Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5769 - Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1991

(House Floor)
(Sponsors: Whitten (D), Mississippi; Yates (D), Illinois)

The Administration supports the passage of appropriations bills that are consistent with the Bipartisan Budget Summit Agreement (except as modified for defense by the Conference Report accompanying H.Con.Res. 310). The President's senior advisers will recommend that the President veto any appropriations bill that is not substantially consistent with that Agreement. The purpose of this statement is to express views on H.R. 5769, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1991, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee.

The Administration urges the House to reduce funding in the bill to ensure that it meets the 302(b) reallocation. Using OMB scoring, the bill provides $113 million more than the 302(b) reallocation in discretionary budget authority and $23 million more in discretionary outlays.

The bill exceeds the President's request by $2.0 billion in discretionary budget authority and $0.7 billion in discretionary outlays. Significant increases over the President's request include $235 million for Interior Department construction, $237 million for Interior Department operating accounts, and $295 million for Indian health.

The Administration strongly opposes the extension and addition of continued legislative moratoria on oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The inclusion of new leasing moratoria in areas addressed by the President's June 26th OCS decisions is unnecessary and serves only to polarize the debate. The President's decisions resolve the near and mid-term concerns of leasing and development in controversial and sensitive areas.

Extension of legislative moratoria to include the ocs areas of high oil and gas potential off the Florida Panhandle, as well as the continued ban on drilling on existing leases in Bristol Bay off Alaska, are particularly onerous and inappropriate. Continuing and expanding "one-year" legislative moratoria are not acceptable means for resolving the concerns regarding OCS development. Moreover, legislative moratoria on preleasing activities raise major legal and procedural questions about what OCS activities would be allowable under the committee bill language. This could seriously disrupt the type of consultations and environmental assessment that the Committee has previously endorsed and that contribute to prudent, balanced decisions.

The Administration strongly objects to the omission of funding for the cost-share component of the President's tree planting initiative that was requested in the Forest Service's proposed America the Beautiful appropriation. The Administration endorses the $20 million added by the full Committee to the State and Private Forestry account for the Foundation component, but funding ($90 million) for the cost-share portion has not been provided. This funding would ensure substantial progress towards the President's goal of planting a billion trees per year, and the House is strongly urged to add it to the bill. With the levels currently approved in the Committee bill, we would fall far, far short of that number — with fewer than 30 million trees being planted.

The Administration strongly objects to bill language intended to prevent the transfer of technical responsibility for dam safety from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to the Bureau of Reclamation. This language is similar to report language accompanying the House-passed Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. There are serious and long-standing safety deficiencies at various BIA dams, and now lives are at stake. BIA has failed to correct the deficiencies, so the Administration must be permitted to take steps to do so before a tragedy occurs.

The Administration strongly objects to language that precludes use of appropriated funds for leasing oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Congress has recently passed legislation authorizing creative and cost-effective approaches to financing further fill of the SPR through negotiated agreements with major oil producers. This language would rule out the consideration of such an approach, which could have significant cost savings.

The Administration opposes the provision to extend permanent coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act to tribal contractors or their employees. The treatment of these contractors or their employees as employees of the Federal government would establish an adverse precedent. It is the Administration's view that the Federal government should not accept direct fiscal responsibility for professional negligence in the absence of an adequate opportunity to control and supervise professional conduct.

These and other concerns are discussed more fully in the attachment.

Attachment

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1991

MAJOR PROVISIONS OPPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION

A. Funding Levels

Department of the Interior

Interior Construction. The Administration objects to the funding level for construction in the House Committee's bill. The Committee mark is $235 million, or 97 percent, above the President's request for Interior's land management agencies and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Much of the additional funding is unnecessary and directed at low-priority projects not in the Department's backlog of needed health and safety projects. The additional construction projects are generally non-critical and can be postponed or foregone. New construction is a lower priority than providing quality operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of existing facilities.

Interior Operating Accounts. The Administration opposes increases over the President's request in various Interior operating accounts. The Committee mark increases funding for these accounts by $237 million, exclusive of $245 million that provides forward funding for BIA elementary and secondary schools. The additional funding is unnecessary. The need for fiscal restraint dictates that all Federal spending be limited to necessary Federal responsibilities.

Low-Priority Grants. The Administration opposes increased funding above the President's request for various lower priority grant programs. These include Land and Water Conservation Fund State grants ($47 million added), Abandoned Mine Land State grants ($33 million added), and Urban Park grants not funded by Congress since FY 1985 ($20 million added). Many of the purposes of these grants are admirable but are the responsibility of the private sector and/or State and local governments.

Palau Funding. The additional $21 million above the request for Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau) is unnecessary. This increase would undercut the efforts of the Department of the Interior to restrain uncontrolled spending by the last Trust Territory and far exceeds the Federal government's commitment to Palau. Interior continues its efforts to assist Palau in attempting to control local spending and achieve responsible management of funds. Past experience has shown Palau unable to handle large grants efficiently.

Indian Health Service

Overall Funding Level. The Administration objects to the excessive increase in funding for the Indian Health Service (IHS). The bill would provide $1,587 million, or a 23-percent increase above the President's request and a 27-percent increase above the FY 1990 enacted level. The President's Budget requested a three-percent increase over FY 1990, which takes into account inflation and the limitations of the IHS in managing its spending and accounting for its funds. The rapid funding increase that would be provided by the Committee bill would lead to a waste of funds as the agency struggles to find uses for new appropriations.

Commission of Fine Arts

National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Grant. The Administration objects to the appropriation of $6.3 million for general operating support on a noncompetitive grant basis to Washington, D.C., arts and cultural organizations. This funding is unnecessary as it duplicates existing Federal nationwide competitive grants.

Various Agencies

Pay and Administrative Support. The Committee bill fails to recognize potential savings in salaries and administrative support expenses. The Administration has serious concerns over the Committee's restoration in full of the cost of the January 1991 pay raise. Other appropriations bills have incorporated reasonable levels of pay absorption as a method of controlling spending. In addition, the committee rejected proposed savings made for administrative and staffing efficiency, which would have little or no effect on existing programs.

B. Language Provisions

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Moratoria. The Administration strongly objects to the extension and addition of continued legislative moratoria on oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and drilling on the OCS. The Committee recommends new leasing moratoria in areas addressed by the President's June 26th OCS decisions. This language is unnecessary and serves only to polarize the debate. The President's decisions resolve the near- and mid-term concerns of leasing and development in controversial and sensitive areas.

In addition, the Committee extends legislative preleasing and leasing moratoria to include the OCS areas of high oil and gas potential off the Florida Panhandle, as well as the continued ban on drilling on existing leases in Bristol Bay off Alaska. Continuing and expanding "one-year" legislative moratoria on preleasing activities raises major legal and procedural questions about what OCS activities would be allowable under the Committee bill language. This could seriously disrupt the type of consultations and environmental assessments that the Committee has previously endorsed and that contribute to prudent, balanced decisions.

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Management Improvement. The Administration strongly objects to the Committee's denial of funding and authority for several short-term corrective actions to address serious and long-standing management problems in the BIA. The requested measures include establishing an Office of Quality Assurance to oversee and monitor management weaknesses in BIA and other Interior bureaus, transferring technical responsibility for the safety of Indian dams to the Bureau of Reclamation, and providing additional resources for BIA to conduct needed internal program reviews and properly execute its fiduciary responsibility as trustee of $1.7 billion in Indian trust assets. The Administration must be provided flexibility to correct identified management weaknesses, especially those involving the safety of communities and millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Particularly objectionable is bill language intended to prevent the transfer of technical responsibility for dam safety from BIA to the Bureau of Reclamation. This language is similar to report language accompanying the House-passed Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. There are serious and long-standing safety deficiencies at various BIA dams, and now lives are at stake. BIA has failed to correct these deficiencies, so the Administration must be permitted to take steps before a tragedy occurs.

The Administration further objects, on constitutional and policy grounds, to bill language that attempts to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from implementing any reorganization related to the BIA without the approval of the Appropriations Committees. The Secretary of the Interior is charged with overseeing BIA annual spending of about $1.4 billion in discretionary appropriations and of about $500 million in permanent funds. The management of these substantial resources of the taxpayers and the Indian people requires the Executive Branch, specifically the Secretary of the Interior, to devise the most effective organizational arrangements possible. If attempts to improve management of Federal Indian programs are stymied by Congressional action, it will be impossible to move meaningfully toward the goal of Indian self-determination or to ensure proper stewardship of Federal funds. Moreover, because the language conditions exercise of authority vested in the Secretary by law on approval by the Appropriations Committees, it would be a legislative veto unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha. 462 U.S. 919 (1983).

Federal Tort Claims Act. The Administration opposes the provision to extend permanent coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act to tribal contractors or their employees. The treatment of these contractors or their employees as employees of the Federal government would establish an adverse precedent. It is the Administration's view that the Federal government should not accept direct fiscal responsibility for professional negligence in the absence of an adequate opportunity to control and supervise professional conduct.

Emergency Transfer Authority. The Administration opposes the failure of the Committee to provide emergency transfer authority for the Secretary of the Interior. The elimination of this authority would drastically curtail the Department's ability to address emergency situations that threaten public health and safety. There would be no way without this authority for Interior to respond to major natural disasters or fund fire suppression costs that exceed the amounts appropriated.

Helium Facility Sales. The Administration objects to bill language that would prohibit the sale of Federal helium processing facilities currently in operation. The language would block the Administration from carrying out the fiscally responsible plan of privatizing the nation's helium operations.

Report language that directs Interior's Bureau of Mines (BOM) to examine the development of a "state-of-the art helium facility" and to make improvements to the existing facilities is also objectionable. The Administration has developed a credible plan to phase out current helium operations and replace them with private sector activities. The Committee's language would impede this measure and suggests that millions of dollars be spent on an unnecessary state- of-the-art facility.

The Helium Act Amendments of 1960 ordered the BOM to encourage the private development of the helium market. The Bureau has been successful in doing so. The Federal government once provided 100 percent of the nation's refined helium. Today, it provides only about 15 percent of all the refined helium sold. Current studies reveal that "the private sector will have the crude and pure helium capacity available for BOM to close its helium production facilities beginning in 1991."

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Mineral Patents. The Administration objects to language preventing BLM from issuing mineral patents that transfer title of land to mining claimants who, having satisfied all statutory requirements, are otherwise entitled to a patent under the Mining Law of 1872. While the Administration agrees that various provisions of the mining law need to be reviewed, the provision in the bill appears to be an attempt to force changes in the underlying philosophy of mining on Federal lands. If enacted, this moratorium on patenting would be a piecemeal and inefficient attempt to reform Federal land management policy and procedures and would not solve the problems of concern to the Congress, the agencies, and the public.

Directed Scorekeeping. The Administration opposes Fish and Wildlife Service and Geological Survey language that would treat contributions from non- Federal sources for cooperative programs as intragovernmental funds. The Committee's action is contrary to established budgetary and accounting principles and as such sets a highly adverse precedent. The Administration opposes budgetary gimmicks that are intended to circumvent the controls of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law.

America the Beautiful Accounts. The Administration objects to the Committee's rejection of separate America the Beautiful accounts for Agriculture's Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. It does appear that many of the requested activities under the President's America the Beautiful initiative in Interior are funded in separate bureaus and several appropriation accounts. However, the lack of a single Interior and single Agriculture account would reduce both Government and public focus on the needs and accomplishments of the America the Beautiful programs.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) Oil Leasing. The Administration strongly objects to bill language that precludes the use of appropriated funds for leasing oil for the SPR. Congress has recently passed legislation authorizing creative and cost-effective approaches to financing further fill of the SPR through negotiated agreements with major oil producers. This language would rule out the consideration of such an approach, which could have significant cost savings.

Natural Gas Receipts. The Administration objects to bill language specifying that receipts from producing and selling natural gas are to be deposited in a spending account rather than credited, as proposed in the budget and as has been done in the past, to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Under the language, these receipts would be made available to the Department of Energy at its discretion and without the review of the normal appropriations process. This would discourage the efficient use of Federal funds because there would not be an effective check on the spending of these receipts.

Employment Floors. The Administration opposes language that would establish a new employment floor of 90 full-time Federal employees for the Department of Energy's clean Coal Technology Program. This would be in addition to the existing employment floor for fossil energy research and development. The Administration also opposes several bill and/or report language provisions that would require maintenance of specific staffing levels for Interior Department programs such as the Bureau of Mines; Office of Surface Mining (OSM) inspectors and troubleshooters; and the OSM Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, field office. Such provisions restrict the Departments from managing efficiently and often require excessive spending of administrative funds that are needed to carry out important program purposes.

Energy Conservation Earmark. The Administration objects to language that would earmark $1.25 million for a pilot Metal Casting Research Center at the University of Alabama. Legislation authorizing four such centers is currently in conference, but the centers would be selected competitively under provisions of that legislation. This proposed earmarking would thwart the intent of that legislation and prevent the Department of Energy from ensuring that funds go to the most qualified researchers.

Landsat Reimbursements. The Administration objects to report language disapproving further reimbursements from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Commerce for Landsat operations. While at least one Landsat satellite is expected to remain operational through 1991, flexibility is required to deal with the uncertainty in the operational life of these satellites. This includes the possibility of reimbursement from the user agencies, including the Department of the Interior.

Indian Health Service Micromanagement. The Administration strongly objects to bill language that would inhibit the performance of management responsibilities of the Indian Health Service (IHS). Language is included that would circumvent established rulemaking procedures by prohibiting the implementation of the September 16, 1987, final rule on eligibility for IHS health services. The Committee also includes highly objectionable language that would dictate the Executive Branch's apportionment and accounting formats.

Committee Approval Provisions. The Administration objects to bill language that purports to restrict the use of funds or to limit agency actions unless approval is granted by Congressional committees. Such provisions are unconstitutional (see INS v. Chadha. 462 U.S. 919 (1983)). In any event, the Executive Branch will continue to provide the Committee notification and consultation that interbranch comity requires in matters in which Congress has indicated such a special interest.

Employment Ceilings. The Administration opposes bill language to exempt programs funded by the bill from employment ceilings. The provision is objectionable because it would prevent effective and efficient management of agency programs and would promote wasteful spending.