CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 14, 1978

by 40 percent. In May of this year I

signed an Executive order calling for a

White House Conference on Small Busi- ness to be held in January 1980. This

Conference will involve over 25,000 small

business people throughout the country helping us to develop a small business

policy for this country. I intend to work

with the Congress and particularly with

Chairmen SMITH and NELSON to develop

and implement such a policy.

This legislation does have beneficial

features. However, it is precisely because

of my commitment to small business and an effective Small Business Administration, that I must withhold my approval from H.R. 11445. This bill, in its present

form, is not the best we can do for small

business in the United States and is Inconsistent with the tight budget situation we will face in the next few years. Disapproval of the bill would not interrupt

any existing SBA program since SBA

programs are already authorized for

fiscal year 1979, nor would it interfere

with administration plans regarding the

White House Conference on Small Business, since $4,000,000 has already been

appropriated for the Conference in fiscal

year 1979. This Conference is an important priority of mine and of my administration.

The bill authorizes over $2 billion In

expenditures in excess of our budget pro- jections through 1982. It continues a duplicative program of farm disaster

lending by the SBA with excessively deep

interest subsidies and terms which we believe to be wasteful. This has led to an unwarranted amount of farm disaster

lending which should be done by the

Farmers Home Administration. This Administration has proposed that farm

lending be consolidated in the Department of Agriculture which has the farm

credit expertise and extensive field network necessary to operate the program effectively and efficiently. The Congress

has failed to act on this recommendation.

Even more important is the effect this

bill would have on the operations of the

Small Business Administration. The bill

virtually mandates significant staff in- creases. It would also interfere with the

ability of the Administrator of the SBA,

my primary small business advisor and

representative, to effectively run that

agency. The legislation imposes specific

titles and responsibilities upon agency

officials and specifies funding and per- sonnel levels for activities throughout SBA down to the smallest detail. These

legislative strictures run counter to my efforts to better manage the Federal government.

The bill also distorts the role of SBA's

Chief Counsel for Advocacy. I supported

the establishment of this office as a means to insure that the views of small

business were adequately reflected in the

policy-making processes of the government. But the legislation tends to move the Chief Counsel for Advocacy into

policy and administrative areas more properly those of the Administrator of

the SBA. This bill also might begin to

isolate the Chief Counsel for Advocacy from the executive policy-making proc- ess by calling for an annual report to

Congress which could not be reviewed

or coordinated with any other agency

of the Executive Branch. Current statutes provide the Chief Counsel with suf-

-cient authorities to evaluate small busi- ness issues and serve as an ombudsman

to small business interests.

I am also concerned by the loan pooling provision in this bill that would au- thorize private dealers to issue a new class of 100 percent Federally guaran- teed securities which would compete directly with the Treasury and other Federally-backed securities in the bond

markets.

I look forward to working with the

Congress and the small business com- munity who worked on this bill to develop a program to meet the needs of small

business. It is my great hope that early in the next Congress an approach will be

fashioned to meet the needs of the small

business community, with the full involvement of my Administration.

JIMMY CARTER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 25, 1978.

H.R. 11092

MEMORANDUM OF DISPPROVAL

I am withholding my approval of H.R.

11092, the "Navajo and Hopi Relocation

Amendments of 1978." I have no objection to the authorization in this bill to

fund the important and difficult work being performed by the Relocation Commission to administer the partitioning

of land which has been jointly used by the Navajo and Hopi Tribes. My failure

to approve this bill will not affect the

ability of the Commission to continue its

work, because appropriations for this

fiscal year have already been approved.

My objections to the bill center on sec- tion 4, which would provide for a one- house veto of the relocation plan which

is finally adopted by the Relocation Commission. I have previously informed the

Congress of my view that such legislative veto devices are unconstitutional intrusions into the day-to-day administration of the law by the Executive Branch,

including independent agencies such as the Relocation Commission. Congress is

constitutionally empowered to overrule

agency decisions executing the law only

by enacting legislation subject to the

veto power of the President under Article

I, section 7 of the Constitution.

Where either Congress or the President is dissatisfied with the execution of

the law by an independent agency or commission, legislation agreeable to both or enacted over the President's veto is an appropriate and constitutional means for overturning the result reached by that independent agency. If the Constitution required less, there would In

fact be no true independence for agencies such as the Relocation Commission. This

principle was adhered to by the Ninetythird Congress when it enacted the

Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission Act in 1974 and is one from

which we should not depart.

The bill also contains a provision which

would oust incumbent members of the

Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Commission if they happened to be Federal,

State or local elected officials. This provision in section 2 has constitutional implications since it would allow for Congressional removal of officers in the Executive Branch. Further, as a matter of

fairness and equity, interruption of the

tenure of appointed officials by the imposition of new "qualifications" should

not be lightly undertaken. Accordingly,

I would suggest that the Ninety-sixth

Congress, in any consideration of a

similar bill, give due consideration to

these problems.

The Administration will work with the

Congress next year to develop any

needed legislation to improve the operations of the Relocation Commission. The

Commission needs to operate more effectively and I look forward to working

with Congressional leaders such as Senator DECONcINI and Congressman UDALL

toward this end.

JIMMY CARTER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 2, 1978.

H.R. 11861

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I am withholding my signature from

H.R. 11861, which would require the Secretaries of Commerce and the Navy to

meet at least four times a year with representatives of the maritime industry

and to submit an annual report to the

President and Congress on their activities and recommendations.

Both the Maritime Administration of

the Commerce Department (MARAD)

and the Navy already have numerous

contacts with the maritime industry and

with each other to study, develop, and

implement the goals of the Merchant

Marine Act. Navy and MARAD are currently working to improve their cooperation in this area by adding the Secretaries of Commerce and Navy to an existing inter-agency advisory board on

maritime matters. They are also arranging to have the board meet at least four

times a year, and at least one of these

meetings will be open to maritime industry representatives.

In addition, In order to assure that the

concerns that generated this bill are fully

addressed, I am directing both Secretaries to consult regularly with maritime

industry officials to discuss issues of mutual concern.

In light of these actions, I see no reason for this legislation. It is not necessary to achieve our goal of an adequate

merchant marine. It would mandate a change in administrative functions

which are currently satisfactory. It is an undue legislative intrusion into administrative activities which are the appropriate responsibility of the Executive

Branch, and the required report would

be an additional and unnecessary government expense. For these reasons, I am

disapproving this bill.

JIMMY CARTER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 2, 1978.

H.R. 6536

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I am withholding my approval from

H.R. 6536 which would make certain

changes in the retirement program for

police, firefighers, teachers, and judges

of the District of Columbia.

This action today in no way alters my

commitment to the basic principles of

fairness and self-determination which

must be the cornerstone of Federal-District relations. Included among our ac38784