Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1977 - Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1996

(House Floor)
(Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; Regula (R), Ohio)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.R. 1977, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1996, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee.

The Administration is committed to balancing the Federal budget by FY 2005. The President's budget proposes to reduce discretionary spending for FY 1996 by $5 billion in outlays below the FY 1995 enacted level. The Administration supports reducing spending but does not share the priorities reflected in the Committee's mark or support the level of funding assumed by the Committee's 602(b) allocations.

For the reasons discussed below, the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget would recommend that the President veto the hill if it were presented to him in its current form.

Department of the Interior

While the Administration recognizes the funding constraints the House faces, the committee's proposed cuts in science and research, particularly for the National Biological Service (NBS) and the Bureau of Mines, would cripple effective operation of the land management agencies' programs that the Committee has tried to protect. The 35-percent reduction to the NBS request would devastate the research that has been conducted for years and supported land management decisions before the NBS was ever conceived. These reductions and eliminations would cause nationwide reductions-in-force and the closure of major research centers with unique expertise and capabilities. The ability of the land management agencies to make resource decisions on an objective scientific basis would be severely reduced.

Likewise, the Administration does not support the Committee's action that would underfund natural resource Protection and land management operations in the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service. Operating programs in these three bureaus would be reduced $174 million, or seven percent, below the President's request. Specifically, the Administration strongly objects to the severe, 3l-percent reduction of funding below the request for Endangered Species Act (ESA) activities — with no funding for species prelisting or listing. ESA consultation, prelisting, and recovery activities are preventative measures that help keep species off of the endangered or threatened species list so that local communities will not be negatively affected by the Act. Reducing the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to work with States, local communities, and private citizens at an early stage outside of the regulatory environment would simply cost more money and cause more economic, social, and environmental conflicts in the long run.

The Administration also objects to the Committee's decision to undo the 1994 California Desert Wilderness Act by transferring FY 1996 funding requested for the East Mojave National Preserve to the Bureau of Land Management and, therefore, not providing full funding for the Act's implementation. The Act established the largest addition to the National Park System since the passage of Alaskan parks legislation in 1978 and 1980, and placed these unique lands under the management of the National Park Service. The Committee's action would essentially rewrite the authorization bill enacted in the last Congress.

The Administration is strongly opposed to language provisions that would prohibit any new surveys on private lands and prohibit the use of volunteers. The National Biological Service has always followed State laws with respect to private property, and congressional direction to obtain written permission from the affected landowners to conduct new surveys. Furthermore, volunteers are necessary to conduct key migratory and game bird surveys, including the Breeding Bird Survey. Because States depend on these survey data to establish hunting regulations, the restriction on volunteers could threaten future hunting seasons.

The Administration is opposed to the appropriations language and funding restrictions that would discontinue the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecoregion Assessment Project. This comprehensive plan uses an innovative, multi-agency, coordinated approach to the management of public lands to improve salmon habitat, forest health, and multi-species protection within the Columbia River Basin. Failure to proceed with the plan would jeopardize the ability of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to maintain a sustainable flow of timber and the production of other goods and services generated by the forests in the affected area.

The Administration strongly opposes the reduction of funding for other economic and environmental activities in the Pacific Northwest. Reduced funding would decrease the Department of the Interior's ability to perform critical consultations with other land management agencies as well as with private landowners under the Endangered Species Act's "4(d) rule," which was proposed by the Administration to ease spotted owl taking prohibitions on private lands. The lower level of funding would also impair the ability of the Administration to meet its timber harvest goals under the rigorous criteria of the Forest Plan and maintain momentum with ongoing watershed analysis. The reduction in requested funding would also decrease the number of jobs associated with project work under the "Jobs in the Woods" program and the rate of recovery for impaired watersheds.

The Administration also opposes congressional add-ons for unrequested, low-priority items, such as the Water Resources Research Institutes, at the expense of higher-priority needs like the national parks and sound science.

The Outer Continental Shelf

The Administration strongly supports the Committee's decision to reinstate the long-standing legislative moratoria on oil and gas leasing and drilling on certain lands of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Maintaining these moratoria will protect the environment and economies of California, Florida, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and other coastal states. It will also aid Administration efforts to resolve disputes involving OCS policy and base that policy on sound science protecting America's sensitive coastal ecosystems.

Funding for Native American Programs

The Administration opposes the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) reductions proposed by the Committee. The President's request for BIA recommends $1.9 billion (nine percent over FY 1995) to fund critical education, law enforcement, health and safety, and other services on reservations. The proposed 12- percent reduction below the request would threaten or eliminate these services. The Administration urges the House to restore BIA funding to the President's requested level.

The Administration also opposes the Committee's proposed elimination of Indian Education programs and the Office of Indian Education within the Department of Education. Funds provided by this office serve the 90 percent of Indian children who attend public rather than BIA-funded schools. These programs provide academic and enrichment services that would otherwise be unavailable to Indian students.

For Indian Health Services (IHS), the Administration has proposed $1.8 billion for FY 1996, a $106 million (six percent) increase over FY 1995. The requested funding level would support staffing at new health facilities and allow expansions in women's and elderly health, child abuse, and urban Indian health care. The Committee mark would fund no expansions and would require the IHS and tribal health care programs to absorb $90 million in expected increases for current program activities. The Administration urges the House to restore IHS funding to the President's requested level.

Format Service (USDA)

The Administration supports the Committee's decision to increase funding for recreation and rangeland management, and maintain funding for forest health and fire management under state and Private Forestry. However, the reductions to trails and facilities construction would not allow the Forest Service to rehabilitate decaying infrastructure and would lead to further resource damage to National Forest lands. The elimination of funding for the Stewardship Incentives Program would cause a subsequent loss of leveraged funding from private landowners and States of $27 million. This would curtail the implementation of stewardship practices, such as reforestation and timber stand improvements, on thousands of acres of non-industrial private forestlands. The Administration urges the House to restore funds partially for these programs by reallocating funding provided above the requested level for timber sales management.

Department of Energy (DOE)

The Administration strongly opposes the 40-percent overall reduction in Energy Conservation programs, which would seriously disrupt several high-priority Administration initiatives. The 50-percent cut in the State Grants program would mean that 50,000 to 60,000 low-income homes would not be weatherized and that numerous State energy initiatives would not be funded through DOE block grants. The cuts in Energy Conservation research and development would Rake meeting climate change and greenhouse gas reduction goals difficult and would impair future improvements in the energy efficiency of buildings and the industrial sector. The 23-percent reduction to the request for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles would impede progress toward vehicle efficiency and emission reductions. These sectors hold great promise for efficiency improvements but are targeted for the largest reductions by the Committee mark.

The Administration's efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases would be further impeded by the Committee's action to eliminate funding for the extraction and use of coal-bed methane.

The Administration opposes funding the Clean coal Technology program at $140 million over the request, particularly at the expense of higher-priority needs like energy conservation. As part of Reinventing Government, the Administration has proposed no new starts for the clean coal program, and plans to terminate the program once ongoing projects are completed.

The Administration would oppose any amendment offered on the floor that would prohibit the sale or scoring of the sale of oil from the strategic Petroleum Reserve for the purpose of decommissioning Weeks Island.

AmeriCorps

The Administration objects to language included in the Committee bill that would prohibit the use of funds provided in the bill for AmeriCorps national service projects. Although it has been in existence for less than a year, the AmeriCorps program has had remarkable success in terms of providing national service opportunities, with an impressive return on investment for taxpayers. For example, at the Everglades-South Florida project, 110 AmeriCorps members have worked on 55 individual projects at four National Parks and six Fish and Wildlife units. Thirty of the 40 planned water monitoring stations have been installed, calibrated, and placed in operation, saving $250,000 annually. The House ls urged to delete this language from the bill.

Section 2477 of the Revised Statutes (RS 2477)

The Administration objects to the moratorium on implementing interior's final regulation to resolve RS 2477 disputes. This regulation would provide a process to resolve legal questions concerning rights-of-way on public lands. A moratorium would maintain the status quo and uncertainty about which rights-of-way represent valid claim.

Patent Moratorium

The Administration strongly supports continuing the moratorium on patenting mining claims on Federal lands. Patenting means privatizing valuable Federally-owned mineral deposits, with only minimal returns for taxpayers, and putting these deposits beyond the reach of any royalty payment to the Federal treasury. The Administration consequently opposes the Committee's action that would lift the current moratorium.

Cultural Agencies

The Administration opposes the drastic cuts in funding for the arts and humanities and museum services recommended by the Committee. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the Institute for Museum Services (IMS) play an important role in the preservation of American artistic and cultural heritage and expression. The NEA ensures that arts programs can be brought to a wider audience, including inner-city youth; major research and educational projects depend on support from the NEH; and the IMS provides critical resources to small and rural museums. In addition, these agencies have a positive impact on regional economies and in leveraging private funds for the Federal funds invested.

The Administration also objects to the Committee's reduction in funding for the Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art, and the Woodrow Wilson Center. The elimination of funding for the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian would result in construction delays and jeopardize the safety of many artifacts stored in substandard conditions. In addition, reductions in the funds for Repair and Restoration (27 percent for the Smithsonian and 44 percent for the National Gallery of Art) would exacerbate declining conditions in the Mall museums. For the Woodrow Wilson Center, a 39 percent reduction in requested funding would prolong the current inadequate space and facilities used by the Center in the Smithsonian Castle. The Administration urges the House to restore funding for these programs.