Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box 68, folder "10/21/76 S507 National Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (1)" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case
Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
APPROVED
Digitized from Box 68 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the 8/0/21/76 Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
Last Day: October 23
October 20, 1976
posted 10/22/76
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
S. 507 - National Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976
archives 10/22/76
Attached for your consideration is S. 507, sponsored by
Senators Haskell, Jackson and Metcalf.
The enrolled bill provides for management, protection and
development of the lands under the Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior.
Unlike other Federal land management agencies such as the
National Park Service or the National Forest Service,
there is no single statutory statement of the Bureau's
mission and authority. These must be gleaned from some
three thousand land laws which have been accumulated over
some 170 years. This piecemeal collection of laws is
inadequate, incomplete, and sometimes conflicting.
S. 507 conforms to the broad structure of the Administration's
proposed BLM Organic Act and does correct most of the
problems associated with the lack of a single authority.
OMB, in recommending veto, points out several problems:
-- Legislative Encroachment - Congress could disapprove
several Secretarial actions.
-- Mineral Development Loans - Low interest Federal loans
could be made to States to relieve social and economic
impacts.
-- Grazing - Grazing permits would be issued for 10
years, reducing management flexibility.
-- rights-of-Way - States could hold a veto over Federal
rights-of-way.
-- Compliance with State Pollution Laws - Bill would
require procedural as well as substantive compliance
1.
TOAD
with State air, water, noise and othr pollution
standards.
LIBRARY
2
Agency Recommendations
Interior and Agriculture both urge your approval, pointing
out that the bill is generally consistent with Administration
policy, contains most of the authority we have requested,
and is probably as good a bill as we can hope to get.
The Department of the Treasury would support disapproval
of the bill. The Department of Justice cites constitutional
concerns but defers to agencies involved.
OMB recommends disapproval. (See enrolled bill report at
Tab A)
Staff Recommendations
Max Friedersdorf recommends approval of the bill and
states: "Don Clausen has strong interest. Sen. Domenici
supports bill".
Counsel's Office (Kilberg) recommends disapproval because
of "unconstitutionality of provision allowing Congressional
disapproval of certain Executive Branch actions by concurrent
resolution.'
Robert Hartmannn recommends veto on constitutional grounds.
Recommendation
I recommend that you approve S. 507.
Although the legislative encroachment provision is
constitutionally troublesome, the bill is generally
consistent with your policies and has wide support from
the Western ranchers, environmentalists and the mining
interests.
Decision
Sign S. 507 at Tab B.
Veto S. 507 and sign Memorandum of Disapproval at Tab C
which has been cleared by Doug Smith.
TORD
OF THE
THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
CREDE
ZRL
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SERVIS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
OCT 19 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill S. 507 - National Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976
Sponsors - Sen. Haskell (D) Colorado, Sen. Jackson
(D) Washington, and Sen. Metcalf (D) Montana
Last Day for Action
October 23, 1976 - Saturday
Purpose
Provides for the management, protection, and development
of the national resource lands, and for other purposes.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Memorandum
of Disapproval, attached)
Department of the Treasury
Supports Disapproval
Department of Justice
Cites constitutional
concerns
Department of Commerce
No objection
Department of Defense
No objection
Federal Power Commission
No objection
Federal Energy Administration
No objection (Informally)
General Services Administration
No objection (Informally)
Department of the Interior
Approval
Department of Agriculture
Approval
Council on Environmental Quality
Approval
Environmental Protection Agency
Approval
Civil Service Commission
Approval
TORD LIBRANTY
2
Background
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) , Department of the Interior,
has extensive management responsibilities concerning
(1) some 450 million acres of national resource lands
(public domain) ; (2) additional millions of acres of lands
that have been withdrawn from the public domain; (3) all
reserved mineral interests of the United States contained
in over 800 million acres, and (4) certain special Federal
tracts. However, unlike other Federal land management
agencies such as the National Park Service or the National
Forest Service, there is no single statutory statement
of the Bureau's mission and authority. These must be
gleaned from some three thousand land laws which have
been accumulated over some 170 years. This piecemeal
collection of laws is inadequate, incomplete, and some-
times conflicting.
Since 1971, legislation has been actively considered in
Congress to provide an Organic Act for BLM. Over this
period, both the previous and the present Administrations
submitted legislation that would establish clearly enun-
ciated policies and provide comprehensive organic author-
ity under which all BLM lands could be managed. Under
the Administration proposal submitted to the Congress
in 1975, the following basic authorities and principles
were set forth:
-- that national resource lands shall be managed under
principles of multiple use, sustained yield, and
protection of environmental quality;
-- that the national interest will best be served by
retaining these lands in Federal ownership;
that the Secretary of the Interior inventory and
classify the national resource lands and develop
comprehensive land use plans for such lands giving
priority to lands in critical environmental areas;
that the Secretary have statutorily promulgated
policy to guide all his discretionary activities
relating to the national resource lands; and,
that a multitude of archaic land disposal laws be
repealed and more modern procedures be adopted for
the sale (at fair market value), acquisition, with-
drawal, and protection (including enforcement
authorities) of these lands.
3
Although S. 507 conforms to the broad structure of the
Administration's proposed BLM Organic Act, a number of
undesirable features have also been incorporated into
the bill, as enrolled. The basic framework of the bill
is set forth below and the significant objectionable
provisions are discussed thereafter.
As is the case of the Administration's proposal, S. 507
would provide for inventorying public lands, land use
planning, management under principles of multiple use
and sustained yield, retention of public lands in Federal
ownership unless the public interest would be served by
disposal, land acquisition and disposal under certain
guidelines consistent with land use plans, payment of
fair market value for any lands sold, public involvement
in various BLM decisions, coordination with State and
local planning, law enforcement, wilderness area identifi-
cation and review, recordation of mining claims, granting
of rights-of-way under a comprehensive environmentally
sound system, establishing a working capital fund for the
management of the public lands, and repeal of a number of
outmoded disposal and right-of-way statutes. In addition,
it would also set forth provisions on issuance, duration,
and administration of grazing permits, require that a
grazing fee study be made and that grazing advisory boards
be created, establish a new procedure for granting, modi-
fying and revoking withdrawals, and require that a study
be made of certain existing withdrawals.
Several of the bill's provisions would be applicable to
the administration of the National Forest System. These
apply to land exchange, range management, and rights-of-
way activities. In addition, the National Forest Town-
site Act would be amended to have the effect of making
national forest lands more available for townsites in
the West or Alaska.
The enrolled bill would authorize appropriations of (1) $20
million for withdrawal reviews, (2) $3 million for the
working capital fund, and (3) $40 million for the develop-
ment and management of the California Desert Conservation
Area. The enrolled bill would also authorize such sums as
may be necessary for carrying out the Act, and in this regard,
the Secretary would be required every four years to seek an
appropriation reauthorization for all BLM programs effec-
tive for fiscal year 1979.
4
As noted above, this legislation has a long legislative
history, and the Administration has undertaken extensive
efforts to achieve a bill that is generally consistent
with its proposal. While the overall framework of the
bill, as summarized above, does meet this test, there
are a number of seriously objectionable features that
have been retained. Each is discussed below.
Legislative Encroachment. By concurrent resolution,
enacted within 90 days of congressional notification of
the proposed executive action, the Congress could dis-
approve the five following Secretarial actions:
-- the elimination of a principal land use (grazing;
mining; forestry; etc.) for two or more years on
tracts of 100,000 acres or more;
-- the sale of public lands in excess of 2,500 acres;
the withdrawal from multiple-use status of public
lands for a specific purpose on tracts of 5,000
acres or more;
-- the termination, in accordance with the recommenda-
tions of the President, of existing withdrawals
that have been determined to be no longer valid;
and,
-- any decision to not honor a claim to public lands
made by a person who has exercised unintentional
trespass on such lands.
Although the concurrent resolution mechanism has replaced
an even more objectionable one-house veto from an earlier
bill, we continue to view these legislative encroachment
measures as seriously objectionable on constitutional
grounds. Moreover, they clearly impose substantial con-
straints upon the discretion of the Secretary to manage
the public lands.
Mineral Development Loans. The enrolled bill would authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to make loans to States
and their political subdivisions in order to relieve social
or economic impacts occasioned by the development of
federally-owned minerals that are leased in such States.
un
5
The bill would require the Secretary to allocate the loans
among the States in a fair and equitable manner, giving
priority to the areas suffering the most severe impacts.
The loans would bear an interest rate of 3 percent and
would be limited to the amount of the anticipated mineral
revenues to be received by the State over a 10-year period,
except that in the case of Alaska the limit would be 55
percent of its anticipated revenues. As you recall, the
State share of these mineral revenues was recently increased
from 37 1/2 percent to 50 percent under provisions of the
Federal Coal Leasing Act. Such loans would be paid back
from these mineral revenues.
Although this provision can be viewed as simply an advance
payment, the interest rate carries a heavy subsidy. In
this regard, the Administration position on impact assist-
ance has been that loan interest rates should be at not
less than the Federal Treasury rate. This provision also
lacks the customary safeguards associated with Federal loans
(credit elsewhere test; reasonable assurance of repayment;
etc.).
Grazing. The enrolled bill would stipulate that grazing
permits be issued for 10-year terms except in limited cases.
Moreover, grazing advisory boards would be authorized for the
purpose of making recommendations for the development and
utilization of public lands for livestock operations.
The 10-year term is a very arbitrary and inflexible require-
ment that reduces the Secretary's ability to properly
manage range lands. The grazing boards would very likely
have a single-use bias that would impair multiple-use
management of these lands.
Rights-of-way. Most provisions in this title of the bill
are generally sound, but one provision would require that
each right-of-way permit require compliance with all State
standards. This could lead to States holding a "veto"
power over Federal rights-of-way, or at a minimum, con-
trol of rights-of-way in a manner that may not be in the
public interest.
Compliance with State pollution law. S. 507 would require
that land use plans developed by the Secretary provide
for compliance with applicable pollution control laws,
including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other
pollution standards or implementation plans.
6
Under Executive Order 11752, Federal lands are now required
to be in compliance with State, interstate, and local
substantive requirements respecting control and abatement
of pollution, but not the procedural requirements asso-
ciated with State standards and regulations. S. 507
would substantially broaden existing State authorities
and responsibilities on Federal lands by requiring Federal
land use plans to comply with procedural as well as sub-
stantive requirements. This additional requirement is
unduly burdensome with respect to existing Federal activ-
ities in public lands management and could be injurious
to ongoing activities.
The Administration worked extensively with the Senate and
House Interior Committees in an effort to produce an accept-
able bill. In this regard, on August 27, 1976, Secretary
Kleppe wrote the conferees to reiterate the Administration's
serious concerns with respect to this legislation. The
Secretary noted, as had been done on several previous occa-
sions, that enactment of the bill would not be in accord
with the President's program unless it was revised as recom-
mended by the Administration.
Agency Views
The two agencies that would be most affected by S. 507,
Interior and Agriculture, both recommend approval based on
the assessment that the enrolled bill represents a reason-
able compromise between divergent House and Senate approaches
to the legislation. In its attached enrolled bill letter,
Interior expresses the view that many of the Administration's
concerns have been adequately addressed, and the Depart-
ment concludes that:
"In view of the immediate need for the impor-
tant and highly desirable authority granted
by S. 507 and the lack of any indication that
an Act entirely consistent with our views
could be obtained in the near future, it is
our view that approval of S. 507 would be in
the public interest.
S. 507 is basically consistent with the broad
policy objectives expressed in the Adminis-
tration's proposed National Resource Lands
Management Act and contains most of the author-
ity requested by the Administration with respect
to management of lands administered by the Secre-
tary through the Bureau of Land Management."
LIBRARY
7
Justice, in its attached enrolled bill letter, observes
that the bill contains legislative encroachment measures
that the Executive Branch has consistently opposed on
constitutional grounds. However, the Department generally
defers to Interior.
On the other hand, Treasury's enrolled bill letter sup-
ports a veto recommendation. Treasury is strongly opposed
to the mineral development loans for essentially the
same reasons cited above.
Arguments for Approval
-- The bill would place BLM on par with other natural
resources agencies by providing a comprehensive
statement in law of the Bureau's mission and authority.
-- It would eliminate the need for numerable private
relief bills by providing the Secretary with dis-
cretion to sell Federal mineral interests under
prescribed conditions.
-- It would provide for the modern land management tools
and procedures designed to facilitate optimal use
of the public lands.
-- The bill would provide for the repeal of many ancient,
conflicting, and outmoded laws that are now a hin-
drance to the effective management of the public
lands.
-- The bill's provision for mineral development loans
could be beneficial in promoting energy production
in the Western States.
-- This legislation may be the best that can be expected
from the Congress for some time, and a continuance
of the status quo will further delay the full imple-
mentation of contemporary management procedures.
S. 507 has the support of ranchers, environmentalists,
and the mining interests.
8
Arguments against Approval
-- Given that BLM has managed to do an acceptable job
of managing the public lands under existing law,
there is no compelling reason to accept the bill's
serious constitutional and programmatic deficien-
cies simply in order to obtain new organic author-
ity for the Bureau.
-- Disapproval would be consistent with your disapproval
of several bills in recent months which have contained
related legislative encroachments (one-house or one-
committee vetoes).
S. 507 goes far beyond the Administration proposal
in terms of mandating detailed and cumbersome manage-
ment requirements, especially for withdrawals.
-- Under the enrolled bill, there would be a significant,
if not unprecedented, intrusion by the Congress into
the daily management of a natural resources agency.
-- The heavily subsidized mineral development loans raise
serious questions of equity when considered in the
context of the recent 12 1/2 percent increase, to 50
percent, in the States' share of mineral leasing receipts.
-- The bill extends preferential rights to grazing inter-
ests and thus continues to favor this protected special
interest group.
-- S. 507 establishes a very undesirable policy by requir-
ing that Federal actions (i.e., rights-of-way permits;
land use plan pollution requirements) comply with
State standards or procedures.
Conclusion
We believe the arguments against approval are stronger, and
accordingly, we recommend disapproval. We have prepared
a Memorandum of Disapproval for your consideration.
Acting Director
Enclosures
OF THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
1849
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
3,
OCT 14 1976
Dear Mr June
This responds to your request for the views of this Department on
S. 507, "To establish public land policy; to establish guidelines
for its administration; to provide for the management, protection,
development and enhancement of the public lands; and for other
purposes."
We recommend that the President approve the enrolled bill.
S. 507 provides for the inventorying of the public lands, land use
planning, management under principles of multiple use and sustained
yield, retention of public lands in Federal ownership unless the public
interest would be served by disposal, land acquisition and disposal
under certain guidelines consistent with land use plans, payment
of fair market value for any lands sold, public involvement, coordi-
nation with State and local planning, law enforcement, wilderness
area identification and review, recordation of mining claims, granting
of rights-of-way under a comprehensive environmentally sound system,
and repeal of a number of outmoded disposal and right-of-way
statutes. In addition, it contains provisions on issuance, duration,
and administration of grazing authorizations, requires that a
grazing fee study be made and that grazing advisory boards be
established, establishes a new procedure for granting, modifying
and revoking withdrawals, requires that a study be made of certain
existing withdrawals, and establishes procedures for Congressional
review of some secretarial decisions with respect to disposals,
implementation of land use plans, and withdrawals.
Although S. 507 includes several provisions similar to provisions to
which this Department has consistently objected, it nevertheless
provides the major policy statements and authorities and includes
the repealers that we consider critical to the most effective
management of the public lands. The need for a comprehensive
statutory mission statement, management authority and tools and
for repeal of outmoded laws will grow even more crucial in the coming
years when these lands and their resources will be even more
intensely sought for a myriad of competing uses.
OF
AMERICAN REVOLUTION RECENTENNAL
LEVERIT
7776-1976
1. The one-House "veto" of various actions of the Secretary,
provided for in the House Act has been changed to a concurrent
resolution. While we continue to object in principle, we
believe that this change is less objectionable from a Constitu-
tional point-of-view. If the Act becomes law, we will carefully
evaluate the impact of the time delays on those administrative
actions which we are required to send to Congress for their
oversite.
2. The specific grazing fee formula in the House Act to which
we objected is not in S. 507, as enrolled. The requirement in
S. 507, as enrolled for a study of the value of grazing on the
public lands, is consistent with a review of various fee
formula alternatives now being conducted by the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of the Interior.
3. S. 507, as enrolled, includes the requirement that was contained
in the House Act that grazing authorizations be issued for a term
of ten years except in certain limited cases, and that two years'
notice be given a permittee prior to cancellation of a permit in
certain situation. However, new language has been added to these
sections of the bill to make this requirement less objectionable.
For example, new language is included which states that these
provisions do not modify provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act or
any other law, with respect to creation of any right to public lands
by issuance of grazing permits. There are also provisions autho-
rizing the Secretary to insert in grazing leases and permits terms
and conditions he deems appropriate. Further, the authority of
the Secretary to cancel, suspend, or modify a grazing permit has
been clarified.
Finally, S. 507 as enrolled would not require the Secretary to
include allotment management plans in any permit until they are
completed or at the latest by October 1, 1988. This discretion
with respect to inclusion of allotment management plans is con-
sistent with our present plans concerning development and inclusion
of allotment management plans. It should be noted that the
Conference Report states that the grazing provisions will negate
a court order barring issuance of 10-year leases and permits until
environmental impact statements have been prepared. The grazing
tenure provisions that are included in S. 507, as enrolled, are
still somewhate confused and do not meet all of our objections.
However, we believe that on balance, these provisions will not
create problems sufficient to warrant disapproval of the Act by
the President.
2
4. With respect to the provisions of the grazing advisory boards,
we believe that while unnecessary, grazing boards with the narrow
duties specified by the Conference Committee will not significantly
interfere with or duplicate the duties of our present multiple-use
boards.
a
5. The withdrawal provisions of the House Act to which we previously
objected have been modified in two ways. The one-House veto has
been changed to a concurrent resolution disapproving the Secretary's
actions, and the time limitations and requirements for various actions
have been lengthened. For example: most withdrawals could be for
a term of twenty years rather than ten; emergency withdrawals would
last three years rather than one; the segragative effect of an
application would last for as long as two years rather than one;
and fifteen years would be provided for the withdrawal review instead
of ten. The requirements of the previous House Act with respect
to documentation which would have to accompany submission of a
withdrawal to the Congress for review have not been modified. However,
we believe that the increased time period during which the segrega-
tion would be in effect and the increase in the maximum term of a
withdrawal mitigate the administrative burden by those requirements.
6. Our objection to use of the term "reasonable costs" in the
House Act has been largely accomodated by specification in S. 507,
as enrolled, that "reasonable costs" include costs of environmental
impact statements. Additional language authorizes the Secretary to
take various factors into consideration in determining what costs
are "reasonable costs." Although this provision partly overlaps
and partly varies from other authorities and guidelines concerning
reimbursement of costs, we believe that, since it is discretionary,
it will not pose any major problems.
7. Our objection to the biennial reauthorization of appropriations
for Bureau programs in the House Act remains, in concept. However,
the provision has been modified to require quadrennial reauthori-
zation and thus is less objectionable administratively.
8. Our objections to a requirement in the right-of-way provisions
that certain State standards be met by right-of-way grantees have
not been accomodated.
3
Of the desirable provisions in the House Act which were not in the
Senate Act, all except the authority to sell or donate excess wild
horses and burros, are included in S. 507 as enrolled.
In view of the immediate need for the important and highly desirable
authority granted by S. 507 and the lack of any indication that an
Act entirely consistent with our views could be obtained in the near
future it is our view that approval of S. 507 would be in the public
interest.
S. 507 is basically consistent with the broad policy objectives
expressed in the Administration's preposed National Resource Lands
Management Act and contains most of the authority requested by the
Administration with respect to management of lands administered by
the Secretary through the Bureau of Land Management. Accordingly,
we recommend that the President approve the enrolled bill.
Sincerely yours,
I'm Secretary of the Interior
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D. C.
4
DEPARTMENT GRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20250
October 1 3, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Dear Mr. Lynn:
In response to the request of your office, here is our report on the
enrolled enactment S. 507, entitled "Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976."
The Department of Agriculture recommends that the President approve the
enactment.
S. 507 in Title I, "Short Title; Policies; Definitions" makes a declaration
of policy and provides definitions primarily applicable to lands adminis-
tered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management
(defined as public lands) with certain references to additional lands within
the National Forest System or to all Federal lands. Title II, "Land Use
Planning; Land Acquisition and Disposition", provides broad direction and
authority to the Secretary of the Interior with regard to administration
of public lands. It is applicable to the Secretary of Agriculture with
regard to acquisition and exchange authorities and includes revision of
the National Forest Townsite Act. Title III, "Administration", contains
the basic organic authority for the Bureau of Land Management. Title IV,
"Range Management" provides direction to both the Secretary of the
Interior and Secretary of Agriculture on grazing fees, leases and permits,
and advisory boards. Title V, "Rights-of-way" revises authorities for
granting rights-of-way across public lands and National Forest System
lands. Title VI, "Designated Management Areas" provides direction to
the Secretary of the Interior on the California Desert Conservation Area,
on the King Range, and on wilderness study. Finally, Title VII, "Effect
on Existing Rights; Repeal of Existing Laws; Severability", provides for
repeal of certain laws applicable to lands now administered by the Bureau
of Land Management and the Forest Service.
S. 507 sets forth a general policy declaring that the lands which are
now administered by the Bureau of Land Management are to be retained in
Federal ownership. It provides organic authority for management of
these lands by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land
Management. These aspects of the enactment are similar to the legisla-
tive proposal developed by the Secretary of the Interior. The enactment,
however, goes far beyond that proposal and prescribes detailed management
Honorable James T. Lynn
2
requirements. In particular, we note that the new provisions pertaining
to withdrawals appear to be unduly cumbersome. We also note that much
of the President's authority to set aside land is repealed. We defer
to the Secretary of the Interior for a detailed analysis of the with-
drawal and other management requirements which are applicable primarily
to the Department of the Interior. The enactment is also applicable
to, and modifies, a number of the authorities of the Secretary of
Agriculture relating to the administration of the National Forest System.
We will comment on these provisions.
Throughout the development of S. 507 we urged that the legislation only
apply to the Secretary of the Interior and lands administered by the
Bureau of Land Management because the Secretary of Agriculture has
comprehensive authorities for the administration of the National Forest
System. We were only partially successful in our efforts to limit the
scope of the legislation. As passed, S. 507 provides the Secretary of
Agriculture with new or modified authorities for land exchange, range
management, and rights-of-way, and revises the National Forest Townsite
Act.
Under section 206, the land exchange authorities of the Secretary of
Agriculture would be modified to require the equalization of values
by the payment of money to the grantor or the Secretary, so long as
payment does not exceed 25 per centum of the total value of the lands
transferred out of Federal ownership. This new authority may expedite
certain aspects of the exchange program. It will, however, also
result in some new costs since the Forest Service will be required
to make equalization payments in some cases.
Section 213 would revise the National Forest Townsite Act and have the
effect of making National Forest lands more available for townsites.
We would prefer to see this Act repealed rather than made more operative.
We have previously accommodated townsite needs through our exchange
program and would prefer to continue to use that approach in lieu of
sale.
Insofar as they affect this Department, the new authorities for range
management, which are contained in Title IV are similar to existing
policies. The range management provisions originated in the House
amendment to S. 507. We had major objections to the original amend-
ment. Most of these objections were eliminated by the Conference
Committee. S. 507 now provides for a 1-year grazing fee study. We
and the Department of the Interior had already indicated to Congress
a willingness to review our grazing fee structure. S. 507 also pro-
vides for 50 per centum of grazing fees to be placed in a range better-
ment fund. We do not believe this provision was necessary; however,
it may be useful as a mechanism to encourage increased permittee
participation in management programs. The provisions on grazing leases
and permits and grazing advisory boards were revised in the Conference
Honorable James T. Lynn
3
Committee to closely parallel existing policy and should not cause
significant changes in ongoing programs.
We believe the new rights-of-way authorities which are contained in
Title V of S. 507 are generally sound, and that common authorities for
both Secretaries in this area will facilitate interagency coordination
and public service. The only major provision in this title to which
we take strong exception is the requirement in subsection 505(a) (iii)
and (iv) that all rights-of-way comply with all State standards. This
provision may cause Federal-State conflicts. We would also like to
point out that there is an overlap in authority for the issuance of
rights-of-way between this enactment and existing authorities of the
Federal Power Commission which will require interagency consultation
in its implementation.
Based on our support for the enactment of organic authority for the
Bureau of Land Management and on our conclusion that the provisions
applicable to the National Forest System are not likely to create
any serious problems in administration, we recommend that the President
approve the enactment as representing a reasonable compromise between
the divergent House and Senate approaches to the legislation.
Sincerely,
John Acting John A. 1. Secretary Knebel Fuly
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Department of Justice
Washington, B.C. 20530
October 18, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This is in response to your request for the views
of the Department of Justice on enrolled bill S. 507, "To
establish public land policy; to establish guidelines for
its administration; to provide for the management, protec-
tion, development, and enhancement of the public lands;
and for other purposes."
The proposed legislation would provide what amounts
to a new organic act for the Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior, and also would affect the
administration of national forest lands. If approved, it
would govern the management, use and disposal of public
lands. In addition, it contains provisions relating to
special problems.
Although the bill's extensive and detailed
statutory criteria for the management, use and disposal
of the public lands would appear certain to engender
very extensive litigation seeking judicial review of the
administration of the new legislation, I do not antici-
pate that the enactment of the bill would have an adverse
effect on pending litigation.
However, five provisions in the bill are, in our
view, unconstitutional. Sections 202(e) (management
decisions), 203(c) (sales), 204(c) (withdrawals), 204(1)
(withdrawals), and 214(b) (sales related to unintentional
trespass) all provide that Congress may alter or overturn
a decision of the Executive branch by passing a concurrent
resolution.
- 2 -
These provisions are incompatible with the express
provision in the Constitution that a resolution having the
force and effect of law must be presented to the President,
and, if disapproved, repassed by a two-thirds majority in
the Senate and the House of Representatives. Art. I, §7.
They extend to the Congress the power to prohibit or alter
specific transactions or acts authorized by law without
changing the law--and without following the constitutional
process such a change would require. Moreover, they would
involve the Congress directly in the performance of Executive
functions in disregard of the fundamental principle of sepa-
ration of powers. Congress can, by duly adopted legislation,
authorize or prohibit such actions as the execution of sales,
but Congress cannot itself participate in the Executive
functions of deciding whether to enter into an executive
decision either directly or through the disapproval
procedures contemplated in this bill.
Nevertheless, whether or not executive approval
of this bill should be withheld is a question with respect
to which we defer to the agencies most directly concerned
with the subject matter of the bill. Obviously, if the
bill is otherwise unsatisfactory, the Congressional veto
provisions provide an additional reason for not approving
it. And if the President does sign the bill, he should
state, as he has in the past, that he considers the
provisions indicated to be unconstitutional.
Sincerely,
Michael M. Uhlmann
Assistant Attorney General
DEPARTMENT
OF
3RL
TREASURY
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY
THE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220
1789
OCT 18 1976
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
Washington, D. C. 20503
Attention: Assistant Director for Legislative
Reference
Sir:
This report responds to the request of your office for the
views of this Department on the enrolled enactment of S. 507, the
"Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. "
Under existing law, a portion of the Federal receipts from the
development of mineral resources on Federal lands is earmarked to the
State in which the Federal lands are located. Section 317(c) of the
enrolled enactment would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make
loans to States and political subdivisions in order to relieve social
or economic impacts occasioned by the development of mineral resources
on Federal lands. Such loans would bear interest at a rate not to exceed
3 percent and would be repayable from the earmarked receipts.
The proposal contained in section 317(c) is not in accord with
overall Administration Federal credit program policies. There is no
requirement that the prospective borrower demonstrate that credit is
not otherwise available on reasonable terms, which would help to
minimize demands for Federal credit assistance, and no requirement that
the Secretary of the Interior find reasonable assurance of repayment
prior to making any loan. Also, to adequately protect the Federal
interest, repayment should not be limited to the earmarked receipts,
but should be a general claim on the resources of the borrower.
The 3 percent interest rate is substantially below prevailing borrowing
rates, both public and private, and thus would not only result in a
significant interest rate subsidy, but would encourage demands for
Federal loans regardless of the need of the borrowers for the interest
rate subsidy. Moreover, the 3 percent rate would result in a variable
interest rate subsidy as market rates of interest vary, which would
result in inequities among borrowers using the program at different
times and lead to the greatest demands for Federal credit assistance
at the time of highest market rates of interest.
-2-
The Department has no independent knowledge of the need for the
programs in the enrolled enactment and no comment on other provisions
of the bill. However, based on the deficiencies in section 317(c),
we would support a recommendation that the enrolled enactment not be
approved by the President.
Sincerely yours,
General Counsel
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I am withholding my approval from S. 507, the "Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. "
The bill would provide comprehensive organic authority
to serve the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of
the Interior, in its role as the protector and manager of
some 450 million acres of public lands that are located
primarily in the Western States.
I fully support providing BLM with the authority it
should have to properly execute its responsibilities, and
my Administration submitted legislation to the 94th Congress
that would have served this objective. Unfortunately, the
enrolled bill contains serious constitutional and program-
matic deficiencies that I find unacceptable.
The bill would subject five distinct land management
actions proposed by the Secretary of the Interior, in one
case those reflecting a Presidential decision, to disapproval
by concurrent resolution of the Congress within a 90-day
review period. This would be contrary to the general principle
of separation of powers whereby Congress enacts laws but the
President and the agencies of government execute them. More-
over, it would violate Article I, section 7 of the Constitution
which requires that resolutions having the force of law be
sent to the President for his signature or veto.
In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to make loans at a three percent interest rate
to States and their political subdivisions in order to re-
lieve social or economic impacts occasioned by the development
of federally-owned minerals that are leased in such States.
In this regard, I fully supported the recent increase in the
States' share of Federal mineral leasing revenues because it
justifiably provided for assistance to communities affected
2
by the development of federally-owned minerals. However,
in my judgment, to further provide for loans with such a
heavily subsidized interest rate -- the U.S. Treasury
currently has to pay about seven percent or above in bor-
rowing money for comparable periods -- is inequitable and
contrary to the best interests of the general taxpayer.
I am genuinely sorry that the Congress refused to heed
numerous Administration recommendations which were designed
to create a balanced and workable bill. As recently as
August 27, 1976, Secretary Kleppe wrote the conferees con-
cerning the problems cited above and numerous other problems
in the bill -- some of which remain unsolved.
Unfortunately, the Congress did not adequately respond
to the Administration's concerns, and accordingly, I am
constrained to withhold my approval from the bill. However,
the Administration will resubmit to the 95th Congress proposed
legislation to provide new organic authority for BLM, and I
hope that the Congress will act on it without delay. In the
meantime, I will ask the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture to undertake the grazing fee studies called for
in this bill and to hold the 1977 grazing fees at current
levels until the studies are completed and forwarded to the
Congress.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
OCT 19 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill S. 507 - National Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976
Sponsors - Sen. Haskell (D) Colorado, Sen. Jackson
(D) Washington, and Sen. Metcalf (D) Montana
Last Day for Action
October 23, 1976 - Saturday
Purpose
Provides for the management, protection, and development
of the national resource lands, and for other purposes.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Memorandum
of Disapproval attached)
Department of the Treasury
Supports Disapproval
Department of Justice
Cites constitutional
concerns
Department of Commerce
No objection
Department of Defense
No objection
Federal Power Commission
No objection
Federal Energy Administration
No objection (Informally)
General Services Administration
No objection (Informally)
Department of the Interior
Approval
Department of Agriculture
Approval
Council on Environmental Quality
Approval
Environmental Protection Agency
Approval
Civil Service Commission
Approval
TORN STATE
Attached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: October 19
Time:
1000pm
FOR ACTION: George Humphreys sign CC (for information): Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf 5190
Ed Schmults
Bobbie Kilberg into
Steve McConahey
Robert Hartmann
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: October 20
Time: 100pm
SUBJECT:
S.507-National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnstng, ground floor west wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
K. R. COLE, JR.
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20230
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Attention: Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This is in response to your request for the views of this Department
concerning S. 507, an enrolled enactment
"To establish public land policy; to establish guidelines for
its administration; to provide for the management, protection,
development, and enhancement of the public lands; and for
other purposes."
This legislation, to be cited as the "Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976", provides an organic act for the Bureau of Land
Management, of the Department of the Interior. It repeals a large number
of outmoded public land laws developed over a long period of years and
replaces them with a modern statutory mandate for the BLM's management of
the public lands under its jurisdiction.
The Department of Commerce would not object to approval of S. 507
by the President.
Approval of this legislation would not increase the budgetary
requirements of this Department.
ANERICANA REVOLUTION INCENTENNAL
1776-1976
®
OF DEFENSY
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20301
STATE
AMERICA
01
18 October 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
Reference is made to your request to the Department of Defense for a
report on S. 507 of the 94th Congress, enrolled legislation cited as the
"Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. " Among other things
this legislation would establish public land policy; establish guide-
lines for its administration and provide for the management, protection,
development and enhancement of the public lands. By definition in the
legislation, "public lands" means any land or interest in land owned by
the United States within the several States and administered by the
Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without
regard to how the United States acquired ownership. Excepted from this
definition are lands on the Outer Continental Shelf and lands held for
the benefit of Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos.
Title I of the bill establishes the policy of the United States that
public lands generally will be retained in Federal ownership and that
the national interest will be best realized if the public lands and
their resources are periodically and systematically inventoried and
their present and future use is projected through a land use planning
process coordinated with other Federal and State planning efforts.
Public lands will be managed in a manner that will protect the quality
of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and
atmospheric, water resource and archeological values. Management is to
be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.
Title II provides for land use planning and land acquisition and dis-
posal. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and maintain
a continuing inventory of all public lands and resources, giving priority
to areas of critical environmental concern. Section 204 authorizes the
Secretary, with limitations, to make, modify, extend or revoke public
land withdrawals. New secretarial withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more in
the aggregate would be subject to disapproval by concurrent resolution
of both houses of Congress. This new withdrawal procedure would not
affect the present requirements of the Engle Act (P.L. 85-337) for
legislation for withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more for military purposes.
2
Title III provides for administration, with the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment having at its head a Director appointed to the position by the
President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Hunting and
fishing would be allowed, with certain limits, on Bureau of Land Manage-
ment and Forest Service Lands under State authorities. Certain enforce-
ment authorities are granted to the Bureau of Land Management, reasonable
filing and service charges are authorized, a working capital fund is
established for management of the public lands and a percentage of the
monies received from sales, bonuses, royalties of certain mineral
revenues authorized for payment to the State in which the deposit is
located for various dedicated purposes.
Title IV outlines terms and conditions for grazing leases and permits,
directs a joint Department of Agriculture/Interior study on the value of
grazing under their jurisdiction, directs the establishment of Grazing
Advisory Boards and amends the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 to allow
the use of helicopters in herd management.
Title V authorizes the granting of rights-of-way over, upon, under and
through the public lands and national forests under specified conditions.
Section 503 requires rights-of-way in common (Corridors) to minimize
adverse environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate rights-
of-way.
Title VI establishes the California Desert Conservation Area which would
be managed in accordance with multiple use principles, including mining.
Section 603 requires the Bureau of Land Management to review, within 15
years, roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more for wilderness designation
under specified conditions.
Title VII outlines the effects of this legislation on existing rights
and repeals a number of laws relating to homesteading, small tracts,
disposal and withdrawal.
Having reviewed the legislation in detail, the Department of Defense
perceives several possible problem areas in the administration of the
law and potential impact on the military use of public domain lands.
However, these are not of sufficient import for the Department to inter-
pose any objection to the signing of the bill by the President.
Sincerely,
Philma Richard A. Wiley a. miley
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426
S. 507 - 94th Congress
OCT 18 1976
Enrolled Bill
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
Washington, D. C. 20503
Attention: Miss Martha Ramsey
Legislative Reference Division
Room 7201
New Executive Office Building
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This letter is in response to Mr. Frey's Enrolled
Bill Request of October 12, 1976, requesting the Com-
mission's views and recommendations on S. 507, the
"Federal Land Policy and Management Act".
S. 507 is the culmination of efforts within the
Congress and the executive agencies during the last
six years to revise and modernize the vast body of
laws governing administration of public lands of the
United States. In this respect the measure implements
some of more general and basic recommendations of the
Public Land Law Review Commission, a statutory body
that conducted a six-year study in depth of the laws,
policies, and administrative practices governing the
use and disposal of Federal public lands. The report
of this body, dated June 20, 1970, and entitled, One
Third of the Nation's Land was submitted to the President
and the Congress.
The Federal Power Commission in various letters
to your office and the committees of Congress has dis-
cussed at some length the responsibilities and interests
of our agency in relation to public lands administered
by the Bureau of Land Management. Specifically, the
Commission referred to its functions under Part I,
REVOLUTION
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
1776-1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
- 2 -
Section 24 of the Federal Power Act with respect to
power site withdrawals and primary electric power
transmission lines. Sections 501 (a) (4) and 701(g) (4)
of S. 507 protect the Commission's jurisdiction from
any express or implied repeal or modification with
regard to these matters.
Section 501 (a) (4) provides that the Secretary of
the Interior, with respect to the public lands and,
the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to lands
within the National Forest System are authorized to
grant, issue, or renew rights-of-way over, upon, under
or through such lands for systems of generation, trans-
mission, and distribution of electric energy, except
that the applicant shall also comply with all applicable
requirements of the Federal Power Commission under the
Federal Power Act.
In a letter to the Chairman of House Interior
Subcommittee on Public Lands, the Commission expressed
concern that the provisions of this section of the bill
might be interpreted to require an FPC license applicant
for the construction and operation of power houses,
transmission lines, or other project works necessary
or convenient for the development, transmission, and
utilization of power across any part of the public
lands and reservations of the United States as required
under Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C.
797 (e), to obtain an additional license from the Secretary
of the Interior (for public lands) or the Secretary of
Agriculture (for national forest lands).
At present, under the mandate of the Federal Power
Act, Section 4(e), the comments and recommended conditions
on a permit are obtained from the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture prior to action by the Federal
Power- Commission. Section 4 (e) mandates that licenses
shall be issued only after a finding by the Commission
that the license will not interfere or be inconsistent
with the purpose for which a reservation of lands was
created or acquired, and shall be subject to and contain
such conditions as the Secretary of the Department under
whose supervision such reservation falls shall deem
necessary for the adequate protection and utilization
of such reservation.
Honorable James T. Lynn
- 3 -
Since the Federal Power Act already provides these
protections and the courts have interpreted Part I of
the Act as conferring upon the Federal Power Commission
broad responsibility for the comprehensive development
of the water resources of the Nation, First Iowa Coop. V.
FPC, 328 U.S. 152 (1945), the added requirement of a
separate right-of-way permit could result in unnecessary,
duplicative and time-consuming administrative procedures.
The Commission offers no objection to approval of
the enrolled bill.
Sincerely yours,
Chairman
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
October 14, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES M. FREY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ATTN:
Ms. Ramsey
SUBJECT: Enrolled Bill, S. 507, "To establish public land
policy; to establish guidelines for its adminis-
tration; to provide for the management, protection,
development, and enhancement of the public lands,
and for other purposes."
This is in response to your request for the Council's views
on the subject enrolled bill.
The Bureau of Land Management administers 450 million acres
of public lands. It has had to do so without clear authority,
relying on a myriad of conflicting, outdated statutes in
managing the largest portion of our public lands.
The enrolled bill would provide strong, clear, and environ-
mentally sound management authority to the BLM. The bill
would accomplish the following objectives:
(1) Provides policy direction to manage the public lands
according to the principles of multiple use and sus-
tained yield.
(2) Provides authority for BLM to enforce regulations
issued under the Act.
(3) Directs the BLM to prepare land use plans for the lands
it administers, using the principles of multiple use
and sustained yield and a systematic interdisciplinary
approach. Planning priority would be given to designating
and protecting areas of critical environmental concern.
To the extent possible, plans would be consistent with
State, local and tribal plans.
(4) Authorizes the Secretary of Interior to make low-
interest loans to states and local areas in anticipa-
tion of mineral development, with royalties from the
Mineral Leasing Act to be used for repayment.
2
(5) Directs the Secretary of Interior to undertake a
wilderness review of areas identified through the
inventory and planning process as having wilderness
potential.
(6) Repeals numerous outdated land laws enacted when the
policy of the government was to attract settlers to new
lands.
The Council on Environmental Quality has followed the develop-
ment of this legislation very closely and we are convinced
that the bill will provide the basis for sound stewardship
of BLM's National Resource Lands. I strongly recommend that
the President sign this bill into law.
Jan Acting John Busterud Bustend Chairman
UNITED
STATES.
AGENCY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROTECTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 15 1976
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This is in response to your October 12, 1976 request
for a report on S. 507, an enrolled bill "To establish public
land policy; to establish guidelines for its administration;
to provide for the management, protection, development, and
enhancement of the public lands; and for other purposes."
The bill contains seven titles. Title I contains
Congressional policy, including land management policy based
on planning, multiple-use sustained-yield principles, and
protection of natural and historical values.
Title II governs land use planning, and land acquisition
and disposition. The title requires the Secretary of the
Interior to inventory the public lands and their values and
develop appropriate land use plans. The title permits the
sale of public lands under specified conditions; the with-
drawal, or revocation of the same, of lands from use; and
the acquisition of lands. The Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to acquire access to National Forest lands. Both
Secretaries are also required to exchange public lands for
private if the public benefits thereby. The title also
provides for the conveyance of mineral rights to private
developers, and other administrative provisions.
Title III contains administrative provisions which,
among other things, govern the management of the public
lands, give the Secretary authority to enforce his regula-
tions governing the public lands, authorize fees, establish
a public lands management working capital fund, and authorize
the Secretary to establish advisory councils. Other pro-
visions of Title III cover the administration of the functions
necessary to carry out the Act.
2
Title IV governs range management, authorizing the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to establish
grazing fees, limiting the term of and imposing requirements
on grazing leases and permits, and establishing grazing
advisory boards for areas having 500,000 acres of grazing
land.
Under Title V the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture are authorized to grant rights-of-way, subject
to certain requirements, for specified purposes. The
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to construct timber
harvesting access roads under cost-sharing terms. Rights-of-
way are to be shared to the extent possible, and other
provisions governing rights of way are also contained in
Title V.
Title VI designates the California Desert as a
Conservation Area and provides special management require-
ments for that area intended to protect it. The Title also
provides for survey and investigation of the King Range
National Conservation Area, and directs the Secretary to
study qualifying areas for possible inclusion in the
Wilderness System, while assuring that during review no
unnecessary degradation occurs.
Title VII provides for the continuation of valid
existing land use rights and authorizations, withdrawals,
and certain other existing land use controls. The Title
also repeals present laws governing homesteading, disposals,
withdrawal, public lands administration, and rights-of-way.
The Environmental Protection Agency recommends that the
President sign the bill into law.
S. 507 is an up-dated, concise, balanced statement
of the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to
administer this Nation's public lands. The enrolled bill
repeals a great number of outmoded, often exploitation-
oriented older laws and substitutes for them one general
statement of authority. The bill is balanced in the sense
that the Secretary is required, in making decisions on the
use of land under his authority, to weigh such considerations
as multiple-use sustained-yield and the preservation of
environmental and esthetic values, as well as land use plans
prepared in advance with public participation.
3
While the bill contains no specific provision for
inter-agency review, we look forward to having an opportunity,
under the Quality of Life Review procedures and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, to comment on
regulations and land use plans as they are developed. The
bill's emphasis on land use planning, water quality, and other
aspects of environmental protection implies an EPA role,
given our responsibility for and knowledge of such matters.
Title II is of particular concern to us; its provisions
closely affect our areas of responsibility, especially water
quality control. For example, EPA will want to ensure that
the implementation of section 202 (c) (3), which protects
critical environmental areas, gives adequate attention to
such concerns as wetland protection and prevention of air
and water quality deterioration.
Similarly, we view required land use plans as subject
to NEPA review, giving us an opportunity to assist in assuring
protection of the environment.
Other provisions of the Act entail environmental review
owing to their possible effects, such as the rights-of-way
provisions of Title V. Generally, we recommend an EPA-
Interior interagency agreement such as that established on
January 5, 1976, for "Coordination of Bureau of Land Manage-
ment Planning with Planning Conducted Under Section 208 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(P.L. 92-500)' to supplement the standard review procedures
cited above and assure the inclusion of our knowledge and
experience in the implementation process.
Sincerely yours,
alimL. Alm
Russell E. Train
Administrator
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
UNITED
STATE
CIVIL
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20415
CHAIRMAN
October 19, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Attention: Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Dear Mr. Lynn:
This is in response to your request for the Commission's views on enrolled
S. 507, a bill "To establish public land policy; to establish guidelines for
its administration; to provide for the management, protection, development,
and enhancement of the public lands; and for other purposes."
This bill would establish overall Federal policy on land use planning, land
acquisition and disposition, land use, occupancy, and development, range
management, and rights-of-way. It would also repeal certain existing land
laws, such as homesteading rights in Alaska. The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Department of the Interior, would be responsible for administering
the policies proposed in the bill.
Our comments are limited to the personnel provisions of the bill. Section
301 (a) provides for a Director of BLM to be appointed by the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This provision is appropriate.
Section 301 (c) provides for an Associate Director of the Bureau and as many
Assistant Directors, and other employees, as may be necessary, to be appointed
by the Secretary (of Interior) subject to the provisions of title 5, United
States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and to be
paid in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 3 (this
should be written as subchapter III) of chapter 53 of such title relating
to classification and General Schedule pay rates. This provision is
appropriate.
We recommend that from the standpoint of the personnel provisions, the
President sign enrolled S. 507.
By direction of the Commission:
E TORD LIBRARY
Robert Chairman Sincerely Hampton yours,
* u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969-339-150
THE WHITE HOUSE
10
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: October 19
Time:
1000pm
FOR ACTION: George Humphreys
cc (for information): Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
Bobbie Kilberg
Steve McConahey
Robert Hartmann
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: October 20
Time: 100pm
SUBJECT:
S.507-National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
Recommend disapproval because of unconstitutionality of
provision allowing Congressional disapproval of certain
Executive branch actions by concurrent resolution.
Bobbie Kilberg 10/20/76
Ruby
MEMORANDUM
OF CALL
TO:
YOU WERE CALLED BY-
YOU WERE VISITED BY-
OF (Organization)
PHONE NO.
PLEASE CALL
CODE/EXT.
WILL CALL AGAIN
IS WAITING TO SEE YOU
RETURNED YOUR CALL
WISHES AN APPOINTMENT
MESSAGE
5.507-
\
RECEIVED
sen BY Add Dimenici Shepiet DATE TIME
STANDARD FORM 63
GPO : 1969-000
16 00341-1 632-350 63-108
REVISED AUGUST 1967
GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969-339-156
THE WHITE HOUSE
10
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: October 19
Time:
1000pm
FOR ACTION: George Humphreys
cc (for information): Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
Bobbie Kilberg
Steve McConahey
Robert Hartmann
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: October 20
Time: 100pm
SUBJECT:
S.507-National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
Recommend approval. Don Clausm &
has strong interest.
mep
sen. suppon Domenia a
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
Yf
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I am withholding my approval from S. 507, the "Federal
Land Policy Management Act of 1976.'
The bill would provide comprehensive organic author-
ity to serve the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Depart-
ment of the Interior, in its role as the protector and
manager of some 450 million acres of public lands that
are located primarily in the Western States.
I fully support providing BLM with the authority
it should have to properly execute its responsibilities,
and my Administration submitted legislation to the 94th
Congress that would have served this objective. Unfor-
tunately, the enrolled bill contains serious constitu-
tional and programmatic deficiencies that I find
unacceptable.
The bill would subject five distinct land manage-
ment actions proposed by the Secretary of the Interior,
in one case those reflecting a Presidential decision,
to disapproval by concurrent resolution of the Congress
within a 90-day review period. This would be contrary
to the general principle of separation of powers whereby
Congress enacts laws but the President and the agencies
of government execute them. Moreover, it would violate
Article I, section 7 of the Constitution which requires
that resolutions having the force of law be sent to the
President for his signature or veto.
2
In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to make loans at a 3 percent interest rate
to States and their political subdivisions in order to
relieve social or economic impacts occasioned by the
development of federally-owned minerals that are leased
in such States. In this regard, I fully supported the
recent increase in the States' share of Federal mineral
leasing revenues because it justifiably provided for
assistance to communities affected by the development
of federally-owned minerals. However, in my judgment,
to further provide for loans with such a heavily sub-
sidized interest rate - the U.S. Treasury currently has
to pay 7 percent or above in borrowing money for compara-
ble periods -- is inequitable and contrary to the best
interests of the general taxpayer.
I am genuinely sorry that the Congress refused to
heed numerous Administration recommendations which were
designed to create a balanced and workable bill. As
recently as August 27, 1976, Secretary Kleppe wrote the
conferees concerning the problems cited above and numerous
other problems in the bill -- some of which remain
unsolved.
Unfortunately, the Congress did not adequately respond
to the Administration's concerns, and accordingly, I am
constrained to withhold my approval from the bill. However,
the Administration will resubmit to the 95th Congress
3
proposed legislation to provide new organic authority
for BLM, and I hope that the Congress will act on it
without delay. In the meantime, I will ask the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to under-
take the grazing fee studies called for in this bill and
to hold the 1977 grazing fees at current levels until
the studies are completed and forwarded to the Congress.
THE WHITE HOUSE
October
, 1976
10/20/96 - 8:55 am
* u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969-339-156
THE WHITE HOUSE
10
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: October 19
Time:
1000pm
FOR ACTION: George Humphreys
cc (for information): Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
Bobbie Kilberg
Steve McConahey
Robert Hartmann
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: October 20
Time: 100pm
SUBJECT:
S.507-National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
10/20 - Copy sent for recearching nm
10/20 - Researched copy returned, nm
M veto
on
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
10/20/76- 8:55am
AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969-339-156
THE WHITE HOUSE
CTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: October 19
Time:
1000pm
FOR ACTION: George Humphreys
CC (for information): Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
Bobbie Kilberg
Robert Hartmann
toDJS
Steve McConahey
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
10/20 12:38
GAM
DUE: Date: October 20
Time: 100pm
SUBJECT:
S.507-National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please. return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
Jini Frey
referred
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
Oh
Nob
I am withholding my approval from S. 507, the "Federal
X
and
oh
Land Policy ^ Management Act of 1976. "
The bill would provide comprehensive organic author-
ity to serve the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Depart-
beck up attached.
ment of the Interior, in its role as the protector and
ok
manager of some 450 million acres of public lands that
are located primarily in the Western States.
I fully support providing BLM with the authority
it should have to properly execute its responsibilities,
beckup
and my Administration submitted legislation to the of 94th
Congress that would have served this objective. Unfor-
tunately, the enrolled bill contains serious constitu-
tional and programmatic deficiencies that I find
unacceptable.
of
The bill would subject five distinct land manage-
ment actions proposed by the Secretary of the Interior,
in one case those reflecting a Presidential decision,
to disapproval by concurrent resolution of the Congress
within a 90-day oh review period. This would be contrary
to the general principle of separation of powers whereby
Congress enacts laws but the President and the agencies
attached
of government execute them. Moreover, it would violate
backup
Article I, Oh section 7 of the Constitution which requires
that resolutions having the force of law be sent to the
President for his signature or veto.
2
In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior on to make loans at a 3 OK percent interest rate
to States and their political subdivisions in order to
Mugy
relieve social or economic impacts occasioned by the
development of federally-owned minerals that are leased
in such States. In this regard, I fully supported the
recent increase in the States' share of Federal mineral
leasing revenues because it justifiably provided for
qut 2045
assistance to communities affected by the development
of federally-owned minerals. However, in my judgment,
to further provide for loans with such a heavily sub-
David
sidized about interest rate --- the U.S. Treasury currently has
to pay 7 percent or above in borrowing money for compara-
X
ble periods -- is inequitable and contrary to the best
interests of the general taxpayer.
30yr,
I am genuinely sorry that the Congress refused to
ghown
heed numerous Administration recommendations which were
designed to create a balanced and workable bill. As
recently as August 27, 1976, Secretary Kleppe wrote the
44864
conferees concerning the problems cited above and numerous
other problems in the bill -- some of which remain
unsolved.
Unfortunately, the Congress did not adequately respond
to the Administration's concerns, and accordingly, I am
constrained to withhold my approval from the bill. However,
the Administration will resubmit to the 95th Congress
3
ok
proposed legislation to provide new organic authority
for BLM, and I hope that the Congress will act on it
without delay. In the meantime, I will ask the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to under-
take the grazing fee studies called for in this bill and
to hold the 1977 grazing fees at current levels until
the studies are completed and forwarded to the Congress.
THE WHITE HOUSE
October , 1976
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I am withholding my approval from S. 507, the "Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976."
The bill would provide comprehensive organic authority
to serve the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of
the Interior, in its role as the protector and manager of
some 450 million acres of public lands that are located
primarily in the Western States.
I fully support providing BLM with the authority it
should have to properly execute its responsibilities, and
my Administration submitted legislation to the 94th Congress
that would have served this objective. Unfortunately, the
enrolled bill contains serious constitutional and program-
matic deficiencies that I find unacceptable.
The bill would subject five distinct land management
actions proposed by the Secretary of the Interior, in one
case those reflecting a Presidential decision, to disapproval
by concurrent resolution of the Congress within a 90-day
review period. This would be contrary to the general principle
of separation of powers whereby Congress enacts laws but the
President and the agencies of government execute them. More-
over, it would violate Article I, section 7 of the Constitution
which requires that resolutions having the force of law be
sent to the President for his signature or veto.
In addition, the bill would authorise the Secretary of
the Interior to make loans at a three percent interest rate
to States and their political subdivisions in order to re-
lieve social or economic impacts occasioned by the development
of federally-owned minerals that are leased in such States.
In this regard, I fully supported the recent increase in the
States' share of Federal mineral leasing revenues because it
justifiably provided for assistance to communities affected
2
by the development of federally-owned minerals. However,
in my judgment, to further provide for loans with such a
heavily subsidized interest rate -- the U.S. Treasury
currently has to pay about seven percent or above in bor-
rowing money for comparable periods -- is inequitable and
contrary to the best interests of the general taxpayer.
I am genuinely sorry that the Congress refused to heed
numerous Administration recommendations which were designed
to create a balanced and workable bill. As recently as
August 27, 1976, Secretary Kleppe wrote the conferees con-
cerning the problems cited above and numerous other problems
in the bill -- some of which remain unsolved.
Unfortunately, the Congress did not adequately respond
to the Administration's concerns, and accordingly, I am
constrained to withhold my approval from the bill. However,
the Administration will resubmit to the 95th Congress proposed
legislation to provide new organic authority for BLM, and I
hope that the Congress will act on it without delay. In the
meantime, I will ask the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture to undertake the grasing fee studies called for
in this bill and to hold the 1977 grazing fees at current
levels until the studies are completed and forwarded to the
Congress.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 56d65a720cbc3ba6
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 1669713
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "1669713",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669713",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "1976/10/21 S507 National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (1)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669713",
"collections": [
"White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files",
"Legislation Case Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Environmental Protection Agency. 12/2/1970-",
"Legislation",
"Natural resources",
"Public lands"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/13/6697/1669713/content/library/document/0055/1669713.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/13/6697/1669713/content/library/document/0055/1669713.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/13/6697/1669713/content/library/document/0055/1669713.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "1669713",
"label": "1976/10/21 S507 National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (1)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669713"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "1669713",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669713",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "1976/10/21 S507 National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (1)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669713",
"collections": [
"White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files",
"Legislation Case Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Environmental Protection Agency. 12/2/1970-",
"Legislation",
"Natural resources",
"Public lands"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/13/6697/1669713/content/library/document/0055/1669713.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/13/6697/1669713/content/library/document/0055/1669713.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/13/6697/1669713/content/library/document/0055/1669713.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1669713",
"naId": 1669713,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1976-10-31",
"month": 10,
"year": 1976
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1976-10-01",
"month": 10,
"year": 1976
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/13/6697/1669713/content/library/document/0055/1669713.pdf",
"mediaId": "56d65a720cbc3ba6",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 68, folder \"10/21/76 S507 National Land Policy\nand Management Act of 1976 (1)\" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case\nFiles at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nExact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.\nAPPROVED\nDigitized from Box 68 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the 8/0/21/76 Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION\nWASHINGTON\nLast Day: October 23\nOctober 20, 1976\nposted 10/22/76\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON\nSUBJECT:\nS. 507 - National Land Policy and\nManagement Act of 1976\narchives 10/22/76\nAttached for your consideration is S. 507, sponsored by\nSenators Haskell, Jackson and Metcalf.\nThe enrolled bill provides for management, protection and\ndevelopment of the lands under the Bureau of Land Management,\nDepartment of the Interior.\nUnlike other Federal land management agencies such as the\nNational Park Service or the National Forest Service,\nthere is no single statutory statement of the Bureau's\nmission and authority. These must be gleaned from some\nthree thousand land laws which have been accumulated over\nsome 170 years. This piecemeal collection of laws is\ninadequate, incomplete, and sometimes conflicting.\nS. 507 conforms to the broad structure of the Administration's\nproposed BLM Organic Act and does correct most of the\nproblems associated with the lack of a single authority.\nOMB, in recommending veto, points out several problems:\n-- Legislative Encroachment - Congress could disapprove\nseveral Secretarial actions.\n-- Mineral Development Loans - Low interest Federal loans\ncould be made to States to relieve social and economic\nimpacts.\n-- Grazing - Grazing permits would be issued for 10\nyears, reducing management flexibility.\n-- rights-of-Way - States could hold a veto over Federal\nrights-of-way.\n-- Compliance with State Pollution Laws - Bill would\nrequire procedural as well as substantive compliance\n1.\nTOAD\nwith State air, water, noise and othr pollution\nstandards.\nLIBRARY\n2\nAgency Recommendations\nInterior and Agriculture both urge your approval, pointing\nout that the bill is generally consistent with Administration\npolicy, contains most of the authority we have requested,\nand is probably as good a bill as we can hope to get.\nThe Department of the Treasury would support disapproval\nof the bill. The Department of Justice cites constitutional\nconcerns but defers to agencies involved.\nOMB recommends disapproval. (See enrolled bill report at\nTab A)\nStaff Recommendations\nMax Friedersdorf recommends approval of the bill and\nstates: \"Don Clausen has strong interest. Sen. Domenici\nsupports bill\".\nCounsel's Office (Kilberg) recommends disapproval because\nof \"unconstitutionality of provision allowing Congressional\ndisapproval of certain Executive Branch actions by concurrent\nresolution.'\nRobert Hartmannn recommends veto on constitutional grounds.\nRecommendation\nI recommend that you approve S. 507.\nAlthough the legislative encroachment provision is\nconstitutionally troublesome, the bill is generally\nconsistent with your policies and has wide support from\nthe Western ranchers, environmentalists and the mining\ninterests.\nDecision\nSign S. 507 at Tab B.\nVeto S. 507 and sign Memorandum of Disapproval at Tab C\nwhich has been cleared by Doug Smith.\nTORD\nOF THE\nTHE\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nCREDE\nZRL\nUNITED\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nSERVIS\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nOCT 19 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Enrolled Bill S. 507 - National Land Policy and\nManagement Act of 1976\nSponsors - Sen. Haskell (D) Colorado, Sen. Jackson\n(D) Washington, and Sen. Metcalf (D) Montana\nLast Day for Action\nOctober 23, 1976 - Saturday\nPurpose\nProvides for the management, protection, and development\nof the national resource lands, and for other purposes.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nDisapproval (Memorandum\nof Disapproval, attached)\nDepartment of the Treasury\nSupports Disapproval\nDepartment of Justice\nCites constitutional\nconcerns\nDepartment of Commerce\nNo objection\nDepartment of Defense\nNo objection\nFederal Power Commission\nNo objection\nFederal Energy Administration\nNo objection (Informally)\nGeneral Services Administration\nNo objection (Informally)\nDepartment of the Interior\nApproval\nDepartment of Agriculture\nApproval\nCouncil on Environmental Quality\nApproval\nEnvironmental Protection Agency\nApproval\nCivil Service Commission\nApproval\nTORD LIBRANTY\n2\nBackground\nThe Bureau of Land Management (BLM) , Department of the Interior,\nhas extensive management responsibilities concerning\n(1) some 450 million acres of national resource lands\n(public domain) ; (2) additional millions of acres of lands\nthat have been withdrawn from the public domain; (3) all\nreserved mineral interests of the United States contained\nin over 800 million acres, and (4) certain special Federal\ntracts. However, unlike other Federal land management\nagencies such as the National Park Service or the National\nForest Service, there is no single statutory statement\nof the Bureau's mission and authority. These must be\ngleaned from some three thousand land laws which have\nbeen accumulated over some 170 years. This piecemeal\ncollection of laws is inadequate, incomplete, and some-\ntimes conflicting.\nSince 1971, legislation has been actively considered in\nCongress to provide an Organic Act for BLM. Over this\nperiod, both the previous and the present Administrations\nsubmitted legislation that would establish clearly enun-\nciated policies and provide comprehensive organic author-\nity under which all BLM lands could be managed. Under\nthe Administration proposal submitted to the Congress\nin 1975, the following basic authorities and principles\nwere set forth:\n-- that national resource lands shall be managed under\nprinciples of multiple use, sustained yield, and\nprotection of environmental quality;\n-- that the national interest will best be served by\nretaining these lands in Federal ownership;\nthat the Secretary of the Interior inventory and\nclassify the national resource lands and develop\ncomprehensive land use plans for such lands giving\npriority to lands in critical environmental areas;\nthat the Secretary have statutorily promulgated\npolicy to guide all his discretionary activities\nrelating to the national resource lands; and,\nthat a multitude of archaic land disposal laws be\nrepealed and more modern procedures be adopted for\nthe sale (at fair market value), acquisition, with-\ndrawal, and protection (including enforcement\nauthorities) of these lands.\n3\nAlthough S. 507 conforms to the broad structure of the\nAdministration's proposed BLM Organic Act, a number of\nundesirable features have also been incorporated into\nthe bill, as enrolled. The basic framework of the bill\nis set forth below and the significant objectionable\nprovisions are discussed thereafter.\nAs is the case of the Administration's proposal, S. 507\nwould provide for inventorying public lands, land use\nplanning, management under principles of multiple use\nand sustained yield, retention of public lands in Federal\nownership unless the public interest would be served by\ndisposal, land acquisition and disposal under certain\nguidelines consistent with land use plans, payment of\nfair market value for any lands sold, public involvement\nin various BLM decisions, coordination with State and\nlocal planning, law enforcement, wilderness area identifi-\ncation and review, recordation of mining claims, granting\nof rights-of-way under a comprehensive environmentally\nsound system, establishing a working capital fund for the\nmanagement of the public lands, and repeal of a number of\noutmoded disposal and right-of-way statutes. In addition,\nit would also set forth provisions on issuance, duration,\nand administration of grazing permits, require that a\ngrazing fee study be made and that grazing advisory boards\nbe created, establish a new procedure for granting, modi-\nfying and revoking withdrawals, and require that a study\nbe made of certain existing withdrawals.\nSeveral of the bill's provisions would be applicable to\nthe administration of the National Forest System. These\napply to land exchange, range management, and rights-of-\nway activities. In addition, the National Forest Town-\nsite Act would be amended to have the effect of making\nnational forest lands more available for townsites in\nthe West or Alaska.\nThe enrolled bill would authorize appropriations of (1) $20\nmillion for withdrawal reviews, (2) $3 million for the\nworking capital fund, and (3) $40 million for the develop-\nment and management of the California Desert Conservation\nArea. The enrolled bill would also authorize such sums as\nmay be necessary for carrying out the Act, and in this regard,\nthe Secretary would be required every four years to seek an\nappropriation reauthorization for all BLM programs effec-\ntive for fiscal year 1979.\n4\nAs noted above, this legislation has a long legislative\nhistory, and the Administration has undertaken extensive\nefforts to achieve a bill that is generally consistent\nwith its proposal. While the overall framework of the\nbill, as summarized above, does meet this test, there\nare a number of seriously objectionable features that\nhave been retained. Each is discussed below.\nLegislative Encroachment. By concurrent resolution,\nenacted within 90 days of congressional notification of\nthe proposed executive action, the Congress could dis-\napprove the five following Secretarial actions:\n-- the elimination of a principal land use (grazing;\nmining; forestry; etc.) for two or more years on\ntracts of 100,000 acres or more;\n-- the sale of public lands in excess of 2,500 acres;\nthe withdrawal from multiple-use status of public\nlands for a specific purpose on tracts of 5,000\nacres or more;\n-- the termination, in accordance with the recommenda-\ntions of the President, of existing withdrawals\nthat have been determined to be no longer valid;\nand,\n-- any decision to not honor a claim to public lands\nmade by a person who has exercised unintentional\ntrespass on such lands.\nAlthough the concurrent resolution mechanism has replaced\nan even more objectionable one-house veto from an earlier\nbill, we continue to view these legislative encroachment\nmeasures as seriously objectionable on constitutional\ngrounds. Moreover, they clearly impose substantial con-\nstraints upon the discretion of the Secretary to manage\nthe public lands.\nMineral Development Loans. The enrolled bill would authorize\nthe Secretary of the Interior to make loans to States\nand their political subdivisions in order to relieve social\nor economic impacts occasioned by the development of\nfederally-owned minerals that are leased in such States.\nun\n5\nThe bill would require the Secretary to allocate the loans\namong the States in a fair and equitable manner, giving\npriority to the areas suffering the most severe impacts.\nThe loans would bear an interest rate of 3 percent and\nwould be limited to the amount of the anticipated mineral\nrevenues to be received by the State over a 10-year period,\nexcept that in the case of Alaska the limit would be 55\npercent of its anticipated revenues. As you recall, the\nState share of these mineral revenues was recently increased\nfrom 37 1/2 percent to 50 percent under provisions of the\nFederal Coal Leasing Act. Such loans would be paid back\nfrom these mineral revenues.\nAlthough this provision can be viewed as simply an advance\npayment, the interest rate carries a heavy subsidy. In\nthis regard, the Administration position on impact assist-\nance has been that loan interest rates should be at not\nless than the Federal Treasury rate. This provision also\nlacks the customary safeguards associated with Federal loans\n(credit elsewhere test; reasonable assurance of repayment;\netc.).\nGrazing. The enrolled bill would stipulate that grazing\npermits be issued for 10-year terms except in limited cases.\nMoreover, grazing advisory boards would be authorized for the\npurpose of making recommendations for the development and\nutilization of public lands for livestock operations.\nThe 10-year term is a very arbitrary and inflexible require-\nment that reduces the Secretary's ability to properly\nmanage range lands. The grazing boards would very likely\nhave a single-use bias that would impair multiple-use\nmanagement of these lands.\nRights-of-way. Most provisions in this title of the bill\nare generally sound, but one provision would require that\neach right-of-way permit require compliance with all State\nstandards. This could lead to States holding a \"veto\"\npower over Federal rights-of-way, or at a minimum, con-\ntrol of rights-of-way in a manner that may not be in the\npublic interest.\nCompliance with State pollution law. S. 507 would require\nthat land use plans developed by the Secretary provide\nfor compliance with applicable pollution control laws,\nincluding State and Federal air, water, noise, or other\npollution standards or implementation plans.\n6\nUnder Executive Order 11752, Federal lands are now required\nto be in compliance with State, interstate, and local\nsubstantive requirements respecting control and abatement\nof pollution, but not the procedural requirements asso-\nciated with State standards and regulations. S. 507\nwould substantially broaden existing State authorities\nand responsibilities on Federal lands by requiring Federal\nland use plans to comply with procedural as well as sub-\nstantive requirements. This additional requirement is\nunduly burdensome with respect to existing Federal activ-\nities in public lands management and could be injurious\nto ongoing activities.\nThe Administration worked extensively with the Senate and\nHouse Interior Committees in an effort to produce an accept-\nable bill. In this regard, on August 27, 1976, Secretary\nKleppe wrote the conferees to reiterate the Administration's\nserious concerns with respect to this legislation. The\nSecretary noted, as had been done on several previous occa-\nsions, that enactment of the bill would not be in accord\nwith the President's program unless it was revised as recom-\nmended by the Administration.\nAgency Views\nThe two agencies that would be most affected by S. 507,\nInterior and Agriculture, both recommend approval based on\nthe assessment that the enrolled bill represents a reason-\nable compromise between divergent House and Senate approaches\nto the legislation. In its attached enrolled bill letter,\nInterior expresses the view that many of the Administration's\nconcerns have been adequately addressed, and the Depart-\nment concludes that:\n\"In view of the immediate need for the impor-\ntant and highly desirable authority granted\nby S. 507 and the lack of any indication that\nan Act entirely consistent with our views\ncould be obtained in the near future, it is\nour view that approval of S. 507 would be in\nthe public interest.\nS. 507 is basically consistent with the broad\npolicy objectives expressed in the Adminis-\ntration's proposed National Resource Lands\nManagement Act and contains most of the author-\nity requested by the Administration with respect\nto management of lands administered by the Secre-\ntary through the Bureau of Land Management.\"\nLIBRARY\n7\nJustice, in its attached enrolled bill letter, observes\nthat the bill contains legislative encroachment measures\nthat the Executive Branch has consistently opposed on\nconstitutional grounds. However, the Department generally\ndefers to Interior.\nOn the other hand, Treasury's enrolled bill letter sup-\nports a veto recommendation. Treasury is strongly opposed\nto the mineral development loans for essentially the\nsame reasons cited above.\nArguments for Approval\n-- The bill would place BLM on par with other natural\nresources agencies by providing a comprehensive\nstatement in law of the Bureau's mission and authority.\n-- It would eliminate the need for numerable private\nrelief bills by providing the Secretary with dis-\ncretion to sell Federal mineral interests under\nprescribed conditions.\n-- It would provide for the modern land management tools\nand procedures designed to facilitate optimal use\nof the public lands.\n-- The bill would provide for the repeal of many ancient,\nconflicting, and outmoded laws that are now a hin-\ndrance to the effective management of the public\nlands.\n-- The bill's provision for mineral development loans\ncould be beneficial in promoting energy production\nin the Western States.\n-- This legislation may be the best that can be expected\nfrom the Congress for some time, and a continuance\nof the status quo will further delay the full imple-\nmentation of contemporary management procedures.\nS. 507 has the support of ranchers, environmentalists,\nand the mining interests.\n8\nArguments against Approval\n-- Given that BLM has managed to do an acceptable job\nof managing the public lands under existing law,\nthere is no compelling reason to accept the bill's\nserious constitutional and programmatic deficien-\ncies simply in order to obtain new organic author-\nity for the Bureau.\n-- Disapproval would be consistent with your disapproval\nof several bills in recent months which have contained\nrelated legislative encroachments (one-house or one-\ncommittee vetoes).\nS. 507 goes far beyond the Administration proposal\nin terms of mandating detailed and cumbersome manage-\nment requirements, especially for withdrawals.\n-- Under the enrolled bill, there would be a significant,\nif not unprecedented, intrusion by the Congress into\nthe daily management of a natural resources agency.\n-- The heavily subsidized mineral development loans raise\nserious questions of equity when considered in the\ncontext of the recent 12 1/2 percent increase, to 50\npercent, in the States' share of mineral leasing receipts.\n-- The bill extends preferential rights to grazing inter-\nests and thus continues to favor this protected special\ninterest group.\n-- S. 507 establishes a very undesirable policy by requir-\ning that Federal actions (i.e., rights-of-way permits;\nland use plan pollution requirements) comply with\nState standards or procedures.\nConclusion\nWe believe the arguments against approval are stronger, and\naccordingly, we recommend disapproval. We have prepared\na Memorandum of Disapproval for your consideration.\nActing Director\nEnclosures\nOF THE INTERIOR\nUnited States Department of the Interior\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY\nMarch\n1849\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20240\n3,\nOCT 14 1976\nDear Mr June\nThis responds to your request for the views of this Department on\nS. 507, \"To establish public land policy; to establish guidelines\nfor its administration; to provide for the management, protection,\ndevelopment and enhancement of the public lands; and for other\npurposes.\"\nWe recommend that the President approve the enrolled bill.\nS. 507 provides for the inventorying of the public lands, land use\nplanning, management under principles of multiple use and sustained\nyield, retention of public lands in Federal ownership unless the public\ninterest would be served by disposal, land acquisition and disposal\nunder certain guidelines consistent with land use plans, payment\nof fair market value for any lands sold, public involvement, coordi-\nnation with State and local planning, law enforcement, wilderness\narea identification and review, recordation of mining claims, granting\nof rights-of-way under a comprehensive environmentally sound system,\nand repeal of a number of outmoded disposal and right-of-way\nstatutes. In addition, it contains provisions on issuance, duration,\nand administration of grazing authorizations, requires that a\ngrazing fee study be made and that grazing advisory boards be\nestablished, establishes a new procedure for granting, modifying\nand revoking withdrawals, requires that a study be made of certain\nexisting withdrawals, and establishes procedures for Congressional\nreview of some secretarial decisions with respect to disposals,\nimplementation of land use plans, and withdrawals.\nAlthough S. 507 includes several provisions similar to provisions to\nwhich this Department has consistently objected, it nevertheless\nprovides the major policy statements and authorities and includes\nthe repealers that we consider critical to the most effective\nmanagement of the public lands. The need for a comprehensive\nstatutory mission statement, management authority and tools and\nfor repeal of outmoded laws will grow even more crucial in the coming\nyears when these lands and their resources will be even more\nintensely sought for a myriad of competing uses.\nOF\nAMERICAN REVOLUTION RECENTENNAL\nLEVERIT\n7776-1976\n1. The one-House \"veto\" of various actions of the Secretary,\nprovided for in the House Act has been changed to a concurrent\nresolution. While we continue to object in principle, we\nbelieve that this change is less objectionable from a Constitu-\ntional point-of-view. If the Act becomes law, we will carefully\nevaluate the impact of the time delays on those administrative\nactions which we are required to send to Congress for their\noversite.\n2. The specific grazing fee formula in the House Act to which\nwe objected is not in S. 507, as enrolled. The requirement in\nS. 507, as enrolled for a study of the value of grazing on the\npublic lands, is consistent with a review of various fee\nformula alternatives now being conducted by the Department of\nAgriculture and the Department of the Interior.\n3. S. 507, as enrolled, includes the requirement that was contained\nin the House Act that grazing authorizations be issued for a term\nof ten years except in certain limited cases, and that two years'\nnotice be given a permittee prior to cancellation of a permit in\ncertain situation. However, new language has been added to these\nsections of the bill to make this requirement less objectionable.\nFor example, new language is included which states that these\nprovisions do not modify provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act or\nany other law, with respect to creation of any right to public lands\nby issuance of grazing permits. There are also provisions autho-\nrizing the Secretary to insert in grazing leases and permits terms\nand conditions he deems appropriate. Further, the authority of\nthe Secretary to cancel, suspend, or modify a grazing permit has\nbeen clarified.\nFinally, S. 507 as enrolled would not require the Secretary to\ninclude allotment management plans in any permit until they are\ncompleted or at the latest by October 1, 1988. This discretion\nwith respect to inclusion of allotment management plans is con-\nsistent with our present plans concerning development and inclusion\nof allotment management plans. It should be noted that the\nConference Report states that the grazing provisions will negate\na court order barring issuance of 10-year leases and permits until\nenvironmental impact statements have been prepared. The grazing\ntenure provisions that are included in S. 507, as enrolled, are\nstill somewhate confused and do not meet all of our objections.\nHowever, we believe that on balance, these provisions will not\ncreate problems sufficient to warrant disapproval of the Act by\nthe President.\n2\n4. With respect to the provisions of the grazing advisory boards,\nwe believe that while unnecessary, grazing boards with the narrow\nduties specified by the Conference Committee will not significantly\ninterfere with or duplicate the duties of our present multiple-use\nboards.\na\n5. The withdrawal provisions of the House Act to which we previously\nobjected have been modified in two ways. The one-House veto has\nbeen changed to a concurrent resolution disapproving the Secretary's\nactions, and the time limitations and requirements for various actions\nhave been lengthened. For example: most withdrawals could be for\na term of twenty years rather than ten; emergency withdrawals would\nlast three years rather than one; the segragative effect of an\napplication would last for as long as two years rather than one;\nand fifteen years would be provided for the withdrawal review instead\nof ten. The requirements of the previous House Act with respect\nto documentation which would have to accompany submission of a\nwithdrawal to the Congress for review have not been modified. However,\nwe believe that the increased time period during which the segrega-\ntion would be in effect and the increase in the maximum term of a\nwithdrawal mitigate the administrative burden by those requirements.\n6. Our objection to use of the term \"reasonable costs\" in the\nHouse Act has been largely accomodated by specification in S. 507,\nas enrolled, that \"reasonable costs\" include costs of environmental\nimpact statements. Additional language authorizes the Secretary to\ntake various factors into consideration in determining what costs\nare \"reasonable costs.\" Although this provision partly overlaps\nand partly varies from other authorities and guidelines concerning\nreimbursement of costs, we believe that, since it is discretionary,\nit will not pose any major problems.\n7. Our objection to the biennial reauthorization of appropriations\nfor Bureau programs in the House Act remains, in concept. However,\nthe provision has been modified to require quadrennial reauthori-\nzation and thus is less objectionable administratively.\n8. Our objections to a requirement in the right-of-way provisions\nthat certain State standards be met by right-of-way grantees have\nnot been accomodated.\n3\nOf the desirable provisions in the House Act which were not in the\nSenate Act, all except the authority to sell or donate excess wild\nhorses and burros, are included in S. 507 as enrolled.\nIn view of the immediate need for the important and highly desirable\nauthority granted by S. 507 and the lack of any indication that an\nAct entirely consistent with our views could be obtained in the near\nfuture it is our view that approval of S. 507 would be in the public\ninterest.\nS. 507 is basically consistent with the broad policy objectives\nexpressed in the Administration's preposed National Resource Lands\nManagement Act and contains most of the authority requested by the\nAdministration with respect to management of lands administered by\nthe Secretary through the Bureau of Land Management. Accordingly,\nwe recommend that the President approve the enrolled bill.\nSincerely yours,\nI'm Secretary of the Interior\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector\nOffice of Management and Budget\nWashington, D. C.\n4\nDEPARTMENT GRICULTURE\nDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\nOFFICE OF THE SECRETARY\nWASHINGTON. D. C. 20250\nOctober 1 3, 1976\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector, Office of Management\nand Budget\nDear Mr. Lynn:\nIn response to the request of your office, here is our report on the\nenrolled enactment S. 507, entitled \"Federal Land Policy and Management\nAct of 1976.\"\nThe Department of Agriculture recommends that the President approve the\nenactment.\nS. 507 in Title I, \"Short Title; Policies; Definitions\" makes a declaration\nof policy and provides definitions primarily applicable to lands adminis-\ntered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management\n(defined as public lands) with certain references to additional lands within\nthe National Forest System or to all Federal lands. Title II, \"Land Use\nPlanning; Land Acquisition and Disposition\", provides broad direction and\nauthority to the Secretary of the Interior with regard to administration\nof public lands. It is applicable to the Secretary of Agriculture with\nregard to acquisition and exchange authorities and includes revision of\nthe National Forest Townsite Act. Title III, \"Administration\", contains\nthe basic organic authority for the Bureau of Land Management. Title IV,\n\"Range Management\" provides direction to both the Secretary of the\nInterior and Secretary of Agriculture on grazing fees, leases and permits,\nand advisory boards. Title V, \"Rights-of-way\" revises authorities for\ngranting rights-of-way across public lands and National Forest System\nlands. Title VI, \"Designated Management Areas\" provides direction to\nthe Secretary of the Interior on the California Desert Conservation Area,\non the King Range, and on wilderness study. Finally, Title VII, \"Effect\non Existing Rights; Repeal of Existing Laws; Severability\", provides for\nrepeal of certain laws applicable to lands now administered by the Bureau\nof Land Management and the Forest Service.\nS. 507 sets forth a general policy declaring that the lands which are\nnow administered by the Bureau of Land Management are to be retained in\nFederal ownership. It provides organic authority for management of\nthese lands by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land\nManagement. These aspects of the enactment are similar to the legisla-\ntive proposal developed by the Secretary of the Interior. The enactment,\nhowever, goes far beyond that proposal and prescribes detailed management\nHonorable James T. Lynn\n2\nrequirements. In particular, we note that the new provisions pertaining\nto withdrawals appear to be unduly cumbersome. We also note that much\nof the President's authority to set aside land is repealed. We defer\nto the Secretary of the Interior for a detailed analysis of the with-\ndrawal and other management requirements which are applicable primarily\nto the Department of the Interior. The enactment is also applicable\nto, and modifies, a number of the authorities of the Secretary of\nAgriculture relating to the administration of the National Forest System.\nWe will comment on these provisions.\nThroughout the development of S. 507 we urged that the legislation only\napply to the Secretary of the Interior and lands administered by the\nBureau of Land Management because the Secretary of Agriculture has\ncomprehensive authorities for the administration of the National Forest\nSystem. We were only partially successful in our efforts to limit the\nscope of the legislation. As passed, S. 507 provides the Secretary of\nAgriculture with new or modified authorities for land exchange, range\nmanagement, and rights-of-way, and revises the National Forest Townsite\nAct.\nUnder section 206, the land exchange authorities of the Secretary of\nAgriculture would be modified to require the equalization of values\nby the payment of money to the grantor or the Secretary, so long as\npayment does not exceed 25 per centum of the total value of the lands\ntransferred out of Federal ownership. This new authority may expedite\ncertain aspects of the exchange program. It will, however, also\nresult in some new costs since the Forest Service will be required\nto make equalization payments in some cases.\nSection 213 would revise the National Forest Townsite Act and have the\neffect of making National Forest lands more available for townsites.\nWe would prefer to see this Act repealed rather than made more operative.\nWe have previously accommodated townsite needs through our exchange\nprogram and would prefer to continue to use that approach in lieu of\nsale.\nInsofar as they affect this Department, the new authorities for range\nmanagement, which are contained in Title IV are similar to existing\npolicies. The range management provisions originated in the House\namendment to S. 507. We had major objections to the original amend-\nment. Most of these objections were eliminated by the Conference\nCommittee. S. 507 now provides for a 1-year grazing fee study. We\nand the Department of the Interior had already indicated to Congress\na willingness to review our grazing fee structure. S. 507 also pro-\nvides for 50 per centum of grazing fees to be placed in a range better-\nment fund. We do not believe this provision was necessary; however,\nit may be useful as a mechanism to encourage increased permittee\nparticipation in management programs. The provisions on grazing leases\nand permits and grazing advisory boards were revised in the Conference\nHonorable James T. Lynn\n3\nCommittee to closely parallel existing policy and should not cause\nsignificant changes in ongoing programs.\nWe believe the new rights-of-way authorities which are contained in\nTitle V of S. 507 are generally sound, and that common authorities for\nboth Secretaries in this area will facilitate interagency coordination\nand public service. The only major provision in this title to which\nwe take strong exception is the requirement in subsection 505(a) (iii)\nand (iv) that all rights-of-way comply with all State standards. This\nprovision may cause Federal-State conflicts. We would also like to\npoint out that there is an overlap in authority for the issuance of\nrights-of-way between this enactment and existing authorities of the\nFederal Power Commission which will require interagency consultation\nin its implementation.\nBased on our support for the enactment of organic authority for the\nBureau of Land Management and on our conclusion that the provisions\napplicable to the National Forest System are not likely to create\nany serious problems in administration, we recommend that the President\napprove the enactment as representing a reasonable compromise between\nthe divergent House and Senate approaches to the legislation.\nSincerely,\nJohn Acting John A. 1. Secretary Knebel Fuly\nASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL\nLEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS\nDepartment of Justice\nWashington, B.C. 20530\nOctober 18, 1976\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector, Office of Management\nand Budget\nWashington, D. C. 20503\nDear Mr. Lynn:\nThis is in response to your request for the views\nof the Department of Justice on enrolled bill S. 507, \"To\nestablish public land policy; to establish guidelines for\nits administration; to provide for the management, protec-\ntion, development, and enhancement of the public lands;\nand for other purposes.\"\nThe proposed legislation would provide what amounts\nto a new organic act for the Bureau of Land Management,\nDepartment of the Interior, and also would affect the\nadministration of national forest lands. If approved, it\nwould govern the management, use and disposal of public\nlands. In addition, it contains provisions relating to\nspecial problems.\nAlthough the bill's extensive and detailed\nstatutory criteria for the management, use and disposal\nof the public lands would appear certain to engender\nvery extensive litigation seeking judicial review of the\nadministration of the new legislation, I do not antici-\npate that the enactment of the bill would have an adverse\neffect on pending litigation.\nHowever, five provisions in the bill are, in our\nview, unconstitutional. Sections 202(e) (management\ndecisions), 203(c) (sales), 204(c) (withdrawals), 204(1)\n(withdrawals), and 214(b) (sales related to unintentional\ntrespass) all provide that Congress may alter or overturn\na decision of the Executive branch by passing a concurrent\nresolution.\n- 2 -\nThese provisions are incompatible with the express\nprovision in the Constitution that a resolution having the\nforce and effect of law must be presented to the President,\nand, if disapproved, repassed by a two-thirds majority in\nthe Senate and the House of Representatives. Art. I, §7.\nThey extend to the Congress the power to prohibit or alter\nspecific transactions or acts authorized by law without\nchanging the law--and without following the constitutional\nprocess such a change would require. Moreover, they would\ninvolve the Congress directly in the performance of Executive\nfunctions in disregard of the fundamental principle of sepa-\nration of powers. Congress can, by duly adopted legislation,\nauthorize or prohibit such actions as the execution of sales,\nbut Congress cannot itself participate in the Executive\nfunctions of deciding whether to enter into an executive\ndecision either directly or through the disapproval\nprocedures contemplated in this bill.\nNevertheless, whether or not executive approval\nof this bill should be withheld is a question with respect\nto which we defer to the agencies most directly concerned\nwith the subject matter of the bill. Obviously, if the\nbill is otherwise unsatisfactory, the Congressional veto\nprovisions provide an additional reason for not approving\nit. And if the President does sign the bill, he should\nstate, as he has in the past, that he considers the\nprovisions indicated to be unconstitutional.\nSincerely,\nMichael M. Uhlmann\nAssistant Attorney General\nDEPARTMENT\nOF\n3RL\nTREASURY\nTHE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY\nTHE\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n1789\nOCT 18 1976\nDirector, Office of Management and Budget\nExecutive Office of the President\nWashington, D. C. 20503\nAttention: Assistant Director for Legislative\nReference\nSir:\nThis report responds to the request of your office for the\nviews of this Department on the enrolled enactment of S. 507, the\n\"Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. \"\nUnder existing law, a portion of the Federal receipts from the\ndevelopment of mineral resources on Federal lands is earmarked to the\nState in which the Federal lands are located. Section 317(c) of the\nenrolled enactment would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make\nloans to States and political subdivisions in order to relieve social\nor economic impacts occasioned by the development of mineral resources\non Federal lands. Such loans would bear interest at a rate not to exceed\n3 percent and would be repayable from the earmarked receipts.\nThe proposal contained in section 317(c) is not in accord with\noverall Administration Federal credit program policies. There is no\nrequirement that the prospective borrower demonstrate that credit is\nnot otherwise available on reasonable terms, which would help to\nminimize demands for Federal credit assistance, and no requirement that\nthe Secretary of the Interior find reasonable assurance of repayment\nprior to making any loan. Also, to adequately protect the Federal\ninterest, repayment should not be limited to the earmarked receipts,\nbut should be a general claim on the resources of the borrower.\nThe 3 percent interest rate is substantially below prevailing borrowing\nrates, both public and private, and thus would not only result in a\nsignificant interest rate subsidy, but would encourage demands for\nFederal loans regardless of the need of the borrowers for the interest\nrate subsidy. Moreover, the 3 percent rate would result in a variable\ninterest rate subsidy as market rates of interest vary, which would\nresult in inequities among borrowers using the program at different\ntimes and lead to the greatest demands for Federal credit assistance\nat the time of highest market rates of interest.\n-2-\nThe Department has no independent knowledge of the need for the\nprograms in the enrolled enactment and no comment on other provisions\nof the bill. However, based on the deficiencies in section 317(c),\nwe would support a recommendation that the enrolled enactment not be\napproved by the President.\nSincerely yours,\nGeneral Counsel\nMEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL\nI am withholding my approval from S. 507, the \"Federal\nLand Policy and Management Act of 1976. \"\nThe bill would provide comprehensive organic authority\nto serve the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of\nthe Interior, in its role as the protector and manager of\nsome 450 million acres of public lands that are located\nprimarily in the Western States.\nI fully support providing BLM with the authority it\nshould have to properly execute its responsibilities, and\nmy Administration submitted legislation to the 94th Congress\nthat would have served this objective. Unfortunately, the\nenrolled bill contains serious constitutional and program-\nmatic deficiencies that I find unacceptable.\nThe bill would subject five distinct land management\nactions proposed by the Secretary of the Interior, in one\ncase those reflecting a Presidential decision, to disapproval\nby concurrent resolution of the Congress within a 90-day\nreview period. This would be contrary to the general principle\nof separation of powers whereby Congress enacts laws but the\nPresident and the agencies of government execute them. More-\nover, it would violate Article I, section 7 of the Constitution\nwhich requires that resolutions having the force of law be\nsent to the President for his signature or veto.\nIn addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of\nthe Interior to make loans at a three percent interest rate\nto States and their political subdivisions in order to re-\nlieve social or economic impacts occasioned by the development\nof federally-owned minerals that are leased in such States.\nIn this regard, I fully supported the recent increase in the\nStates' share of Federal mineral leasing revenues because it\njustifiably provided for assistance to communities affected\n2\nby the development of federally-owned minerals. However,\nin my judgment, to further provide for loans with such a\nheavily subsidized interest rate -- the U.S. Treasury\ncurrently has to pay about seven percent or above in bor-\nrowing money for comparable periods -- is inequitable and\ncontrary to the best interests of the general taxpayer.\nI am genuinely sorry that the Congress refused to heed\nnumerous Administration recommendations which were designed\nto create a balanced and workable bill. As recently as\nAugust 27, 1976, Secretary Kleppe wrote the conferees con-\ncerning the problems cited above and numerous other problems\nin the bill -- some of which remain unsolved.\nUnfortunately, the Congress did not adequately respond\nto the Administration's concerns, and accordingly, I am\nconstrained to withhold my approval from the bill. However,\nthe Administration will resubmit to the 95th Congress proposed\nlegislation to provide new organic authority for BLM, and I\nhope that the Congress will act on it without delay. In the\nmeantime, I will ask the Secretaries of the Interior and\nAgriculture to undertake the grazing fee studies called for\nin this bill and to hold the 1977 grazing fees at current\nlevels until the studies are completed and forwarded to the\nCongress.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nSEALS\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20503\nOCT 19 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: Enrolled Bill S. 507 - National Land Policy and\nManagement Act of 1976\nSponsors - Sen. Haskell (D) Colorado, Sen. Jackson\n(D) Washington, and Sen. Metcalf (D) Montana\nLast Day for Action\nOctober 23, 1976 - Saturday\nPurpose\nProvides for the management, protection, and development\nof the national resource lands, and for other purposes.\nAgency Recommendations\nOffice of Management and Budget\nDisapproval (Memorandum\nof Disapproval attached)\nDepartment of the Treasury\nSupports Disapproval\nDepartment of Justice\nCites constitutional\nconcerns\nDepartment of Commerce\nNo objection\nDepartment of Defense\nNo objection\nFederal Power Commission\nNo objection\nFederal Energy Administration\nNo objection (Informally)\nGeneral Services Administration\nNo objection (Informally)\nDepartment of the Interior\nApproval\nDepartment of Agriculture\nApproval\nCouncil on Environmental Quality\nApproval\nEnvironmental Protection Agency\nApproval\nCivil Service Commission\nApproval\nTORN STATE\nAttached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate: October 19\nTime:\n1000pm\nFOR ACTION: George Humphreys sign CC (for information): Jack Marsh\nMax Friedersdorf 5190\nEd Schmults\nBobbie Kilberg into\nSteve McConahey\nRobert Hartmann\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date: October 20\nTime: 100pm\nSUBJECT:\nS.507-National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nplease return to judy johnstng, ground floor west wing\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nK. R. COLE, JR.\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFor the President\nDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nGENERAL COUNSEL OF THE\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nWashington, D.C. 20230\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector, Office of Management\nand Budget\nWashington, D. C. 20503\nAttention: Assistant Director for Legislative Reference\nDear Mr. Lynn:\nThis is in response to your request for the views of this Department\nconcerning S. 507, an enrolled enactment\n\"To establish public land policy; to establish guidelines for\nits administration; to provide for the management, protection,\ndevelopment, and enhancement of the public lands; and for\nother purposes.\"\nThis legislation, to be cited as the \"Federal Land Policy and\nManagement Act of 1976\", provides an organic act for the Bureau of Land\nManagement, of the Department of the Interior. It repeals a large number\nof outmoded public land laws developed over a long period of years and\nreplaces them with a modern statutory mandate for the BLM's management of\nthe public lands under its jurisdiction.\nThe Department of Commerce would not object to approval of S. 507\nby the President.\nApproval of this legislation would not increase the budgetary\nrequirements of this Department.\nANERICANA REVOLUTION INCENTENNAL\n1776-1976\n®\nOF DEFENSY\nGENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20301\nSTATE\nAMERICA\n01\n18 October 1976\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector, Office of Management\nand Budget\nWashington, D.C. 20503\nDear Mr. Lynn:\nReference is made to your request to the Department of Defense for a\nreport on S. 507 of the 94th Congress, enrolled legislation cited as the\n\"Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. \" Among other things\nthis legislation would establish public land policy; establish guide-\nlines for its administration and provide for the management, protection,\ndevelopment and enhancement of the public lands. By definition in the\nlegislation, \"public lands\" means any land or interest in land owned by\nthe United States within the several States and administered by the\nSecretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without\nregard to how the United States acquired ownership. Excepted from this\ndefinition are lands on the Outer Continental Shelf and lands held for\nthe benefit of Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos.\nTitle I of the bill establishes the policy of the United States that\npublic lands generally will be retained in Federal ownership and that\nthe national interest will be best realized if the public lands and\ntheir resources are periodically and systematically inventoried and\ntheir present and future use is projected through a land use planning\nprocess coordinated with other Federal and State planning efforts.\nPublic lands will be managed in a manner that will protect the quality\nof scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and\natmospheric, water resource and archeological values. Management is to\nbe on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.\nTitle II provides for land use planning and land acquisition and dis-\nposal. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and maintain\na continuing inventory of all public lands and resources, giving priority\nto areas of critical environmental concern. Section 204 authorizes the\nSecretary, with limitations, to make, modify, extend or revoke public\nland withdrawals. New secretarial withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more in\nthe aggregate would be subject to disapproval by concurrent resolution\nof both houses of Congress. This new withdrawal procedure would not\naffect the present requirements of the Engle Act (P.L. 85-337) for\nlegislation for withdrawals of 5,000 acres or more for military purposes.\n2\nTitle III provides for administration, with the Bureau of Land Manage-\nment having at its head a Director appointed to the position by the\nPresident subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Hunting and\nfishing would be allowed, with certain limits, on Bureau of Land Manage-\nment and Forest Service Lands under State authorities. Certain enforce-\nment authorities are granted to the Bureau of Land Management, reasonable\nfiling and service charges are authorized, a working capital fund is\nestablished for management of the public lands and a percentage of the\nmonies received from sales, bonuses, royalties of certain mineral\nrevenues authorized for payment to the State in which the deposit is\nlocated for various dedicated purposes.\nTitle IV outlines terms and conditions for grazing leases and permits,\ndirects a joint Department of Agriculture/Interior study on the value of\ngrazing under their jurisdiction, directs the establishment of Grazing\nAdvisory Boards and amends the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 to allow\nthe use of helicopters in herd management.\nTitle V authorizes the granting of rights-of-way over, upon, under and\nthrough the public lands and national forests under specified conditions.\nSection 503 requires rights-of-way in common (Corridors) to minimize\nadverse environmental impacts and the proliferation of separate rights-\nof-way.\nTitle VI establishes the California Desert Conservation Area which would\nbe managed in accordance with multiple use principles, including mining.\nSection 603 requires the Bureau of Land Management to review, within 15\nyears, roadless areas of 5,000 acres or more for wilderness designation\nunder specified conditions.\nTitle VII outlines the effects of this legislation on existing rights\nand repeals a number of laws relating to homesteading, small tracts,\ndisposal and withdrawal.\nHaving reviewed the legislation in detail, the Department of Defense\nperceives several possible problem areas in the administration of the\nlaw and potential impact on the military use of public domain lands.\nHowever, these are not of sufficient import for the Department to inter-\npose any objection to the signing of the bill by the President.\nSincerely,\nPhilma Richard A. Wiley a. miley\nFEDERAL POWER COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20426\nS. 507 - 94th Congress\nOCT 18 1976\nEnrolled Bill\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector, Office of Management and Budget\nExecutive Office of the President\nWashington, D. C. 20503\nAttention: Miss Martha Ramsey\nLegislative Reference Division\nRoom 7201\nNew Executive Office Building\nDear Mr. Lynn:\nThis letter is in response to Mr. Frey's Enrolled\nBill Request of October 12, 1976, requesting the Com-\nmission's views and recommendations on S. 507, the\n\"Federal Land Policy and Management Act\".\nS. 507 is the culmination of efforts within the\nCongress and the executive agencies during the last\nsix years to revise and modernize the vast body of\nlaws governing administration of public lands of the\nUnited States. In this respect the measure implements\nsome of more general and basic recommendations of the\nPublic Land Law Review Commission, a statutory body\nthat conducted a six-year study in depth of the laws,\npolicies, and administrative practices governing the\nuse and disposal of Federal public lands. The report\nof this body, dated June 20, 1970, and entitled, One\nThird of the Nation's Land was submitted to the President\nand the Congress.\nThe Federal Power Commission in various letters\nto your office and the committees of Congress has dis-\ncussed at some length the responsibilities and interests\nof our agency in relation to public lands administered\nby the Bureau of Land Management. Specifically, the\nCommission referred to its functions under Part I,\nREVOLUTION\nAMERICAN\nBICENTENNIAL\n1776-1976\nHonorable James T. Lynn\n- 2 -\nSection 24 of the Federal Power Act with respect to\npower site withdrawals and primary electric power\ntransmission lines. Sections 501 (a) (4) and 701(g) (4)\nof S. 507 protect the Commission's jurisdiction from\nany express or implied repeal or modification with\nregard to these matters.\nSection 501 (a) (4) provides that the Secretary of\nthe Interior, with respect to the public lands and,\nthe Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to lands\nwithin the National Forest System are authorized to\ngrant, issue, or renew rights-of-way over, upon, under\nor through such lands for systems of generation, trans-\nmission, and distribution of electric energy, except\nthat the applicant shall also comply with all applicable\nrequirements of the Federal Power Commission under the\nFederal Power Act.\nIn a letter to the Chairman of House Interior\nSubcommittee on Public Lands, the Commission expressed\nconcern that the provisions of this section of the bill\nmight be interpreted to require an FPC license applicant\nfor the construction and operation of power houses,\ntransmission lines, or other project works necessary\nor convenient for the development, transmission, and\nutilization of power across any part of the public\nlands and reservations of the United States as required\nunder Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C.\n797 (e), to obtain an additional license from the Secretary\nof the Interior (for public lands) or the Secretary of\nAgriculture (for national forest lands).\nAt present, under the mandate of the Federal Power\nAct, Section 4(e), the comments and recommended conditions\non a permit are obtained from the Secretaries of the\nInterior and Agriculture prior to action by the Federal\nPower- Commission. Section 4 (e) mandates that licenses\nshall be issued only after a finding by the Commission\nthat the license will not interfere or be inconsistent\nwith the purpose for which a reservation of lands was\ncreated or acquired, and shall be subject to and contain\nsuch conditions as the Secretary of the Department under\nwhose supervision such reservation falls shall deem\nnecessary for the adequate protection and utilization\nof such reservation.\nHonorable James T. Lynn\n- 3 -\nSince the Federal Power Act already provides these\nprotections and the courts have interpreted Part I of\nthe Act as conferring upon the Federal Power Commission\nbroad responsibility for the comprehensive development\nof the water resources of the Nation, First Iowa Coop. V.\nFPC, 328 U.S. 152 (1945), the added requirement of a\nseparate right-of-way permit could result in unnecessary,\nduplicative and time-consuming administrative procedures.\nThe Commission offers no objection to approval of\nthe enrolled bill.\nSincerely yours,\nChairman\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nCOUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY\n722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.\nWASHINGTON, D. C. 20006\nOctober 14, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMES M. FREY\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nATTN:\nMs. Ramsey\nSUBJECT: Enrolled Bill, S. 507, \"To establish public land\npolicy; to establish guidelines for its adminis-\ntration; to provide for the management, protection,\ndevelopment, and enhancement of the public lands,\nand for other purposes.\"\nThis is in response to your request for the Council's views\non the subject enrolled bill.\nThe Bureau of Land Management administers 450 million acres\nof public lands. It has had to do so without clear authority,\nrelying on a myriad of conflicting, outdated statutes in\nmanaging the largest portion of our public lands.\nThe enrolled bill would provide strong, clear, and environ-\nmentally sound management authority to the BLM. The bill\nwould accomplish the following objectives:\n(1) Provides policy direction to manage the public lands\naccording to the principles of multiple use and sus-\ntained yield.\n(2) Provides authority for BLM to enforce regulations\nissued under the Act.\n(3) Directs the BLM to prepare land use plans for the lands\nit administers, using the principles of multiple use\nand sustained yield and a systematic interdisciplinary\napproach. Planning priority would be given to designating\nand protecting areas of critical environmental concern.\nTo the extent possible, plans would be consistent with\nState, local and tribal plans.\n(4) Authorizes the Secretary of Interior to make low-\ninterest loans to states and local areas in anticipa-\ntion of mineral development, with royalties from the\nMineral Leasing Act to be used for repayment.\n2\n(5) Directs the Secretary of Interior to undertake a\nwilderness review of areas identified through the\ninventory and planning process as having wilderness\npotential.\n(6) Repeals numerous outdated land laws enacted when the\npolicy of the government was to attract settlers to new\nlands.\nThe Council on Environmental Quality has followed the develop-\nment of this legislation very closely and we are convinced\nthat the bill will provide the basis for sound stewardship\nof BLM's National Resource Lands. I strongly recommend that\nthe President sign this bill into law.\nJan Acting John Busterud Bustend Chairman\nUNITED\nSTATES.\nAGENCY\nUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY\nPROTECTION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20460\nOCT 15 1976\nOFFICE OF THE\nADMINISTRATOR\nDear Mr. Lynn:\nThis is in response to your October 12, 1976 request\nfor a report on S. 507, an enrolled bill \"To establish public\nland policy; to establish guidelines for its administration;\nto provide for the management, protection, development, and\nenhancement of the public lands; and for other purposes.\"\nThe bill contains seven titles. Title I contains\nCongressional policy, including land management policy based\non planning, multiple-use sustained-yield principles, and\nprotection of natural and historical values.\nTitle II governs land use planning, and land acquisition\nand disposition. The title requires the Secretary of the\nInterior to inventory the public lands and their values and\ndevelop appropriate land use plans. The title permits the\nsale of public lands under specified conditions; the with-\ndrawal, or revocation of the same, of lands from use; and\nthe acquisition of lands. The Secretary of Agriculture is\nauthorized to acquire access to National Forest lands. Both\nSecretaries are also required to exchange public lands for\nprivate if the public benefits thereby. The title also\nprovides for the conveyance of mineral rights to private\ndevelopers, and other administrative provisions.\nTitle III contains administrative provisions which,\namong other things, govern the management of the public\nlands, give the Secretary authority to enforce his regula-\ntions governing the public lands, authorize fees, establish\na public lands management working capital fund, and authorize\nthe Secretary to establish advisory councils. Other pro-\nvisions of Title III cover the administration of the functions\nnecessary to carry out the Act.\n2\nTitle IV governs range management, authorizing the\nSecretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to establish\ngrazing fees, limiting the term of and imposing requirements\non grazing leases and permits, and establishing grazing\nadvisory boards for areas having 500,000 acres of grazing\nland.\nUnder Title V the Secretaries of the Interior and\nAgriculture are authorized to grant rights-of-way, subject\nto certain requirements, for specified purposes. The\nSecretary of the Interior is authorized to construct timber\nharvesting access roads under cost-sharing terms. Rights-of-\nway are to be shared to the extent possible, and other\nprovisions governing rights of way are also contained in\nTitle V.\nTitle VI designates the California Desert as a\nConservation Area and provides special management require-\nments for that area intended to protect it. The Title also\nprovides for survey and investigation of the King Range\nNational Conservation Area, and directs the Secretary to\nstudy qualifying areas for possible inclusion in the\nWilderness System, while assuring that during review no\nunnecessary degradation occurs.\nTitle VII provides for the continuation of valid\nexisting land use rights and authorizations, withdrawals,\nand certain other existing land use controls. The Title\nalso repeals present laws governing homesteading, disposals,\nwithdrawal, public lands administration, and rights-of-way.\nThe Environmental Protection Agency recommends that the\nPresident sign the bill into law.\nS. 507 is an up-dated, concise, balanced statement\nof the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to\nadminister this Nation's public lands. The enrolled bill\nrepeals a great number of outmoded, often exploitation-\noriented older laws and substitutes for them one general\nstatement of authority. The bill is balanced in the sense\nthat the Secretary is required, in making decisions on the\nuse of land under his authority, to weigh such considerations\nas multiple-use sustained-yield and the preservation of\nenvironmental and esthetic values, as well as land use plans\nprepared in advance with public participation.\n3\nWhile the bill contains no specific provision for\ninter-agency review, we look forward to having an opportunity,\nunder the Quality of Life Review procedures and the National\nEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, to comment on\nregulations and land use plans as they are developed. The\nbill's emphasis on land use planning, water quality, and other\naspects of environmental protection implies an EPA role,\ngiven our responsibility for and knowledge of such matters.\nTitle II is of particular concern to us; its provisions\nclosely affect our areas of responsibility, especially water\nquality control. For example, EPA will want to ensure that\nthe implementation of section 202 (c) (3), which protects\ncritical environmental areas, gives adequate attention to\nsuch concerns as wetland protection and prevention of air\nand water quality deterioration.\nSimilarly, we view required land use plans as subject\nto NEPA review, giving us an opportunity to assist in assuring\nprotection of the environment.\nOther provisions of the Act entail environmental review\nowing to their possible effects, such as the rights-of-way\nprovisions of Title V. Generally, we recommend an EPA-\nInterior interagency agreement such as that established on\nJanuary 5, 1976, for \"Coordination of Bureau of Land Manage-\nment Planning with Planning Conducted Under Section 208 of\nthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972\n(P.L. 92-500)' to supplement the standard review procedures\ncited above and assure the inclusion of our knowledge and\nexperience in the implementation process.\nSincerely yours,\nalimL. Alm\nRussell E. Train\nAdministrator\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector\nOffice of Management and Budget\nWashington, D.C. 20503\nUNITED\nSTATE\nCIVIL\nUNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20415\nCHAIRMAN\nOctober 19, 1976\nHonorable James T. Lynn\nDirector\nOffice of Management and Budget\nWashington, D.C. 20503\nAttention: Assistant Director for\nLegislative Reference\nDear Mr. Lynn:\nThis is in response to your request for the Commission's views on enrolled\nS. 507, a bill \"To establish public land policy; to establish guidelines for\nits administration; to provide for the management, protection, development,\nand enhancement of the public lands; and for other purposes.\"\nThis bill would establish overall Federal policy on land use planning, land\nacquisition and disposition, land use, occupancy, and development, range\nmanagement, and rights-of-way. It would also repeal certain existing land\nlaws, such as homesteading rights in Alaska. The Bureau of Land Management\n(BLM), Department of the Interior, would be responsible for administering\nthe policies proposed in the bill.\nOur comments are limited to the personnel provisions of the bill. Section\n301 (a) provides for a Director of BLM to be appointed by the President, by\nand with the advice and consent of the Senate. This provision is appropriate.\nSection 301 (c) provides for an Associate Director of the Bureau and as many\nAssistant Directors, and other employees, as may be necessary, to be appointed\nby the Secretary (of Interior) subject to the provisions of title 5, United\nStates Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and to be\npaid in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 3 (this\nshould be written as subchapter III) of chapter 53 of such title relating\nto classification and General Schedule pay rates. This provision is\nappropriate.\nWe recommend that from the standpoint of the personnel provisions, the\nPresident sign enrolled S. 507.\nBy direction of the Commission:\nE TORD LIBRARY\nRobert Chairman Sincerely Hampton yours,\n* u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969-339-150\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\n10\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate: October 19\nTime:\n1000pm\nFOR ACTION: George Humphreys\ncc (for information): Jack Marsh\nMax Friedersdorf\nEd Schmults\nBobbie Kilberg\nSteve McConahey\nRobert Hartmann\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date: October 20\nTime: 100pm\nSUBJECT:\nS.507-National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nplease return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing\nRecommend disapproval because of unconstitutionality of\nprovision allowing Congressional disapproval of certain\nExecutive branch actions by concurrent resolution.\nBobbie Kilberg 10/20/76\nRuby\nMEMORANDUM\nOF CALL\nTO:\nYOU WERE CALLED BY-\nYOU WERE VISITED BY-\nOF (Organization)\nPHONE NO.\nPLEASE CALL\nCODE/EXT.\nWILL CALL AGAIN\nIS WAITING TO SEE YOU\nRETURNED YOUR CALL\nWISHES AN APPOINTMENT\nMESSAGE\n5.507-\n\\\nRECEIVED\nsen BY Add Dimenici Shepiet DATE TIME\nSTANDARD FORM 63\nGPO : 1969-000\n16 00341-1 632-350 63-108\nREVISED AUGUST 1967\nGSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6\n* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969-339-156\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\n10\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate: October 19\nTime:\n1000pm\nFOR ACTION: George Humphreys\ncc (for information): Jack Marsh\nMax Friedersdorf\nEd Schmults\nBobbie Kilberg\nSteve McConahey\nRobert Hartmann\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date: October 20\nTime: 100pm\nSUBJECT:\nS.507-National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nplease return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing\nRecommend approval. Don Clausm &\nhas strong interest.\nmep\nsen. suppon Domenia a\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nYf\nMEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL\nI am withholding my approval from S. 507, the \"Federal\nLand Policy Management Act of 1976.'\nThe bill would provide comprehensive organic author-\nity to serve the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Depart-\nment of the Interior, in its role as the protector and\nmanager of some 450 million acres of public lands that\nare located primarily in the Western States.\nI fully support providing BLM with the authority\nit should have to properly execute its responsibilities,\nand my Administration submitted legislation to the 94th\nCongress that would have served this objective. Unfor-\ntunately, the enrolled bill contains serious constitu-\ntional and programmatic deficiencies that I find\nunacceptable.\nThe bill would subject five distinct land manage-\nment actions proposed by the Secretary of the Interior,\nin one case those reflecting a Presidential decision,\nto disapproval by concurrent resolution of the Congress\nwithin a 90-day review period. This would be contrary\nto the general principle of separation of powers whereby\nCongress enacts laws but the President and the agencies\nof government execute them. Moreover, it would violate\nArticle I, section 7 of the Constitution which requires\nthat resolutions having the force of law be sent to the\nPresident for his signature or veto.\n2\nIn addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of\nthe Interior to make loans at a 3 percent interest rate\nto States and their political subdivisions in order to\nrelieve social or economic impacts occasioned by the\ndevelopment of federally-owned minerals that are leased\nin such States. In this regard, I fully supported the\nrecent increase in the States' share of Federal mineral\nleasing revenues because it justifiably provided for\nassistance to communities affected by the development\nof federally-owned minerals. However, in my judgment,\nto further provide for loans with such a heavily sub-\nsidized interest rate - the U.S. Treasury currently has\nto pay 7 percent or above in borrowing money for compara-\nble periods -- is inequitable and contrary to the best\ninterests of the general taxpayer.\nI am genuinely sorry that the Congress refused to\nheed numerous Administration recommendations which were\ndesigned to create a balanced and workable bill. As\nrecently as August 27, 1976, Secretary Kleppe wrote the\nconferees concerning the problems cited above and numerous\nother problems in the bill -- some of which remain\nunsolved.\nUnfortunately, the Congress did not adequately respond\nto the Administration's concerns, and accordingly, I am\nconstrained to withhold my approval from the bill. However,\nthe Administration will resubmit to the 95th Congress\n3\nproposed legislation to provide new organic authority\nfor BLM, and I hope that the Congress will act on it\nwithout delay. In the meantime, I will ask the\nSecretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to under-\ntake the grazing fee studies called for in this bill and\nto hold the 1977 grazing fees at current levels until\nthe studies are completed and forwarded to the Congress.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOctober\n, 1976\n10/20/96 - 8:55 am\n* u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969-339-156\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\n10\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate: October 19\nTime:\n1000pm\nFOR ACTION: George Humphreys\ncc (for information): Jack Marsh\nMax Friedersdorf\nEd Schmults\nBobbie Kilberg\nSteve McConahey\nRobert Hartmann\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date: October 20\nTime: 100pm\nSUBJECT:\nS.507-National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nplease return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing\n10/20 - Copy sent for recearching nm\n10/20 - Researched copy returned, nm\nM veto\non\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\n10/20/76- 8:55am\nAU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969-339-156\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nCTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate: October 19\nTime:\n1000pm\nFOR ACTION: George Humphreys\nCC (for information): Jack Marsh\nMax Friedersdorf\nEd Schmults\nBobbie Kilberg\nRobert Hartmann\ntoDJS\nSteve McConahey\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\n10/20 12:38\nGAM\nDUE: Date: October 20\nTime: 100pm\nSUBJECT:\nS.507-National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nX\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nplease. return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.\nJini Frey\nreferred\nMEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL\nOh\nNob\nI am withholding my approval from S. 507, the \"Federal\nX\nand\noh\nLand Policy ^ Management Act of 1976. \"\nThe bill would provide comprehensive organic author-\nity to serve the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Depart-\nbeck up attached.\nment of the Interior, in its role as the protector and\nok\nmanager of some 450 million acres of public lands that\nare located primarily in the Western States.\nI fully support providing BLM with the authority\nit should have to properly execute its responsibilities,\nbeckup\nand my Administration submitted legislation to the of 94th\nCongress that would have served this objective. Unfor-\ntunately, the enrolled bill contains serious constitu-\ntional and programmatic deficiencies that I find\nunacceptable.\nof\nThe bill would subject five distinct land manage-\nment actions proposed by the Secretary of the Interior,\nin one case those reflecting a Presidential decision,\nto disapproval by concurrent resolution of the Congress\nwithin a 90-day oh review period. This would be contrary\nto the general principle of separation of powers whereby\nCongress enacts laws but the President and the agencies\nattached\nof government execute them. Moreover, it would violate\nbackup\nArticle I, Oh section 7 of the Constitution which requires\nthat resolutions having the force of law be sent to the\nPresident for his signature or veto.\n2\nIn addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of\nthe Interior on to make loans at a 3 OK percent interest rate\nto States and their political subdivisions in order to\nMugy\nrelieve social or economic impacts occasioned by the\ndevelopment of federally-owned minerals that are leased\nin such States. In this regard, I fully supported the\nrecent increase in the States' share of Federal mineral\nleasing revenues because it justifiably provided for\nqut 2045\nassistance to communities affected by the development\nof federally-owned minerals. However, in my judgment,\nto further provide for loans with such a heavily sub-\nDavid\nsidized about interest rate --- the U.S. Treasury currently has\nto pay 7 percent or above in borrowing money for compara-\nX\nble periods -- is inequitable and contrary to the best\ninterests of the general taxpayer.\n30yr,\nI am genuinely sorry that the Congress refused to\nghown\nheed numerous Administration recommendations which were\ndesigned to create a balanced and workable bill. As\nrecently as August 27, 1976, Secretary Kleppe wrote the\n44864\nconferees concerning the problems cited above and numerous\nother problems in the bill -- some of which remain\nunsolved.\nUnfortunately, the Congress did not adequately respond\nto the Administration's concerns, and accordingly, I am\nconstrained to withhold my approval from the bill. However,\nthe Administration will resubmit to the 95th Congress\n3\nok\nproposed legislation to provide new organic authority\nfor BLM, and I hope that the Congress will act on it\nwithout delay. In the meantime, I will ask the\nSecretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to under-\ntake the grazing fee studies called for in this bill and\nto hold the 1977 grazing fees at current levels until\nthe studies are completed and forwarded to the Congress.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOctober , 1976\nMEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL\nI am withholding my approval from S. 507, the \"Federal\nLand Policy and Management Act of 1976.\"\nThe bill would provide comprehensive organic authority\nto serve the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of\nthe Interior, in its role as the protector and manager of\nsome 450 million acres of public lands that are located\nprimarily in the Western States.\nI fully support providing BLM with the authority it\nshould have to properly execute its responsibilities, and\nmy Administration submitted legislation to the 94th Congress\nthat would have served this objective. Unfortunately, the\nenrolled bill contains serious constitutional and program-\nmatic deficiencies that I find unacceptable.\nThe bill would subject five distinct land management\nactions proposed by the Secretary of the Interior, in one\ncase those reflecting a Presidential decision, to disapproval\nby concurrent resolution of the Congress within a 90-day\nreview period. This would be contrary to the general principle\nof separation of powers whereby Congress enacts laws but the\nPresident and the agencies of government execute them. More-\nover, it would violate Article I, section 7 of the Constitution\nwhich requires that resolutions having the force of law be\nsent to the President for his signature or veto.\nIn addition, the bill would authorise the Secretary of\nthe Interior to make loans at a three percent interest rate\nto States and their political subdivisions in order to re-\nlieve social or economic impacts occasioned by the development\nof federally-owned minerals that are leased in such States.\nIn this regard, I fully supported the recent increase in the\nStates' share of Federal mineral leasing revenues because it\njustifiably provided for assistance to communities affected\n2\nby the development of federally-owned minerals. However,\nin my judgment, to further provide for loans with such a\nheavily subsidized interest rate -- the U.S. Treasury\ncurrently has to pay about seven percent or above in bor-\nrowing money for comparable periods -- is inequitable and\ncontrary to the best interests of the general taxpayer.\nI am genuinely sorry that the Congress refused to heed\nnumerous Administration recommendations which were designed\nto create a balanced and workable bill. As recently as\nAugust 27, 1976, Secretary Kleppe wrote the conferees con-\ncerning the problems cited above and numerous other problems\nin the bill -- some of which remain unsolved.\nUnfortunately, the Congress did not adequately respond\nto the Administration's concerns, and accordingly, I am\nconstrained to withhold my approval from the bill. However,\nthe Administration will resubmit to the 95th Congress proposed\nlegislation to provide new organic authority for BLM, and I\nhope that the Congress will act on it without delay. In the\nmeantime, I will ask the Secretaries of the Interior and\nAgriculture to undertake the grasing fee studies called for\nin this bill and to hold the 1977 grazing fees at current\nlevels until the studies are completed and forwarded to the\nCongress.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,"
}