I am disapproving H.R. 4175 because 

it would not repeal the Maritime Administration’s Title XI loan program, 

as I proposed in the 1987 Budget. This 

program is one of several Federal 

credit programs that I proposed to 

reduce or phase out in order to limit 

the government’s intervention in the 

Nation’s lending market.

Achievement of our credit reform 

goals is important to the maritime industry and the economy as a whole. 

The maritime industry must be encouraged to rely on the private credit 

market, without Federal intervention, 

as its source of capital if we are to continue our progress toward restoring 

that industry to full health. Borrowers 

in general must be freed from the government’s preemptive allocation of 

credit, which forces unsubsidized borrowers to pay more for credit and may 

result in some borrowers being “crowded out” entirely.

I am also not approving H.R. 4175 

because it would continue to authorize 

appropriations for financial assistance 

to State maritime schools. Such an authorization of appropriations is entirely inappropriate during this time of 

necessary fiscal restraint.

R onald Reagan.

The White House, October 28, 1986.

On November 1, 1986:

NATIONAL APPLIANCE ENERGY CONSERVATION

ACT

I am withholding my approval of 

H.R. 5465, the “National Appliance 

Energy Conservation Act of 1986.”

This legislation would have established specific, minimum energy efficiency standards for home appliances 

without regard to technological feasibility or the need for economic justification. The bill intrudes unduly on the 

free market, limits the freedom of 

choice available to consumers who 

would be denied the opportunity to 

purchase lower-cost appliances, and 

constitutes a substantial intrusion into 

traditional State responsibilities and 

prerogatives. It also mandates a complicated series of 19 rule-makings over 

the next 20 years for 52 subcategories 

of appliances, virtually assuring extensive litigation, increasing Federal regulation many years into the future.

Moreover, although I share the interest in the need for conserving 

energy resources that led the Congress 

to pass this bill, H.R. 5465 fails to advance this goal in a manner that takes 

account of the tremendous cost to consumers, who would have to spend an 

estimated extra $1.4 billion per year 

on appliance purchases. Higher prices 

would force many to buy more expensive appliances than they would 

prefer, and make some delay or forgo 

some appliance purchases altogether. 

By eliminating the lower-priced 

models, the bill would hit low-income 

consumers particularly hard. It could 

also discourage and slow the introduction of useful product innovations.

Disapproval of this bill does not 

mean, however, that the energy efficiency of appliances will be wholly 

without Federal regulation. Under cur680

rent law, the Department of Energy is 

required to conduct a rule-making 

which may lead to the imposition of 

Federal standards, and any such 

standards would preempt existing 

State law.

Thus, the choice is between Federal 

regulation of appliance standards 

under this bill and regulation under 

current law, which requires the Department of Energy to take account of 

technological feasibility and economic 

factors. Under these circumstances, I 

think current law is preferable.

In addition, I note that the Congress 

included in H.R. 5465 amendments requiring the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue a declaratory 

order in a pending proceeding and setting a deadline for the Commission to 

resolve a pending rate case. I am in 

agreement with what the Congress 

sought to achieve in requiring the 

Commission to issue a declaratory 

order and am asking the Secretary of 

Energy to take appropriate action 

before the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission so that this matter will be 

promptly and favorably resolved. I 

also agree with the Congress that the 

rate case matter should be resolved 

swiftly and urge the Commission to 

exert its best efforts to meet the deadline the Congress has sought to 

impose.

R onald Reagan.

The White House, November 1, 1986.

On November 4, 1986:

INDEPENDENT SAFETY BOARD ACT

AMENDMENTS

I am withholding my approval of 

H.R. 4961, the “Independent Safety 

Board Act Amendments of 1986,” for 

reasons unrelated to improving transportation safety—a cause to which I 

remain firmly committed. My Administration is actively implementing new 

aviation technology, both on the 

ground and on-board aircraft. Furthermore, over the last five years, my Administration has increased funding for 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

by 50 percent. Our multi-billion dollar 

safety modernization program for the 

Nation’s air traffic system—already 

the safest in the world—has contributed to a decline in the accident rate by 

over 50 percent during the last decade. 

We have been equally dedicated to improving highway safety. In the past 

decade, the highway fatality rate has 

declined by about 25 percent. Still, my 

1987 budget request for motor carrier 

safety exceeded 1982 funding five-fold.

I remain steadfast in my commitment to transportation safety, but 

H.R. 4961 would authorize excessive 

appropriations for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for 

fiscal years 1987, 1988, and 1989 and 

would lead the Federal government to 

become involved in an industry-by-industry approach to the larger problem 

of liability insurance.

I find several provisions of this legislation objectionable. First, the bill 

would authorize appropriations for 

NTSB in 1988 and 1989 that would be 

$8.7 million, or 20 percent, more than

JOURNAL OF THE SENATE

the projections in my 1987 budget. 

Specifically, these authorization levels 

exceed the projections by the following amounts: (1) $3.7 million in 1988— 

$25.4 million versus $21.7 million projected and (2) $5 million in 1989—$27 

million versus $22 million projected. 

Given our current efforts to reduce 

the size of the Federal deficit, the size 

of these increases is unacceptable. I 

point out that the NTSB’s budget has 

already grown 26 percent in the past 

five years and that my budgets provide 

sufficient funding for the NTSB to 

maintain its safety functions. Moreover, since funds have already been 

appropriated for the NTSB in 1987, 

NTSB activities will continue uninterrupted even with my disapproval of 

this bill.

Second, H.R. 4961 directs the Administrator of the Federal Aviation administration to establish an airport liability insurance clearinghouse and, 

with the Secretary of Transportation, 

to prepare reports on the increasing 

costs of general liability insurance coverage for airports and the implications 

of those increasing costs for airports. 

A final report would include recommendations for actions that the Federal government might undertake to 

assist in ameliorating the liability insurance difficulties of airports used by 

the public.

Many Americans are caught by the 

spiraling costs of liability insurance. 

While I am not unsympathetic to 

those who are bearing the cost of 

rising insurance premiums, I believe it 

would be inequitable and unwise for 

the Federal government to address 

this issue on an industry-by-industry 

basis.

For these reasons, I am compelled to 

withhold my approval from the bill. In 

so doing, I reemphasize that the disapproval will not disrupt the NTSB’s activities in 1987 and that my Administration remains firmly committed to 

ensuring safe transportation.

R onald R eagan.

The White House, November 4, 1986.

On November 5, 1986:

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON HEALTH PROMOTION

AND DISEASE PREVENTION

I am withholding my approval of S. 

2057, which would establish a President’s Council on Health Promotion 

and Disease Prevention.

Many Federal health promotion and 

disease prevention activities are underway at the Department of Health and 

Human Services, which set an ambitious agenda of health promotion and 

disease prevention goals to be achieved 

by 1990. I am encouraged by the 

progress that is being made toward 

those objectives and the plans which 

lie ahead. These plans include a national conference in late 1989 or early 

1990, and many individual programs 

such as the Low Birth Weight Prevention Initiative, the National High 

Blood Pressure Education Program, 

and the Healthy Older People Public 

Education Program. Because our Federal commitment to such activities

November 20, 1986