Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3015 - Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1990

(Senate Floor)
(Sponsors: Byrd (D), WV; Lautenberg (D) NJ)

The Administration has serious concerns with the Transportation Appropriations bill. In addition, late last night, the Administration learned that major new drug legislation is expected to be proposed by the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee as an amendment to the bill. If the "Emergency Drug" amendment developed by the Chairman is included in the Transportation Appropriations bill in its current form, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the President's other senior advisors will recommend to the President that he veto the bill.

The Omnibus Drug Act required the President to do a thorough analysis of the drug problem and to send Congress a comprehensive strategy for solving the problem. As required by lav, Director Bennett spent six months consulting widely and preparing just such a strategy. The strategy has been generally viewed as serious and sound. To propose a major increase in funding, 78 percent over FY 1989, just six days later — and to demand acceptance in 24 hours — is to reject the whole Drug Strategy process that the Congress itself demanded and legislated.

Other serious concerns with the "Emergency Drug" amendment follow:

• The President's plan proposed increasing drug spending by $2.2 billion over FY 1989 to a total of $7.9 billion for FY 1990. He made the tough choices. The proposed "Emergency Drug" amendment makes no choices. It throws money at the problem rather than providing a plan. It proposes a level of $10 billion, approximately a 78 percent increase over FY 1989.
  
  
• The Chairman's plan pays for the drug funding with a .575 of one percent cut in all discretionary spending. This proposal would arbitrarily cut defense by $1.8 billion. This cut in defense is way out of proportion. It would take 67% of the funds out of defense, when the defense component of the strategy is less than 10%. Defense has already taken reductions in real terms every year since 1985. The Defense bill that is being marked up today by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee already dedicates over $700 million to drug programs.
  
  
• As part of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, the President agreed to a real reduction in defense spending. The "Emergency Drug" amendment would take another $1.8 billion in budget authority from defense and would be a gross violation of the budget agreement.

The Administration has several serious concerns about the Transportation bill itself. The bill assumes the use of $300 million of Department of Defense appropriations to fund services for the Coast Guard. The Administration strongly opposes the practice of diverting funds from needed Defense programs to augment inadequate appropriations for the Coast Guard. In addition, it is the Administration's position that providing domestic discretionary programs (such as Coast Guard services) with funds intended for national defense violates the Bipartisan Budget Agreement (BBA).

Based on OMB's scoring, discretionary spending provided by this bill would result in outlays of $27.5 billion or $59 million above the 302(b) allocation. The Initial OMB Sequester Report of August 25th made clear that we have virtually no margin for expenditures above the 302(b) allocations if we are to avoid sequester. We therefore would respectfully urge the Senate to find appropriate means to bring the bill down to the 302(b) level.

The Administration is also concerned because the bill funds Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations, modernization of air traffic control equipment, and Coast Guard services at levels below those contained in the President's request. We urge the Senate to fund fully the FAA and Coast Guard requests by making reductions in highways, mass transit, and Amtrak.

The Administration opposes a number of other provisions, as outlined in the attachment. We hope that the Senate will approve a bill that adequately funds essential programs, that complies with 302(b) allocations and the BBA, and that addresses satisfactorily the issues raised by the Administration.

Attachment