PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE SUBSEQUENT TO SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT II 129.151

III requirements for the exercise of the judicial power.

R o n a l d R e a g a n.

T h e W h i t e H o u s e , October 26, 1988.

S. 437

m e m o r a n d u m o f d is a p p r o v a l

I am withholding my approval of S. 437, a bill “to authorize the refinanc­ ing of certain small business deben­ tures, and for other purposes”. The bill would have shortchanged Ameri­ can taxpayers by allowing certain bor­ rowers to prepay their Federally guar­ anteed loans at reduced premiums. Under Section 503 of the Small Busi­ ness Investment Act of 1958, the Small Business Administration may guaran­ tee a particular type of bond, known as a debenture, issued by State and local development companies. The companies have sold these debentures to the Department of the Treasury's Federal Financing Bank and used the proceeds received to make loans to small business borrowers. The amendment made by Section 1 of S. 437 would have permitted devel­ opment companies to prepay their de­ bentures held by the Bank at substan­ tially reduced premiums and to fi­ nance the prepayments by issuing new debentures fully guaranteed by the Government. Such an arrangement would in effect allow a borrower to change the borrowing terms to which it had previously agreed any time it is financially favorable to the borrower— and therefore unfavorable to the Bank and American taxpayers—to do so. Al­ though prepayments under the amendments made by Section 1 of S. 437 temporarily would have reduced the Federal deficit, in future years the deficit would have been substantially increased as the result of the borrow­ ers’ avoidance of interest payments that would have been paid in the ab- sense of prepayments. Under Section 303 of the Small Busi­ ness Investment Act, the Small Busi­ ness Administration may purchase de­ bentures issued by a small business in­ vestment company. The amendment made by Section 2 of S. 437 authorizes adjustment in certain circumstances of the interest rates on such debentures and provides that the face amount of the debenture with an adjusted inter­ est rate will not be treated as new budget authority or new credit author­ ity. This artificial budget accounting rule conflicts with the Federal budget accounting practices of the Office of Management and Budget and the Con­ gressional Budget Office. The result of this accounting sleight of hand would have been to understate the adverse impact of Section 2 of S. 437 on the Federal budget deficit.

R o n a l d R e a g a n.

T h e W h i t e H o u s e , October 31, 1988.

S. 2 751

m e m o r a n d u m o f d is a p p r o v a l

I am withholding my approval of S. 2751, a bill “to designate certain lands in Montana as wilderness, to release

other forest lands for multiple use management, and for other purposes.” My Administration’s National Forest System Land and Resource Manage­ ment Plans for Montana already strike the appropriate balance among com­ peting economic, environmental, and cultural interests in the National For­ ests of Montana. The provisions of S. 2751 would have severely disrupted that balance. Enactment of the bill would injure the economy of Montana. It could cost jobs and eliminate vast mineral devel­ opment opportunities. It also would reduce the flexibility the Federal Gov­ ernment needs in managing the Na­ tion’s natural heritage. The legislation would constrain the ability of the Federal Government to obtain strategic and critical minerals. These minerals are necessary to supply military, industrial, and essen­ tial civilian needs during national de­ fense emergencies and are not now found or produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet those needs. Finally, the legislation would have provided for the Federal Government to exchange revenue-producing Feder­ al land for nonrevenue-producing land. The resulting loss in revenue to the Treasury would have increased the Federal deficit and imposed an un­ wanted and unneeded burden on the American taxpayer.

R o n a l d R e a g a n.

T h e W h i t e H o u s e , November 2, 1988.

S. 1081

m e m o r a n d u m o f d is a p p r o v a l

I am withholding my approval of S. 1081, a bill “to establish a coordinated National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research program, and a com­ prehensive plan for the assessment of the nutritional and dietary status of the United States population and the nutritional quality of food consumed in the United States, with the provi­ sion for the conduct of scientific re­ search and development and support of such program and plan”. The Administration strongly sup­ ports the principal goals of this legis­ lation and reaffirms its commitment to use existing authority to achieve these ends. However, enactment of the bill would set up Federal nutrition ef­ forts on the wrong course. The bill would create a substantial amount of unnecessary and complex Federal bureaucracy that would hamper the achievement of the bill’s goals. Under the bill, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting jointly, would bear responsibility for nutrition information collection and analysis, planning for research and grants, and government-wide nutrition program budgeting. The bill also would create an Administrator of Nu­ trition Monitoring and Related Re­ search, an Interagency Board for Nu­ trition Monitoring and Related Re­ search, and a Nutrition Monitoring

Advisory Council. The creation of so much new Federal bureaucracy would hinder, rather than aid, performance of Federal nutrition-related functions. The bill would impose a substantial new burden on the American taxpayer in future years to pay for Federal Gov­ ernment grants. First, the bill would require the Secretaries, acting jointly, to develop a comprehensive plan for a coordinated nutrition program. Then it specifies that the program must in­ clude at least two new programs of Federal grants, under which the Fed­ eral Government would make awards of taxpayers’ dollars. The bill then further specifies that the comprehen­ sive plan shall “constitute the basis on which each agency participating in the coordinated program requests authori­ zations and appropriations for nutri­ tion monitoring and related research”. Thus, the bill would effectively pro­ gram substantial new grant funding into future Federal budgets. Experience shows that once the Fed­ eral Government begins handing out money under a new grant program, a political constituency develops that demands greater funding for that pro­ gram. Greater scrutiny should be given to the need for the proposed new grant programs before they are locked in as a future expansion of the Federal budget, especially given the likely urgent future needs in other areas of the Federal budget.

R o n a l d R e a g a n.

T h e W h i t e H o u s e , November 8, 1988.

H.R. 2 5 9 6

POCKET VETO

Pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 7, the following bill (H.R. 2596) of the House failed to become law by pocket veto: An Act to improve Federal manage­ ment of lands on Admiralty Island, Alaska.

II129.151 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. BROOKS: Committee on Gov­ ernment Operations. Report on double standards: A review of criminal investi­ gations at the Department of Educa­ tion (Rept. No. 100-1105). Ordered to be printed. Mr. BROOKS: Committee on Gov­ ernment Operations. Report on “If This is Tuesday, This Must Be Bel­ gium”: Waste and abuse in foreign travel and aircraft usage and owner­ ship by the Corps of Engineers (Rept. No. 100-1106). Ordered to be printed.

[Submitted Dec. 13, 1988] Mr. LELAND: Select Committee on Hunger. Progress report on the activi­ ties of the Select Committee on Hunger during the 100th Congress (Rept. No. 100-1107). Referred to the

2579