January 22, 1985 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

States should enter into negotiations for production restraint agreements

with the major foreign copper producing countries to restore the law of

supply and demand. The response has

been a task force of middle-level bureaucrats who are merely repackaging

their memos on the section 201 case. This is what I mean by passive destruction of a vital sector of our econo- my.

The Commerce Department has

been sitting on a potash dumping case for months. Apparently, the Com- merce Department is reluctant to determine the appropriate tariff that

should be imposed against the Soviet

Union. This foot dragging is another

example of passive destruction. To

these industries, every day is critical

and delay is deadly. If you need an ex- ample, consider Kerr-McGee, which I

mentioned in my opening remarks.

The uranium industry has been victimized by creative destruction and

passive destruction as well. It is an ex- ample of what will happen to many of our mineral and metals industries if we do not, as a nation, focus on what

is happening in the world market. The

demand for uranium has declined

while international companies have

aggressively expanded. They have

been able to do this because of direct

and indirect intervention of their foreign governments and because of very

rich resources. As a result, the spot- market price for uranium has dropped

from over $40 per pound to $5.50. No

significant long-term contracts have

been signed with domestic producers

because of this glut of very cheap ura- nium.

We all agree that eventually the

market will come into balance. The

Department of Energy, which is legally responsible for monitoring this industry and maintaining its viability,

has argued that it is indeed viable.

They argue the industry will go

through a period of retraction and re- organization. The result will be a

viable industry. But, Mr. President, how many companies which might have elected to

hang in there will not? They will not,

because they see foreign governments

assisting their competition. They will

not, because our utilities and our Government have sent no clear signal that

they wish to avoid import dependence.

To the contrary-the DOE now operates its uranium enrichment business

in a fashion that negatively affects

U.S. production of uranium. I have

argued that, in the face of such facts our industries will abandon uranium

mining. They will put their money

elsewhere.

Mr. President, policymakers in this

administration with a simplistic view

of economics and no experience with

the uranium business will argue that,

in time, some company will take Quiveras' place. That might be true, if foreign producers were not protected

from similar economic conditions.

They will expand to fill the gap left by

Quivera. That share of the market will

be lost forever.

We, as a nation, learned the horrible

truth about being dependent on oil imports. We will, I am afraid, learn that same lesson with strategic minerals

and uranium.

The Energy Information Agency has

projected that aggressive marketing

by foreign uranium producers could

result in their capturing over 80 percent of our market by the late 1980's.

Yet the Department of Energy says

everything is OK for the future. Is

this passive destruction?

The U.S. mining industry is not

asking to be a prima donna. It Just

wants to be able to perform on its own merits. We have the most productive

workers in the world. I find it hard to

believe that there is no role for them

in the world economy of the 1980's.

I am looking at legislation that will

put a stop to both the creative destruction and the passive destruction

that is plaguing our American mining

companies.

I wanted to take some time today to

bring you up to date, to let you know

of my commitment and determination

to correct this deplorable situation.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

MEMORANDUMS OF DISAPPROVAL RECEIVED FROM THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES

The following messages from the

President withholding his approval of

certain Senate bills were received after

the sine die adjournment of the 98th

Congress:

S. 540

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I am withholding my approval of S.

540, the "Health Research Extension

Act of 1984," which would extend and

amend the biomedical research au- thorities of the National Institutes of

Health [NIH].

I have been assured by the Department of Health and Human Services

that the Continuing Resolution gives

adequate authority for current NIH

activities in fiscal year 1985.

This Administration has a record of

strong commitment to the support and

conduct of biomedical research by the

NIH. Each year since taking office, I

have requested increases for biomedical research. In 1985, the NIH will re- ceive its largest increase in appropriated funds in history. This increase

will ensure the continued operation of

the NIH for the coming year and will

continue to assist in improving medical practice and the health of the

American people.

Rather than improve our research

efforts, however, the unfortunate

result of S. 540 would be to impede the

progress of this important health activity by:

Creating unnecessary, expensive new

organizational entities;

-two institutes would be created, an

arthritis and a nursing institute.

This reorganization of the NIH is

premature in light of a study of

the NIH organizational structure

to be released in a few weeks by the Institute of Medicine/National

Academy of Sciences.

-numerous bodies, such as a National Commission on Orphan Diseases, an Interagency Committee

on Learning Disabilities, and a

Lupus Erythematosus Coordinating Committee, would be created

for which there are existing mechanisms that could or already per- form such functions.

Mandating overly specific requirements for the management of research

that place undue constraints on Executive branch authorities and functions;

-new positions would be created and

numerous reports required that

would divert scarce resources away from the NIH central mission of

basic biomedical research.

-the various NIH peer review

groups would be exempted from

the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Office of

Management and Budget oversight. This represents an unwarranted interference with internal

Executive branch management

over the largest number of advisory groups for any Federal agency.

Going beyond the Administration's

request to extend only expiring authorities by rewriting all the relevant

statutes of the NIH;

-current law contains sufficient authority and flexibility to carry out

the important research and training activities of NIH, to respond to

public concerns, and to meet scientific needs and opportunities. Imposing a uniform set of authorities

for each research institution disregards the more extensive mission

of some institutes and overburdens

smaller institutes which do not

need these additional programmat- ic and advisory responsibilities.

-this attempt to recodify existing

statutory language has resulted in

some so-called technical revisions

that will result in undesired oper- ational changes in some of the institute programs.

I want to underscore my commitment to biomedical research and the

National Institutes of Health. The

NIH has stood as an example of excellence for 40 years. I do not believe

that it is either necessary or wise to

revise completely the laws under

which it has so successfully operated.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

I therefore find no reasonable justification for the extensive changes to

the NIH mandated by S. 540. In order

to better serve the promise and the

future of our national biomedical research enterprise, I am withholding

my approval of this bill.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE; October 30, 1984.

S. 2574

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I am withholding my approval of S.

2574, the "Public Health Service Act

Amendments of 1984," which would

extend and amend various health professions and services authorities. I

have been assured by the Department

of Health and Human Services that

the Continuing Resolution provides

adequate authority fur these programs

for fiscal year 1985.

S. 2574 is a seriously flawed piece of

legislation. The most serious of its

many objectionable provisions include

the following:

First, the bill contains authorization

levels substantially in excess of my

1985 Budget. Full funding of all the

programs in the bill through 1987

would total $2.4 billion, 41 percent

more than the $1.7 billion contained in

the Budget.

Moreover, S. 2574 would continue to

increase obsolete Federal subsidies to

health professions students and would

maintain the static and rigid categorical framework to deliver such aid. The

ability of medical schools to supply our society with health professionals

has changed dramatically in the last

20 years. Today, our medical schools

are producing nearly 16,000 new doctors each year. Although there may be

some shortages of physicians and

nurses in particular areas of the country, the Nation as a whole is facing a

future surplus-not shortage-of physicians and nurses. Under these circumstances, S. 2574, a bill which continues excessive taxpayer subsidies to

health professionals and maintains a

rigid unworkable categorical framework, cannot be justified.

S. 2574 takes the wrong approach to

health professions training. In contrast to the Administration's proposal

for a single, omnibus reauthorization

of all health professions authorities,

which would permit maximum program flexibility to address current

needs, the bill not only reauthorizes

the existing plethora of narrow, categorical authorities, but also creates

new programs. This approach to

health professions training is outdated

and failh tu respond to the rapidly

changing iwalth care environment.

A more appropriate approach would

recognize that the surplus of physicians has reduced the need for Federal

financial assistance and would improve

incentives for health professionals to

locate in areas of the country where

shortages exist. The Administration's

health professions proposals would

help meet these objectives.

S. 2574 would also repeal the Primary Care Block Grant authority-a

key reform proposed by the Administration and enacted by the Congress in

1981 designed to restore State control,

strengthen administrative efficiencies,

and improve the delivery of health

services. Thus, this bill would reverse a

successful trend of increased State acceptance of health care responsibility

that the Administration initiated. The

block grant programs for preventive

health and health services and alcohol

and drug abuse have been successful.

The primary care biock grant was

made optional by the Congress, and

States have been hesitant to accept it.

However, to close out the option at a

time when States should be willing to

consider another step toward greater

autonomy is counterproductive and

unacceptable.

This bill contains numerous other

provisions that are either unnecessary

or unacceptable, including authorization for new Federal National Health

Service Corps scholarships that are

not needed, since the number of scholarship recipients already bound to subsidized medical practice in rural areas is adequate.

For all these reasons, I find S. 2574

unacceptable.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 30, 1984.

S. 1967

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I am withholding my approval from

S. 1967, a bill "To compensate the

Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of

the Fort Belknap Indian Community

for irrigation construction expenditures."

S. 1967 would reimburse the Gros

Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the

Fort Belknap Indian Community for

$107,759.58 in tribal funds expended

under applicable law for the construction of irrigation projects on the Fort

Belknap Indian Reservation from 1895

to 1913. In addition, interest would be

paid at 4 percent from the date of expenditure of the tribal funds until the

date of payment of the principal pursuant to the bill.

On November 20, 1962, the Indian

Claims Commission, after due deliberation, issued a detailed opinion carefully considering and dismissing

(among other claims) a claim for the

same reimbursement that would be

provided by the bill. Fort Belknap

Indian Community v. United States, 11

Ind. Cl. Comm. 479, 510-518, 543-549

(1962). The Commission found that

construction of the irrigation system

was "requested by the members of the

Fort Belknap Community," that it has

been of great and continuing benefit

to the tribes, and "that its construction and maintenance have been consonant with the fair and honorable

dealings clause within the meaning of

the Indian Claims Commission Act."

11 Ind. Cl, Comm. 518-519. The tribes

took no appeal from that decision.

The fair and impartial administration of justice and the protection of

public resources from meritless special

appropriations both require that those

who have availed themselves of judicial remedies in asserting claims

against the United States, and have

had their claims fully and fairly adjudicated under our Constitution and

laws, receive no more or less than that

to which they have been adjudged to

be entitled. Twenty-two years after

the claims of these two tribes were dismissed by an impartial tribunal established by the Congress specifically to

adjudicate such claims, this bill would

authorize and appropriate to them all

that they were previously found not to

be entitled to.

Under the circumstances, the enactment of the bill would set aside established principles of justice and thereby

encourage other and future efforts to

obtain by legislation that which has

been denied by a just adjudication,

For these reasons, I find the bill unacceptable.

RONALD REAGAN.

THE WHITE HOUSE, October 17, 1984.

S. 607

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I have withheld my approval fror S.

607, the "Public Broadcasting Amendments Act of 1984."

This bill would authorize appropriations of $200 million, $225 million, and

$250 million, respectively, for fiscal

years 1987, 1988, and 1989 for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It

would also authorize appropriations of

$25 million, $35 million, and $40 million for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program administered

by the Department of Commerce for

fiscal years 1985, 1986, and 1987.

Public broadcasting has an important role to play in assuring that a

wide variety of information and entertainment choices are made available to

American viewers and listeners. Under

S. 607, however, the authorizations for

Federal subsidies to public broadcasting would increase dramatically. When

all of the demands on the Federal

budget are taken into account, I

cannot endorse the levels of spending

on public broadcasting contemplated

by this legislation. They are incompatible with the clear and urgent need to

reduce Federal spending.

It is important to note that currentyear funding for these two programs

totals only $174 million. The Oxley

amendment would have resulted in a

generous and barely affordable increase of 15 percent, to $200 million. S.

607 goes much further and raises firstyear funding by 29 percent to $225

million for the two programs. By the

.732 January 22, 1985