c o 29 forth his views on the constitutionality of legislative veto devices generally, of which the so-called committee approval devices are a subcategory, That message, reprinted at 124 Con. Rec. H 5879-80 (Daily Ed. June 21, 1975), is fully applicable to the committee approval pro- visions in this bill.? The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program Sincerely, oo Auan A. Parker, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Drepartuent OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D.C., October 9, 1979. Hon. Henry M. Jacnson, oo, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senaie, Washington, D.C. oe, Dear Mr. Coarmaan: This responds to your request for a report on FLLR. 3756 as passed by the House of Representatives on May 7, 1979, 4 bill “To authorize appropriations for certain insular areas of the United States, and for other purposes.” The Administration recommends that H.R. 3756 be enacted with the amendments described below. -. TBECTION 101 tre, Section 101 would provide an open-ended authorization of funds for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands after 1980, both as to tune and amount. The Administration has no objection to the openended provisions. We believe that language that is open-ended as to amount gives recognition to the need for Trust Territory budget flexibility in light of the changes taking place there. Open-ended timing would accommodate the schedule that might arise from agreement reached with the Micronesians on future political status terminating tho trusteeship by the end of 1981. SECTION 102 a Section 102 would authorize the appropriation of 50 percent of the outstanding amounts payable under the adjudicated claims and final awards made by the Micronesian Claims Commission under Title I tWe note that, absent some legislative history to the contrary, we would vlew the “comnilttee approval” provision In § 404 as severable. We therefore would take the position thane the Seeretary would be free tou treat § 40-4 ay a notice clause aud to proceed with the extenslon, renewal or renegotiation of leageg subject to § 404 without the “express Approval’ required by § 404. . We would add that the “committee approval" proviston in thts bit is analyttcally and constitutionally distinguishable from statutury provisions which require the approval’ by, for example, the louse Committee on Public Works and Transportation, of Governiment construction projects prior to appropriations being made by Congress for such Projects. We have historically taken the position that such “no appropriation’ provisions constitute ouly an internal Hmitatlon on Congress itself as regards putting motiey into ag appropriation tcasure for a project that hag not been “approved” by one of the public works conunittees, In our view the enactment of an appropriation bIN Including such meney fn the absence of the “approval” of the committees would be the final word from Conpress. fu contrast, the provisions in thls bIL] give the Executive Branch final tuthority to carry oue tertadz actions but require the “approval” of Congresslooal committees prior to earry- me Ing out tirose actlony, Congress eould, of course, require subsequent levislation to be enacted Prior te the final nevotiation of the leasea here, but it ay not, in our view, condition that Hecotintion by anything less than subsequent lecislation. In short, ‘no appropriantiga’’ provisions purpere to bind Congress, while thts bill would purper ditlo hee 3 of statutory power by the Executive, purport to condition the Pxerctse