[align=left]
The OCC disagreed. See In the Matter of Collection of Debts-Statute of Limitations on Administrative Setoff, 58 Comp. Gen. 501, 504-505 (1979). In its view, the question was answered by "[t]he general rule . . . that statutes of limitations applicable to suits for debts or money demands bar or run only against the remedy (the right to bring suit) to which they apply and do not discharge the debt or extinguish, or even impair, the right or obligation, either in law or in fact, and the creditor may avail himself of every other lawful means of realizing on the debt or obligation. See Mascot Oil Co. v. United States, 42 F. 2d 309 (Ct. Cl. 1930), affirmed 282 U. S. 434 ; and 33 Comp. Gen. 66 (1953). See also Ready-Mix Concrete Co. v. United States, 130 F. Supp. 390 (Ct. Cl. 1955)." Ibid.

That Congress had time-barred the judicial remedy, OCC reasoned, imposed no limit on the administrative remedy.

The OLC-OCC dispute reveals that, even under the interpretation of subsection (a)-the one we are adopting-that considers it applicable only to court proceedings, subsection (i) is not mere surplusage. It clarifies that administrative offsets are not covered by subsection (a) even if they are viewed as an adjunct of a court action.

To accept petitioners' argument, on the other hand, we would have to hold either that §2415(a) applied to administrative actions when it was enacted in 1966 or that it was extended to reach administrative actions when subsection (i) was added in 1982. The clear meaning of the text of §2415(a), which has not been amended, refutes the first of these propositions, and accepting the latter would require us to conclude that in 1982 Congress elected to enlarge §2415 to cover administrative proceedings by inserting text expressly excluding a single administrative vehicle from the statute's reach. It is entirely unrealistic to suggest that Congress would proceed by such an oblique and cryptic route.

III

Petitioners contend that interpreting §2415(a) as applying only to judicial actions results in a statutory scheme with peculiarities that Congress could not have intended. For example, petitioners note that while they are required by statute to preserve their records regarding royalty obligations for only seven years, 30 U.S.C. 1724(f), the interpretation of §2415(a) adopted by the Court of Appeals permits MMS to issue payment orders that reach back much farther. We are mindful of the fact that a statute should be read where possible as effecting a " 'symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,' " FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 133 (2000), but here petitioners' alternative interpretation of §2415(a) would itself result in disharmony. For instance, under FOGRSFA, MMS payment orders regarding oil and gas leases are now prospectively subject to a 7-year statute of limitations except with respect to obligations arising out of leases of Indian land. Consequently, if we agreed with petitioners that §2415(a) applies generally to administrative proceedings, payment orders relating to oil and gas royalties owed under leases of Indian land would be subject to a shorter (i.e., 6-year) statute of limitations than similar payment orders relating to leases of other public-domain lands (which would be governed by FOGRSFA's new 7-year statute). Particularly in light of Congress' exhortation that the Secretary of the Interior "aggressively carry out his trust responsibility in the administration of Indian oil and gas," 30 U.S.C. 1701(a)(4), it seems unlikely that Congress intended to impose a shorter statute of limitations for payment orders regarding Indian lands.

Petitioners contend, finally, that interpreting §2415(a) as applying only to judicial actions would frustrate the statute's purposes of providing repose, ensuring that actions are brought while evidence is fresh, lightening recordkeeping burdens, and pressuring federal agencies to assert federal rights promptly. These are certainly cogent policy arguments, but they must be viewed in perspective.

For one thing, petitioners overstate the scope of the problem, since Congress of course can enact and has enacted specific statutes of limitations to govern specific administrative actions. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 5205(a)(1) (statute of limitations for an administrative action to recover payments made to state governments for disaster or emergency assistance). Indeed, in 1996, FOGRSFA imposed just such a limitation prospectively on all non-Indian land, oil, and gas lease claims.

Second, and more fundamentally, the consequences of interpreting §2415(a) as limited to court actions must be considered in light of the traditional rule exempting proceedings brought by the sovereign from any time bar. There are always policy arguments against affording the sovereign this special treatment, and therefore in a case like this, where the issue is how far Congress meant to go when it enacted a statute of limitations applicable to the Government, arguing that an expansive interpretation would serve the general purposes of statutes of limitations is somewhat beside the point. The relevant inquiry, instead, is simply how far Congress meant to go when it enacted the statute of limitations in question. Here prior to the enactment of §2415(a) in 1966, contract actions brought by the Government were not subject to any statute of limitations. See Guaranty Trust Co., 304 U. S., at 132. Absent congressional action changing this rule, it remains the law, and the text of §2415(a) betrays no intent to change this rule as it applies to administrative proceedings.

In the final analysis, while we appreciate petitioners' arguments, they are insufficient to overcome the plain meaning of the statutory text. We therefore hold that the 6-year statute of limitations in §2415(a) applies only to court actions and not to the administrative proceedings involved in this case.

* * *

For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

----------------------------------------

1 MMS is not always the auditing body, as MMS may delegate its authority to the host State or an Indian tribe. 30 U.S.C. 1732, 1735.

2 MMS intended this letter to implement its regulations, which required lessees "to place gas in marketable condition at no cost to the Federal Government unless otherwise provided in the lease agreement." 30 CFR §206.152(i) (1996).

3 These primary definitions have not changed in substance since 1966. Black's (8th ed. 2004) now defines "action" as "[a] civil or criminal judicial proceeding" and a "complaint" as "[t]he initial pleading that starts a civil action and states the basis for the court's jurisdiction, the basis for the plaintiff's claim, and the demand for relief." Id., at 31, 303.

4 Moreover, it seems unlikely that Congress intended administrative proceedings to commence within one year after the conclusion of administrative proceedings.

5 See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 5205(a)(1) (statute of limitations for "administrative action[s] to recover any payment[s] made to a State or local government for disaster or emergency assistance"); 12 U.S.C. 1441a(b)(11)(G) (requiring Resolution Trust Corporation to maintain staff to assist with certain "cases, civil claims, and administrative enforcement actions"); 15 U.S.C. § 78u(h)(9)(B) (Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provision noting that certain "[f]inancial records . . . may be disclosed or used only in an administrative, civil, or criminal action"). See also 7 CFR §3018.400(c) (2006) (Department of Agriculture regulation regarding "administrative action[s] for the imposition of a civil penalty" for failure to file disclosure forms); 71 Fed. Reg. 7407 (2006) (to be codified in 12 CFR §1412.2(l)(1)) (Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation regulation defining "prohibited indemnification payment" to include reimbursement for a civil money penalty of judgment resulting from any "administrative or civil action" instituted by the Farm Credit Administration); 10 CFR pt. 820, App. A, IX-b (2006) ("Administrative actions, such as determination of award fees where [Department of Energy] contracts provide for such determinations, will be considered separately from any civil penalties that may be imposed under this Enforcement Policy").

6 There was some question at oral argument whether MMS' initial letter might constitute a "complaint" within the meaning of §2415(a). Petitioners did not advance this argument, and recognized at oral argument that neither the statute nor the regulations require the issuance of such a letter. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7-9. The Government, for its part, observed that all such a letter does is request information, as the agency has not yet decided whether to assert a claim. Id., at 28. This is not a complaint.
7 Indeed, what emerges strikingly from OLC's 1978 opinion is that no one at the time-neither OLC nor OCC-even contemplated that §2415(a) applied to administrative procedures in the first instance. Nor have petitioners pointed to any source demonstrating otherwise.

[/align]