Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 4602 - Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1995

(House Rules)
(Sponsors: Obey (D), Wisconsin; Yates (D), Illinois)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's view on H.R. 4602, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1995, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee.

The Administration supports passage of H.R. 4602 and will work with the Congress to address the concerns described below.

President's Investment Initiatives

The Administration is pleased that the Committee bill would adequately fund many of the President's investment proposals for the Departments of the Interior and Energy, and the Forest Service. The Administration appreciates the Committee's efforts to provide funding above the FY 1994 enacted level for these important initiatives.

However, the Administration is concerned that the Committee bill would reduce funding for the Natural Resource Protection and Environmental Infrastructure initiative. This initiative funds high-priority programs for operations of the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service, and includes funding for the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan. The Administration appreciates the action taken to include bill language that would make increased funds available if the Administration's National Park fee proposal is adopted.

The Committee bill would reduce funding from the Administration's request for Energy conservation by $152 million. This reduction would have a significant negative effect on the Administration's Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The Administration urges the House to restore $27 million to fund important CCAP initiatives. This could be achieved by reducing lower priority items funded under the Fossil Energy Research and Development account.

Forest Service

The Administration is concerned that the Committee bill would reduce the President's request for forest road construction by more than one-fourth. This reduction could impede the Forest Service's ability to carry out its proposed timber program at a level of 4.3 billion board feet. Funding forest road construction at the Committee's recommended level would have the unintended effect of causing environmental damage, which would occur from the use of deteriorated roads or over-use of existing roads.

Interior

The Committee has not provided funding for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund because it is unauthorized. This program is a highly successful, cooperative program with Mexico and Canada, and it is an important contributor to the Administration's wetlands program. Secretary Babbitt has testified in support of pending reauthorization bills now before Congress. .The House is urged to provide funding for this program subject to later reauthorization.

Language is included in the Committee's report directing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service not to consummate land exchanges until the Appropriations Committees have had a 30-day period during which to examine proposed exchanges. BLM and the Forest Service process several hundred land exchanges a year. Given the workload involved, this requirement could prove to be exceedingly burdensome for all involved and could threaten high-priority exchange opportunities. The Administration will work with the Committee to establish appropriate criteria for submitting exchanges for Committee review.

National Endowment for the Arts

The Administration appreciates the support that the Committee has provided in continuing the present level of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Infringement on Executive Authority

There are several provisions in the Committee bill that require congressional approval before Executive Branch execution of aspects of the Bill. Examples within the Forest Service include transfer and reprogramming guidelines, restrictions on regional boundary modification, and appropriations restructuring. The Administration will interpret such provisos to require notification only, since any other interpretation would contradict the Supreme Court ruling in INS vs. Chadha.