Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5055 - Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1992

(House Rules)
(Tauzin (D) Louisiana and 5 others)

The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 5055 unless it is amended to delete:

— A committee amendment to divert $80 million during FYs 1993-1997 from the high priority Sports Fish Restoration program to expand the Coast Guard's existing Boat Safety program. The Sports Fish Restoration program enables States to improve fishing habitats and access on rivers and lakes. The Administration is on record as opposing any diversion of funds from the Sports Fish Restoration program.

— Section 109, which would arbitrarily limit competition in the procurement of buoy chain by the Coast Guard. This provision could both increase costs to the Coast Guard and invite retaliation by America's trading partners.

— The exemption for State Maritime Academy vessels from certain vessel inspection fees without an offset from the resulting reduction in receipts (Section 301).

— Provisions described in the Attachment that micromanage the Coast Guard in a manner that will unjustifiably increase costs.

Pay-As-You-Go Scoring

At least one provision of H.R. 5055 would also reduce receipts. Therefore, H.R. 5055 is subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990. No offsets to the revenue loss resulting from this provision is provided in the bill.

A budget point of order applies in both the House and Senate against any bill that is not fully offset under CBO scoring. If, contrary to the Administration's recommendation, the House waives any such point of order that applies against H.R. 5055, the effects of enactment of this legislation would be included in a look back pay-as-you-go sequester report at the end of the Congressional session.

OMB's preliminary scoring estimates of this bill are presented in the table below. Final scoring of this legislation may deviate from these estimates. If H.R. 5055 were enacted, final OMB scoring estimates would be published within five days of enactment, as required by OBRA. The cumulative effects of all enacted legislation on direct spending will be issued in monthly reports transmitted to the Congress.

ESTIMATES FOR PAY-AS-YOU-GO
($ in millions)

Attachment

Other Objectionable Provisions of H.R. 5055

The Administration also strongly opposes the following provisions of H.R. 5055:

—   Section 304, which requires the Coast Guard to enter into an agreement with the Department of Commerce to require fisheries enforcement practices and procedures. This is inappropriate because the Coast Guard exercises no responsibility or control over these practices and procedures.

—   A Committee amendment that would require the Secretary of Transportation to intervene in the resolution of a contract dispute between a contractor and subcontractors. The dispute should be resolved in a judicial forum. H.R. 5055 creates the potential for a second payment by the Federal Government under a contract for which payment has already been made as legally required.

—   Several provisions that would unnecessarily restrict the Coast Guard's ability to expend funds in the most cost effective manner. These include sections 104 (Shore Facilities Improvements at Group Cape Hatteras) 105 (Prepositioned Oil Spill Cleanup Equipment), 106 (Training Simulators), 204 (Federal, State, and Local Coordination Demonstration Projects), and 303 (Study of the Application of Tiltrotor Aircraft Technology to Coast Guard missions). They also include committee amendments requiring: (1) a study of the usefulness of night vision technology, and (2) installation of Radar Navigation Aid at Eckholms Island Coast Guard Installation near Sitka, Alaska.

—   Sections 107 and 108, which would prematurely designate certain structures as obstructions to navigation, making them eligible for certain Federal assistance. Instead, procedures already prescribed by law to evaluate the extent to which they are in fact obstacles to navigation should be completed.

—   Section 202, which would mandate, at the Federal level, boater education requirements that are more appropriately the concern of States.

—   Section 203, which would unnecessarily require the Coast Guard to study ways to study ways to enlarge the mission of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. A balance in the roles of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Auxiliary has already been achieved as a result of the 1988 Report on the Coast Guard Auxiliary.