CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

substantive changes to the Education

Consolidation and Improvement Act

that are unacceptable, as well as

amendments to the legislative veto

provision of the General Education

Provisions Act that I believe to be an

unwarranted intrusion on the Executive branch's constitutional authority.

Among the unacceptable provisions

is section 17(a)(1), which would declare the Federal government's assistance to disadvantaged Indian students

under ECIA Chapter 1 to be a part of

its trust responsibility toward Indian

tribes. This provision is the same as

one included in S. 2623, the Tribally

Controlled Community College Assist- ance Act Amendments, from which I

recently withheld my approval. The

provision of Federal education assist- ance to Indian students is not characterized in law or treaty as a trust responsibility, and has not been held by

the courts to be so. As I noted in my

Memorandum of Disapproval on S.

2623, to declare the provision of education to Indian students a trust responsibility would potentially create legal

obligations and entitlements that are not clearly intended or understood.

This provision of H.R. 7336 is unneces- -sary to the administration of the

Chapter 1 program.

Also unacceptable is section 16(b) of

H.R. 7336, which would make certain

amendments to a two-House legislative

veto device presently contained in section 431 of the General Education Provisions Act. The Attorney General has

advised me, and I agree, that two

Houses of Congress cannot bind the

Executive branch by passing a concurrent resolution that is not presented

to me for approval or veto.

Another objectionable provision of

H.R. 7336, section 1, would require

continuation under Chapter 1 of the

definition of a currently migratory

child that was in use under the antecedent Title I program. This requirement would prevent the Administration from focusing the limited re- sources available for migrant services

under Chapter 1 on those children

whose education is actually interrupted as a result of their migrant status.

Other amendments in the bill relating to the Education Consolidation

and Improvement Act could be con- strued to reinstate requirements and

procedures contrary to the intent of

the Act to provide greater authority

and flexibility for State and local educational agencies.

My disapproval of H.R. 7336 in no way reflects upon the efforts of the

author of this bill, Representative William Goodling, of Pennsylvania. Mr.

Goodling worked closely with the Department of Education to clarify specific weaknesses in the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act and

to reflect that effort in the House

report language. Despite his efforts,

there are substantive provisions in

H.R. 7336 that do not eliminate the

ambiguities in the language of the ex- isting ECIA and seem to restore undesirable complexity to the administration of ECIA programs.

Although the bill would make several desirable changes to the Education

Consolidation and Improvement Act,

the objectionable provisions far outweigh any of its benefits.

For these reasons, I cannot approve

the bill.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 12, 1983.

H.R. 9 MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

After careful consideration, I have

determined, for the reasons stated

below, to withhold my approval of

H.R. 9. I regret that this action is nec- essary, because I support the designation of additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System in the

State of Florida, as recommended by

the Administration and set forth in

this bill. My Administration has proposed almost two million acres of land

for designation as wilderness and the

unique natural habitat designated in

H.R. 9 would be particularly valuable

additions to the national wilderness

system.

Although H.R. 9 is intended to re- solve an issue that has been in contention during three prior Administrations, it does so in a way that is unnec- essarily costly to the Federal taxpayer.

Because of administrative actions

taken earlier this week by the Secretary of the Interior, my disapproval of

this legislation will not have the effect

of permitting phosphate mining to

proceed in the Osceola National

Forest. I do not object to legislative efforts to preclude phosphate mining in

the Osceola National Forest. I do

object, however, to the provisions of

this bill that would vest previously

contingent property rights in certain

mining companies. This could require

the Federal government to pay those

mining companies as much as $200

million for those property rightsrights that, absent this legislation,

might not otherwise have existed.

Specifically, this bill attempts to

convey to several mining companies

the rights to, and value from, 41 preference right lease applications for deposits of phosphates underlying the

Osceola National Forest. Under

present law, these mining companies are entitled to these mining leases

only if the Secretary of the Interior

determines that the phosphate deposits underlying this land are valaable

deposits. H.R. 9 would establish property rights to the lease in specific companies by requiring the Secretary of

the Interior, and ultimately the

courts, to Judge the lease applications

without reference to the cost of compliance with current applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for

environmental protection. Such requirements include those established

under the National Environmental

Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and

the Clean Air Act. Hence, under this

legislation, the determination of

whether these phosphate deposits are "valuable" would not take into consideration the cost of returning the Osceola National Forest lands to their natural state as required by current law.

This Administration is opposed to a

policy of conveying interests in public resources by waiving applicable statutory requirements that are designed to

protect the environment.

Moreover, having required the mineral rights to be conveyed to the companies by the Secretary of the Interior, this bill would then prohibit

mining on the leases and require the

Federal government to purchase the

conveyed lease rights back from the

companies. Thus, the bill would, in

effect, force Federal purchase of

rights that under current law would

remain in Federal ownership in the

first place.

Analyses available to the Department of the Interior indicate that no current technology is capable of returning the mined lands to the reclamation standards required by current

Federal laws and regulations. The Department of the Interior is faced with

an administrative record regarding res- toration that demonstrates that the

applicant mining companies cannot

meet the valuable deposit test required by current law for lease issu- ance. Consequently, the Secretary of

the Interior has advised me that,

based on that administrative record,

mining should not now take place in

the Osceola National Forest, and that

he has rejected the preference right

lease applications.

However, because H.R. 9 specifies a less strenuous standard than current

law, the lease applicants would most

likely be found to have met the valuable deposit test were this measure to

become law. The Department of the

Interior would then have to determine

the fair market value of the interests

and extend monetary credits to the

lease applicants. Further, though the

bill provides that the fair market

value is to be determined by taking

into account all environmental laws,

any Secretarial action valuing these

leases in a way adverse to the applicants' expectations would likely result

in costly litigation, and the possible re- covery in the United States Claims

Court of payments to these companies

for loss of their "rights" in public resources to which they would not be en- titled absent this legislation.

The administrative decision process,

necessary under current law to resolve

this issue, is being brought to conclusion under my Administration. To the

extent that further litigation is entered into on this issue, it should be

December 21, 1982 33441
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

decided under current law applicable

to all similar cases.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 14, 1983.

H.R. 3963-MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I am withholding my approval of

H.R. 3963, a bill concerning criminal

law matters, because its disadvantages

far outweigh any intended benefits.

In late September 1982, the Senate

overwhelmingly approved a major crime bill by a vote of 95 to 1. That

measure, the Violent Crime and Drug Enforcement Improvements Act of

1982 (S. 2572), would have resulted in

urgently needed reforms in Federal

bail laws to put an end to our "revolving door" system of justice, comprehensive reforms in Federal forfeiture

laws to strip away the enormous assets

and profits of narcotics traffickers and

organized crime syndicates, and sweeping sentencing reforms to insure more uniform, determinate prison sentences

for those convicted of Federal crimes.

That major crime bill also contained

other criminal law reforms. I strongly

supported the principal elements of

the Violent Crime and Drug Enforcement Improvements Act, especially the bail, sentencing, and forfeiture

provisions.

The House of Representatives failed

to approve this measure. It adopted a miscellaneous assortment of criminal

justice proposals, H.R. 3963, which was approved in the waning hours of the

97th Congress. Although some elements of the House-initiated bill are good, other provisions are misguided or seriously flawed, possibly even un- constitutional. While its provisions on forfeiture of criminal assets and prof- its fall short of what the Administration proposed, they are clearly desirable. Had they been presented to me as a separate measure, I would have been

pleased to give my approval. But H.R.

3963 does not deal with bail reform, nor does it address sentencing reform.

Both are subjects long overdue for

congressional action.

In addition to its failure to address some of the most serious problems

facing Federal law enforcement, this

"mini-crime bill" would in several re- spects hamper existing enforcement

activity. I am particularly concerned

about its adverse impact on our efforts

to combat drug abuse.

The Act would create a drug director

and a new bureaucracy within the Executive Branch with the power to coordinate and direct all domestic and

international Federal drug efforts, including law enforcement operations.

The creation of another layer of bureaucracy within the Executive

Branch would produce friction, disrupt effective law enforcement, and

could threaten the integrity of criminal investigations and prosecutionsthe very opposite of what its proponents apparently intend.

The seriousness of this threat is un- derscored by the overwhelming opposition to this provision by the Federal

law enforcement community as well as by such groups as the International

Association of Chiefs of Police and the

National Association of Attorney's

General. The so-called "drug Czar"

provision was enacted hastily without

thoughtful debate and without benefit

of any hearings. Although its aimwith which I am in full agreement-is

to promote coordination, this can be

and is being achieved through existing

administrative structures.

Upon taking office, I directed the

Attorney General and other senior officials of the Administration to improve the coordination and efficiency

of Federal law enforcement efforts,

with particular emphasis on drug-related crime. This has been accom- plished through the establishment of

the Cabinet Council on Legal Policy, which is chaired by the Attorney General and whose membership includes

all Cabinet officers with responsibility

for narcotics law enforcement. Working through the Cabinet Council, the

White House Office on Drug Policy is an integral part of the process by which a comprehensive and coordinated narcotics enforcement policy is car- ried out.

I am pleased with the results of this

process, which last Fall led to the cre- ation of a nationwide task force effort

to combat organized crime and narcotics trafficking. The war on crime and

drugs does not need more bureaucracy in Washington. It does need more action in the field, and that is where

my Administration will focus its efforts.

H.R. 3963 would also authorize the

Federal prosecution of an armed

robber or burglar who has twice been

convicted in State court. This provi- sion includes an unworkable and possi- bly unconstitutional restraint upon Federal prosecutions in this area, by

allowing a State or local prosecutor to

veto any Federal prosecution under

his or her authority, even if the Attorney General had approved the prosecution. Such a restraint on Federal

prosecutorial discretion and the delegation of Executive responsibility it

entails raise grave constitutional and

practical concerns. It would, for exam- ple, surely increase friction among

Federal, State, and local prosecutors

at a time when we are doing so much

to decrease it.

Other provisions of H.R. 3963 are also defective. For example, the provision that expands Federal jurisdiction

whenever food, drugs, or other products are tampered with, an expansion

that I strongly support, was drafted to

include tampering that occurs in an injured consumer's own home. It also

fails to distinguish between tampering

that results in injury and tampering

that results in death. These are, however, essentially technical matters

which might have been overcome but

for the press of time in the closing

days of Congress. I share the widespread public desire for new legislation on tampering and will work with the new Congress to produce an acceptable bill on that subject.

My Administration has proposed significant legislation to strengthen law

enforcement and restore the balance

between the forces of law ani the

forces of crime. Changes in sentencing,

bail laws, the exclusionary rule, the insanity defense, and other substantive

reforms in criminal law were not

passed by the 97th Congress. Such re- forms, if enacted, could make a real

difference in the quality of justice in

this country.

It would have given me great pleas- ure to be able to approve substantive

criminal justice legislation. I completely support some of the features of

H.R. 3963, such as the Federal Intelligence Personnel Protection Act.

Others I agree with in principle. But

the disadvantages of this bill greatly

outweigh its benefits. I look forward

to approving legislation that does not

contain the serious detriments of the

present bill, and my Administration

will work closely with Chairman

THURMoND and Chairman RODINO to secure passage of substantive criminal

justice reforms.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 14, 1983.

33442 December 21, 1982