Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1777 - Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989

(House)
(Rep. Mica (D) Florida)

The administration believes certain aspects of H.R. 1777 are useful and constructive and is hopeful that the bill's remaining problems, particularly overall funding levels, can be resolved in a mutually satisfactory way. If so, the administration could support the bill as part of the ongoing legislative process.

More specifically, the administration would support H.R. 1777, if changed to:

— increase funding to confotm to the levels requested by the administration, which are essential for an effective foreign affairs program;.

— delete earmarking provisions which would unduly limit Presidential discretion and flexibility;

— delete Sec. 134, which creates an unnecessary Bureau of South Asian Affairs that would reduce funding for other important programs;

— delete Sec. 144, which expands the Foreign Service Grievance Board authority, because these amendments are inappropriate and would infringe upon the Secretary of State's management authority;

— delete the part of Sec. 142 that would provide unwarranted benefits for certain former spouses of still-living participants in the Foreign Service Retirement System unlike Civil Service retirement where such benefits have never been provided on a retroactive basis or without deduction from the benefit of the participant; and

— delete Sec. 303, Contractor Requirements, which would give American firms preference in Voice of America modernization projects, because it is counter to the administration's policy of promoting free trade, would restrict competition, and would raise costs.

However, the administration would oppose H.R. 1777 if it were amended to include H.R. 2410, the Diplomatic Reciprocity and Security Act. H.R. 2410 contains a number of objectionable provisions that would make more difficult the efficient implementation of the diplomatic security program, force a cumbersome and unnecessary reorganization on the Department of State, and likely worsen United States' relations with the Soviet Union without offsetting benefits to the United States. The administration believes that consideration of legislation relating to Moscow security should be deferred until the results of important studies, particularly those of the Schlesinger and Laird panels, have been fully evaluated.