National Wildlife Federation v. United States

No. 78-1039 (D.D.C. July 20, 1978)

The court denies plaintiff's request for mandamus directing the President of the United States to issue a supplemental budget statement under § 8(b) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. The court declares moot the first of plaintiff's claims, that the President failed to comply with the Act's directive that all budgetary requests for United States Forest Service (USFS) activities be accompanied by a detailed description of the extent to which those activities achieve the policies set forth in the Act. Although the fiscal year 1979 appropriation request for the USFS was not accompanied by the required explanation, testimony subsequently presented to congressional committees by executive branch representatives conveyed to Congress information in sufficient detail and quantity to meet the Act's requirement. The court declines to determine whether there is any factual basis to plaintiff's second claim that the President violated the directive within § 8(b) that any budget request recommending less than full achievement of the Act's policies include a statement of reasons for the shortcoming. The general terms in which the latter requirement is couched reflects congressional intent to confer considerable discretion upon the President in submitting the statement of reasons. Thus, this case is not appropriate for the issuance of mandamus, which lies only to order the performance of a purely ministerial act. This finding is buttressed by the proper reluctance of the judiciary to delve into the essentially political questions which arise in disputes between the legislative and executive branches over budgetary and appropriation matters.

For a summary of the court papers filed in this action, see ELR PEND. LIT. 65570.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Patrick Parenteau
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th St. NW, Washington DC 20036
(202) 797-6800

Counsel for Defendants
Cameron M. Blake, Ass't U.S. Attorney
3rd & Constitution NW, 3500 E St., Washington DC 20001
(202) 426-7511

James T. Draude
Land and Natural Resources Division
Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 737-2807

[8 ELR 20651]

Gesell, J.:

Proceedings

THE COURT: As I indicated yesterday, I will — because of the time factors, both the court's and the litigants' — give my decision to you in the form of oral conclusions of law and findings of fact.

This case is directed at the alleged failure of the President to identify and explain departures from congressionally approved forest program goals in the fiscal year 1979 budget request as allegedly required by § 8(b) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1600.

Plaintiff seeks affirmatively to enjoin the President and Director of OMB by mandamus directing the issuance of a supplemental budget statement in compliance with the Act.

Prior to an expedited hearing on plaintiff's prayer for a [8 ELR 20652] preliminary injunction, plaintiff moved under Rule 65 to have the matter decided on the merits.

While defendants objected, the court is satisfied that further proceedings are not necessary adequately [sic] to dispose of the issues and plaintiff's motion is granted.

Section 8(b) provides in pertinent part that:

Requests presented by the President to the Congress governing Forest Service activities shall express in qualitative and quantitative terms the extent to which the programs and policies projected under the budget meet the policies approved by Congress in accordance with Subsection (a) of this Section.

In any case in which such budget so presented recommends a course which fails to meet the policies so established, the President shall specifically set forth the reason or reasons for requesting the Congress to approve the lesser programs or policies presented.

The policies approved by the Congress in accordance with subsection (a), to recite the language of the section, are one or both of two docudments: The Renewable Resources Program, prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1602, or the Statement of Policy, which the President submits to the Congress at the time the program is presented to Congress in accordance with 16 U.S.C. § 1606(a).

The last program submitted to Congress was completed by the United States Department of Agriculture Forestry Service in 1975. The President's statement accompanying this document was sent to the Congress March 2, 1976.

The fiscal year 1979 budget was sent with the presidential message to Congress in January 1978 and this, of course, included the budget covering the activities of the Forest Service.

Subcommittees of the appropriate House and Senate committees have held hearings on the Forest Service budget, eliciting detail. The appropriation for the Forest Service, with line amendments, passed the House on June 21. The Senate action is expected early in August.

Insofar as this record shows, no member of the House or Senate has apparently raised any objection to the sufficiency of the President's submission.

On April 28, however, plaintiff requested the President, by letter, to comply with § 8(b). There was no response to that letter. Hearing no response, plaintiff filed the instant action on June 8, 1978.

Plaintiff contends that the budget request which the President submitted to Congress in January plus the accompanying documents do not comply with the requirements of § 8(b) in two major respects.

It is first contended that the President failed to express in qualitative and quantitative terms the extent to which the program and policies projected under the budget met the policies approved by Congress.

Secondly it is contended that in any event the President failed specifically to set forth the reason or reasons for requesting the Congress to approve the lesser program or policies which he presented.

As far as the lack of qualitative and quantitative data is concerned, this lack is conceded. The information failed to present qualitative and quantitative data. However, the President, through his representatives, has supplied to the House, in connection with the subcommittee hearings, minute detail with respect to the Forest Service budget in the course of those hearings.

Plaintiff does not question the adequacy of the data now in hand as far as the qualitative and quantitative aspect of § 8(b) is concerned. Accordingly, in the court's view, this aspect of the matter is moot both for purposes of mandamus and declaratory judgment.I would cite Rose v. Wade, in 410 U.S. 113, and Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. at page 108.

On the other hand, plaintiff still vigorously contends that the President failed specifically to set forth the reason or reasons for requesting the Congress to approve the lesser program or policies presented.

It should be pointed out that the President did state a reason. The President stated a controlling goal to balance the budget by 1981 and to hold federal employment at minimum levels.

He stated that to this end programs not of the highest priority would have to be reduced or eliminated. He went further and identified two programs operated by the Forest Service as high priority and they were apparently funded accordingly.

Plaintiff finds this unsatisfactory. The most concise statement of the plaintiff's position is found in its papers where it is stated that: "This introductory statement . . ." —

Referring to what the court has just reviewed, of the President:

. . . sets the stage for descriptions of how and why high or low priorities are determined, thus allowing for meaningful evaluation by Congress and the Public of the President's position on particular Forest Service programs.

And plaintiff comments that: "These descriptions are not forthcoming."

Defendants take issue with this analysis of § 8(b), contending that the President has indeed complied with § 8(b) in all respects.

The positions of the parties are widely apart and this dispute reflects the ambiguity and uncertainty of the statutory language.

Plaintiff seeks much more detail, relying heavily on the words that precede the second sentence of § 8(b), "In any case."

In context, it is not apparent whether "case" refers to line-by-line requests in the budget, which plaintiff, itself, doubts, whether it refers to general areas of the Forest Service functions, as plaintiff apparently contends, or whether it refers to the program and policies as a whole.

In any event, it is perfectly apparent, given the looseness of the language and its uncertainties, that the President has a broad area of discretion as to the manner or detail in which he supplies his reason or reasons.

Under these circumstances, mandamus clearly does not lie. Surely under these circumstances no purely ministerial act is involved. But there is in the court's view a further obstacle to court intervention.

Congress and the Chief Executive have significant constitutional responsibilities in budget and appropriation matters. These coordinate bodies are governed in this important relationship not only by statutes such as § 8(b) or legislation now codified at 31 U.S.C. § 11 but by unwritten traditions and customs.

Obviously under these circumstances the court must proceed, if at all, extremely cautiously.

Here we are concerned, however, with legislation which had as its stated intent more congressional control over the management activities and appropriation policy of the National Forest System lands. Surely in this instance a political matter, therefore, of substantial consequence exists.

There is no way that the court can identify from the statute either the nature or sufficiency of the explanations the President may be required to give. The court, therefore, sits instructed by Baker v. Carr, and like cases, to abjure a political question of this kind because there does not appear to be any discernible standard that can be applied.

The court, therefore, has determined that it will decline to issue any mandamus or to rule as to the meaning of § 8(b) or as to the sufficiency of the President's compliance.

If the court may be permitted one or two words by way of dicta, I believe there are some lessons in this litigation which may be instructive and useful for the future.

The defendants, themselves, here concede that the President's budget message was deficient because of its lack of qualitative and quantitative information as required. Moreover, it appears that Congress may well have had in mind an expectation that the President's report or budget message would contain a fuller statement of reasons in some form or other.

It appears to the court that closer scrutiny of the requirements of § 8(b) and more detailed implementation of § 8(b) in the future may well minimize possible court involvement in a matter that really concerns, as the court has indicated, the [8 ELR 20653] working relations primarily between Congress and the President, an area in which hopefully the federal courts will not further be involved.

For the reasons that the court has stated, the complaint must be and hereby is dismissed.