[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
[November 14, 1997]
[Pages 1565-1567]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Statement on Signing the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1998
November 14, 1997

    I have signed into law today H.R. 2107, the ``Department of the 
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998.''
    This Act provides funding for the Department of the Interior, 
various programs of the Department of Energy, the Forest Service 
(Department of Agriculture), the Indian Health Service (Department of 
Health and Human Services), the National Foundation on the Arts and 
Humanities, and several other agencies. It funds several of my 
Administration's priorities, which were highlighted in the Bipartisan 
Budget Agreement (BBA): priority Federal land acquisitions, National 
Park Service (NPS) operations, NPS base land acquisition, Everglades 
restoration, and Tribal Priority Allocations in the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA).
    The National Endowment for the Arts will continue to provide active 
and visible support to important American arts communities and is funded 
at $98 million, $1.5 million below the FY 1997 level. The Act also 
provides $111 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. I 
remain concerned, however, about

[[Page 1566]]

the low level of funding for these agencies that provide important 
cultural, education, and artistic programs for communities across 
America.
    The $699 million provided in H.R. 2107 for priority Federal land 
acquisitions and exchanges is an extraordinary accomplishment agreed to 
in the BBA. These funds, in addition to the amounts provided for regular 
land acquisition, will allow the Secretaries of the Interior and 
Agriculture to protect nationally important treasures--including 
Yellowstone National Park and the largest privately held stand of 
ancient redwoods in northern California--from unacceptable environmental 
threats. It is important that the decision of the Congress to allow a 
portion of this appropriation to be used for critical maintenance 
projects and other purposes not be seen as a precedent for the 
allocation of moneys for such purposes from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund in the future. These problems, while meriting 
attention, are not appropriate uses of the funds. Finally, the bill 
includes an unjustified transfer of millions of dollars of mineral 
rights to the State of Montana--I intend to use my line-item veto 
authority to cancel the dollar drain on the Treasury that would result 
from this unwarranted action.
    The Act provides $1.2 billion for operation of our national park 
system. This funding, an increase of more than 6 percent over the amount 
provided for FY 1997, will enable the NPS to improve on the high-quality 
service at existing national parks, including five new parks established 
in 1996. Funding is provided at my requested level for Everglades 
restoration. This will support our efforts to restore this rare and 
delicate ecosystem to environmental health. The Act also provides $1.3 
billion for operation of our national forest system (6 percent over FY 
1997), and full funding for other land management agencies that provide 
recreation, conservation, and development opportunities to all 
Americans.
    My Administration has moved away from past policies that primarily 
emphasized timber cutting at the expense of the environment and 
blatantly violated environmental laws. This Administration stands for 
protecting the environment as well as jobs. For example, my Pacific 
Northwest Forest Plan, in place for over 3 years, encompasses this new 
approach of managing our national forests based on sound science. This 
plan helps to ensure that these forests can continue to provide multiple 
benefits to the public for the long-term, including timber harvest, 
wildlife, fisheries, recreation, and clean water. Another approach we 
are proud of is employing Habitat Conservation Plans, such as that in 
the Headwaters Forest agreement, which are based on sound science and 
that fully comply with the Endangered Species Act. We can and do protect 
economic and environmental interests.
    Unfortunately, the Act includes several provisions that attempt to 
interfere with the responsible management of our national forests. These 
Forest Service riders in the bill reflect increasing efforts by the 
majority in the Congress to micromanage forest management decisions and 
to prevent the use of scientifically based information to guide land 
stewardship. These provisions clearly are an attempt to return to forest 
management by politics rather than science and full public 
participation. This is a grave disservice to the people of the United 
States.
    For example, the bill includes a provision to restrict the ability 
of the Forest Service to start new revisions of national forest land 
management plans to bring them up to date with new science, until the 
agency publishes new planning regulations. The Congress clearly seeks to 
force the Administration to release forest planning regulations that 
have not yet been finalized because of our concerns over the 
regulations' impact on the Forest Service's ability to improve its 
environmental performance. Instead, USDA has established an independent 
Committee of Scientists to review the regulations and provide 
recommendations for their improvement. I have directed the agency to 
proceed expeditiously with this scientific review and to use its 
findings to guide its effort in rewriting forest planning direction. 
Until the new regulations are published, the agency will proceed with 
protecting the environment by conducting the necessary environmental 
analysis and updating forest plans to continue the Administration's 
science-based management policy to the maximum extent allowed under the 
rider.
    The Congress also continues to interfere with the Administration's 
efforts to promote ecosystem management and a greater understanding of 
the natural resource management issues affecting areas like the interior 
Columbia River Basin--an area characterized by forest health, watershed, 
and endangered species problems. Cumbersome requirements to delay a 
science-based plan for the Basin could potentially shut

[[Page 1567]]

down every forest in that region, hurting communities and families 
dependent on these forests for their livelihood. This action may benefit 
a few special interests, but it injures both the environment and the 
economy.
    In addition, the Conference Report for this Act directs the Forest 
Service to continue the use of so-called ``purchaser road credits'' for 
commercial timber roads on national forests. I have proposed to 
eliminate these credits, which amount to an unneeded subsidy for 
companies buying public timber. Contrary to the views expressed in the 
Conference Report, many in the Congress have acknowledged the adverse 
environmental impact that decades of timber road building have caused to 
our land and water. Therefore, I will again propose elimination of 
purchaser road credits next year while holding counties and small 
businesses harmless and have asked the Secretary of Agriculture to take 
the necessary administrative steps to be prepared to implement the 
Administration's proposal in FY 1999. Further, the Forest Service is 
developing a scientifically based policy for managing roadless areas in 
our national forests. These last remaining wild areas are precious to 
millions of Americans and key to protecting clean water and abundant 
wildlife habitat, and providing recreation opportunities. These 
unspoiled places must be managed through science, not politics.
    The Act contains funding of $612 million for energy conservation 
activities. While I am pleased that this includes modest increases for 
mitigating global climate change and for the Partnership for a New 
Generation of Vehicles, it is still a $96 million reduction from our 
request that will slow our planned progress in both of those areas.
    The Act provides $757 million for reservation-level BIA Tribal 
Priority Allocation programs as agreed to in the BBA. This will enable 
Tribes to allocate funding for essential programs, such as social 
services, law enforcement, housing improvement, scholarships, and road 
repair.
    While I am pleased that the Congress has funded the Tribal Priority 
Allocation programs at the level I requested, I am concerned that 
provisions in the Act will limit the ability of sovereign Alaskan tribes 
to exercise their self-determination as to how health services are 
provided. These provisions contradict my Administration's longstanding 
support of self-determination for tribal governments set forth under the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Act. It is my understanding that 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services can review any proposal 
submitted to the Indian Health Service for contracting primary care 
services against the statutory declination provisions in section 102 of 
the Indian Self-Determination Act.
    Section 129 of the Act prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from 
approving new class III tribal-State gaming compacts without prior 
approval of a State. This section properly construed, clarifies that 
State approval is governed by State law. I am advised that this section 
does not prohibit the Secretary from conducting a rulemaking to 
establish a process to govern situations in which a tribe and a State 
cannot agree on a tribal-State compact. This section is acceptable 
because it is not inconsistent with the established national policy set 
forth in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

                                                      William J. Clinton

The White House,

November 14, 1997.

Note: H.R. 2107, approved November 14, was assigned Public Law No. 105-
83.