and to
the draft resolution prepared by Senator Heinz. We have discussed this matter with
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who join us in strongly opposing any such policy.
to do battle when called upon by the leadership of the United States. Every dollar
The military is a profession of arms that ultimately exists for a single purpose:
we spend, every action we take, and every policy we adopt must and should support
that purpose. All members of that profession of arms serving today are volunteers.
They understand that when they volunteered to serve, they freely assumed the duty
and obligation to place themselves in harm's way when called upon to do so. That
shared capability. obligation is crucial to the unit cohesion that is the foundation of our combat
That understanding and obligation is held equally by the single parents and
military coupies now serving around the world, including in the Desert Storm
theater. Their exposure to the risks inherent in military service is not new. Years
ago, the Department of Defense made the considered policy choice not to treat
single parents and military couples as second class citizens, and to allow them to
serve anywhere in the world, in every type of unit, and in any position. For decades,
single parents and military couples have been serving well and honorably in places
like Korea and Europe, places where the possiblity of sudden and lethal combat was
very real. They served in Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada and in Operation Just
Cause in Panama. Their service and contributions, including their service in
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, have demonstrated the wisdom of that
policy choice.
including the special needs of our single parents and military couples. For that
We are and have been sensitive to the needs of all of our military families,
couple to maintain a current family care plan to ensure that their children are cared
reason, we have a longstanding policy of requiring every single parent and military
for when the parent or parents deploy. That policy is working well. Our single
parents and military couples across the board have been meeting their obligations
both as members of the military and as parents.
TEL:
Feb 7.91 10:35 No. .005 P.02
In our view, it would be a serious mistake, particularly while we are engaged
in combat, to reverse our longstanding policy that single parents and military
couples are fully deployable and available for assignment anywhere in the world.
Requiring their redeployment from the Desert Storm theater now would weaken
our combat capability by removing key personnel from our deployed units and by
undermining unit cohesion and esprit de corps. It would also break faith with our
single parents and military couples and with their comrades who depend on them
every day.
for our single parents and military couples, but for every member of our Armed
We understand and appreciate your concern. We share that concern, not only
Forces who is serving in Operation Desert Storm. We urge you, however, not to
allow that concern to lead you and your fellow Senators to call for a policy that, in
our view, would be both unwarranted and unwise.
Sincerely,
Secretary DICK CHENEY of Defense Chung
Cl.C.Ton
COLIN L. POWELL
Chairman
Joint Chiefs of Staff
cc: The Honorable Robert Dole
Minority Leader