October 14, 1978 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

tions to fulfill this commitment have

been (1) support of full voting representation, (2) support for expansion of

"Home Rule" for the District and (3)

support of efforts to provide greater

equity and predictability to the financial relationship between the Federal

government and the District.

I have also proposed removal of the

Federal government from the District's

Budgetary process by 1982, as well as

the development of an equitable Federal

payment process on the District's revenues. This process must rest on an objective, equitable basis and not be used

as a device to balance the District's

budget. To achieve movement toward

that goal, I recommended a Federal

payment for fiscal year 1979 totaling

$317 million-the highest total ever recommended by a President.

It is against that background that my

Administration last year expressed its

willingness to work with the Congress

and the District to develop a sound, reasonable solution to the District's current

financial difficulties with its pension program for police, firemen, teachers and

judges. Previous Administrations have

declined to acknowledge any Federal responsibility for the District's current

pension funding problems. In the bill

that passed the House of Representatives, my Administration announced its

willingness to assume sixty percent of the

cost of making a transition to an actuarially sound system. This would have

obligated the Federal government to

make payments of $462 million over 25

years. Instead, the Congress ultimately

adopted a different method of funding

which identified the Federal responsibility as that portion of the unfunded liability attributable to employees who retired prior to Home Rule. This would require the Federal government to pay

more than $1.6 billion over that same

period.

This proposal fails to recognize that a

large part of that liability derives from

abuses of the disability retirement statutes which were permitted to flourish by

those responsible for their effective administration. It undervalues or ignores

the significance of Federal assistance

through the Federal funding of benefits for thousands of District employees

who participate in the Federal Civil

Service Retirement System. I am therefore of the view that the enrolled bill

overstates the degree of Federal responsibility.

Although the bill's benefit and disability retirement reforms are desirable,

its failure to apply these reforms to current employees constitutes a serious and

costly deficiency. While the bill contains

a penalty clause, the purpose of which

is to reduce the Federal payment if abuse

persists, the application of basic statutory reforms to all employees would be a far more effective and efficient means of

preventing a recurrence of the abuses

which have prevailed in recent years.

Accordingly, I am compelled to withhold my approval from this bill.

I realize that many members of Congress have worked long and hard with

the Administration on this question. I

agree with them that there is indeed a

CXXV-24a--Part 28

Federal responsibility to see that this

program is converted to one which is

actuarially sound and which minimizes

opportunity for abuse.

I look forward with the Congress and

the elected representatives of the District of Columbia early in the next session to develop acceptable retirement

funding and reform legislation. We are

prepared to consider a reasonable Federal financial contribution, providing

that provisions are included that fully

remedy the problem of retirement

abuses. Working together, I am sure we

can place the District retirement programs on a sound basis in a manner

which both limits the extent of Federal

financial responsibility, while also recognizing the Federal responsibility in this

area. JIMMY CARTER.

THE WHITE HousE, November 4, 1978.

H.R. 9518

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I have decided not to sign into law

H.R. 9518. This legislation, which would

impose severe enforcement measures in

the area of ocean shipping rebating, reflects concern with the possible disparity

in enforcement of our anti-rebating laws

against U.S.-flag carriers but not against

foreign flag operators. I share that concern, and any disparity that exists must

be eliminated.

The United States is currently engaged

in important discussions with several

European countries and Japan in an

attempt to reach cooperative agreements

involving a number of shipping problems, including rebating. Rather than

taking immediate unilateral action un- dermining these efforts, I have directed

the Secretary of State, in cooperation

with the Federal Maritime Commission

and other agencies to pursue these talks

vigorously and to report to me on their

progress. I am also directing the Administration's Maritime Policy Task Force

to provide, by an early date, a set of

recommendations that will address both

the substance of our rebating laws as well

as procedures for enforcement, taking

into account the inherently international

character of ocean shipping.

In the interim, I am asking the Federal Maritime Commission to step up

its enforcement efforts against illegal

rebating under the authority now provided in the Shipping At of 1916. The

Administration is committed to assist

the FMC in these efforts, and I urge the

FMC to seek the assistance of the Department of State in obtaining any necessary cooperation from foreign governments.

Although I am withholding my signature on H.R. 9518 I believe the bill represents an important signal to foreign

countries that we must work together to

secure a cooperative shipping regime. I

commit my Administration to work with

the next Congress to develop a comprehensive maritime policy for the United

States, in which the concerns reflected

by this bill as well as broader policy

issues can be fully addressed.

JIMMY CARTER.

THE WHITE HousE, November 4, 1978.

H.R. 13719

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I have withheld my approval of H.R.

13719, which would have authorized

special Federal payments to Guam and

the Virgin Islands to offset the local revenue losses during calendar years 1978

through 1982 caused by the Revenue Act

of 1978.

Because income taxes paid by territorial residents to the governments of

Guam and the Virgin Islands are based

on the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, tax

changes intended to reduce Federal income tax liabilities in the United States

have a corresponding effect in reducing

territorial tax liabilities. H.R. 13719

would have authorized direct grants to

the territories to offset revenue losses

associated with the 1978 tax act.

While recognizing the defects In the

current territorial tax structures which

H.R. 13719 was designed to alleviate,

particularly the effects of periodic Federal tax reductions on local revenues, I

do not believe the bill provides an acceptable long-range solution. By replacing

reasonable local tax efforts with direct

Federal payments, the bill is simply another attempt to manage territorial deficits without addressing the underlying

economic and financial problems which

have led to those deficits. We can no

longer afford a piecemeal approach to

the growing revenue problems of the territories.

Accordingly, although I am disapproving H.R. 13719, I am directing the Secretaries of the Interior and the Treasury to

study the financial situation of both the

Virgin Islands and Guam and to recommend a plan designed to help those governments achieve a higher degree of financial stability without perpetuating a piecemeal system which is costly to the

Federal Government and which does not

sufficiently encourage responsible financial management in these territories.

JIMMY CARTER.

H.S. 11545

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I have withheld my approval of H.R.

11545, the Meat Import Act of 1978.

I do so because the bill would severely

restrict Presidential authority to increase

meat imports and would place a floor or

minimum access level for meat imports

that I believe is too low. It deprives a

President of the only anti-inflationary

tool available in this area.

Current :aw allows the President substantial flexibility to increase meat imports when, in his judgment, domestic

supplies are inadquate to meet demand

at reasonable prices. I am convinced that

this flexibility must be preserved, as a

weapon against inflation.

Under this bill, however, authority to

increase meat imports would be tied to

declaration of a national emergency or

natural disaster, or to a restrictive price

formula. Under this formula, the farm

price of cattle would have to increase

faster than the retail meat price by more

than ten percent during the first two

calendar quarters of a year. Under this

38785
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 14, 1978

formula, quotas could have been relaxed

only once in the last ten years.

I also believe that the United States

must avoid Imposing excessive restrictions on our trading partners who supply

us with meat. H.R. 11545 would impose

those restrictions by stipulating a mini- mum access level for meat imports of 1.2

billion pounds, instead of the 1.3 billion

my Administration recommended. I am concerned that the bill's lower level could

harm our trade relations with the meat

exporting countries and thus impair

their long-term reliability as sources of

additional meat supplies when our own production is low, particularly at a time

when we are negotiating, for greater ac- cess to foreign markets for both our industrial and agricultural products.

If the Congress had enacted H.R. 11545

without these objectionable provisions,

I would have been pleased to sign it, as my advisers make clear repeatedly. The

bill would have amended the Meat Import Act of 1964 to provide a new formula

for determining meat import quotas. The new formula would have adjusted meat

import quotas up when domestic production of meats subject to the quota-went

down. Under the 1964 meat import law,

quotas are adjusted in the opposite way, so that as domestic production declines,

the limits on meat imports are tightened,

at exactly the wrong time. This defect

has often compelled Presidents to in- crease or suspend the meat import quota,

in order to ensure supplies of meat at

reasonable prices. The new countercyclical formula would, in most years, automatically make the necessary adjustment in the meat import quota, without involving the President in the normal

operation of the meat trade.

This Administration supports such

counter-cyclical management of meat

imports; In fact, the Department of Agriculture was instrumental in developing

the formula which the Congress ap- proved. But for all the advantages of the new formula, it is still an untestea

mechanical formula which may not re- spond ideally to all future situations.

This is why I find the restrictions on the

President's discretion to increase meat

imports so objectionable and why my

Administration's support for H.R. 11545 was so clearly conditioned upon removal

of those restrictions and on increasing the minimum access level for meat imports to 1.3 billion pounds annually.

I am prepared to work with the Congress next year to pass a counter-cyclical

meat import bill which will provide the

stability and certainty .the cattle industry requires, while preserving the President's existing discretionary authority

and setting an acceptable minimum access level for imports. JIMMY CARTER.

THE WroTE HOUSE, November 10, 1978.

. H.R. 9937

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I have decided not to sign Into law

H.R. 9937. This bill is an amendment to

the Bank Holding Company Act which

would authorize the General Services

Administration to sell certain silver dollar coins at negotiated prices. I have determined that this legislation would not

be in the national interest because of an

unrelated amendment which exempts all

textile and apparel items from any tariff

reductions in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN) now underway in

Geneva.

I am determined to assist the beleaguered textile industry. We are committed to a healthy and growing textile and

apparel industry. This legislation would

not advance that cause, and could even harm the entire U.S. economy.

This bill would not address the real

causes of the industry's difficulties. In

return for any transient benefits, the bill

would prompt our trading partners to

retaliate by withdrawing offers in areas

where our need for export markets is the

greatest-products such as tobacco,

grains, citrus, raw cotton, paper, ma- chinery, poultry, and textile-related

areas such as mill products and fashion

clothing. The loss of these export areas

is too high a price for our Nation to pay.

The cost of this bill might be even higher; at best, it would cost us many

opportunities for exports; at worst, it

could cause the collapse of the trade

talks and further restrict the growth of

the world economy. If the two and a

quarter million workers in the textile

and apparel industry are to survive in

their jobs, we must work to keep the

world economy strong and international

trade free.

Just within the last year we have taken a number of steps to improve the

condition of the U.S. textile and apparel

industry:

-We negotiated a renewal of the International Multifiber Arrangement

through 1981, providing more responsive controls over disruptive

Imports.

-We have negotiated 15 new bilateral

export restraint agreements which

are firmer and fairer than earlier

versions, covering 80 percent of all

imports from low-cost suppliers.

And we are negotiating more.

-We have improved our monitoring of

imports and implementation of restraints, through steps such as the new legislative Initiatives I have

approved.

-We have, despite the proposed small

reduction in tariffs, the highest textile and apparel tariffs in the developed world.

-We have begun discussions with exporting countries not now under restraint to seek appropriate levels for

their shipments.

-We have established a pilot program

to improve productivity in the men's

tailored clothing Industry, and we have begun an export promotion

program for the entire textile and

apparel complex.

-And we have begun a review of existing and proposed Federal regulations

affecting this industry to assess their

impact.

This, however, is not enough. I pledge

that we will do more;

-We will intensify our review of existing bilateral restraint agreements to

be sure they really work, and if there

are harmful surges we will work

promptly to remedy them.

-We will not allow the effectiveness

of our restraint agreements to be

undermined by significant increases

in shipments from uncontrolled suppliers, and we will maintain a worldwide evaluation of the imports of

textile and apparel into the U.S.

and seek appropriate action, country-by-country, where warranted.

-We will be prepared to expand the

-pilot project underway in the men's

tailored clothing industry so that

other sectors may benefit from that

experience, and we will speed proposals for a similar program in the

ladies apparel industry.

-We will negotiate strenuously for

removal of non-tariff barriers to U.S

textile and apparel exports, including restrictive "rules of origin."

-The Office of the Special Representative for Trade Negotiations will

begin a new policy review and report

to me quarterly on developments in

the domestic textile and apparel industry, with special emphasis on imports and exports, so that appropriate actions can be taken more

promptly.

These steps, like those of the past year,

will not be the limit of our assistance to

this vital industry. But each step that

we take must be directed toward the

long-term health of this industry and

the United States economy as a wholeunlike H.R. 9937 which on balance is

detrimental to the textile industry, to its

two million workers, and to the Nation

as a whole. JIMMY CARTER.

THE WHITE HousE, November 10, 1978.

H.R. 9370

MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I have withheld approval from H.R.

9370, "A bill to establish new Federal programs and assistance for the development of aquaculture in the United

States."

While the underlying purpose of the

bill, development of an active aquaculture industry, is sound, I am concerned

that the numerous broad-reaching programs established under the bill are premature. H.R. 9370 would establish a National Aquaculture Council to assess the

state of aquaculture in the U.S. and to

prepare a National Aquaculture Development Plan-a detailed set of Federal activities to expand the commercial potential of certain aquatic species. It would

establish substantial new programs of

Federal assistance t6 carry out the plan

and undertake demonstration projects in

aquaculture. The bill also would create a

Federal Aquaculture Assistance Fund to

provide financial assistance and support

to the aquaculture industry through a

new Federal loan guarantee program and

a new Federal insurance program.

The Administration recognizes the importance of aquaculture, the need for

effective programs to support this, and

the concept of an assessment of the

aquaculture industry. In fact, many of

the actions that the bill would require

are already underway. Federal agencies

are now involved in a wide variety of

aquaculture activities, and they already

have the legislative authorities they need

38786