Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3072 - Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY 1990

(House)
(Whitten (D/MS) and Murtha (D/PA))

The President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the FY 1990 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill as reported by the House Appropriations Committee.

The overall funding level proyided in the Committee bill is inconsistent with the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, and several of its program recommendations conflict with important Administration priorities. The Committee bill would provide budget authority of $286.5 billion. This is nearly $1 bill-ion less than the House 302(b) allocation, which was in accord with the Bipartisan Budget Agreement.

Funding is significantly reduced for several high-priority strategic and conventional programs, including the Strategic Defense Initiative, the B-2 bomber, the Peacekeeper missile, the Small ICBM, the Advanced Cruise Missile, the MILSTAR communications program, and the Advanced Tactical Fighter. On the other hand, the Committee has added funds to reverse cancellation of several programs the Administration does not believe to be affordable or essential. The Committee has also added funds for other lower-priority military programs not requested by the Administration. The Committee's recommendation would severely compromise the Administration's objective of providing adequate defense capabilities within constrained resources.

The bill also includes funding for programs that should be funded from domestic discretionary appropriations — in particular, the appropriations for the Coast Guard ($300 million) and the National Science Foundation ($82.9 million). Funding domestic discretionary programs from defense resources is a violation of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement. With regard to the Coast Guard funding, the Conference Report on the FY 1989 Defense Appropriations Act stated: "The conferees agree that this is the final year that Department of Defense appropriations should fund Coast Guard requirements."

Finally, Section 9052 raises constitutional questions because it purports to make Administration action legally dependent upon the approval of the Appropriations Committees before the Administration can transfer funds under this provision. This is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in INS vs. Chadha, which overturned the one-house legislative veto.