Statement of Administration Policy: S. 2403 - Rescission Bill, FY 1992

(Senate Floor)
(Sponsor: Byrd (D), West Virginia)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on S. 2403, the rescission bill, as approved by the Appropriations Committee. For the reasons discussed below, the President's senior advisers would recommend veto of the substitute to S. 2403 reported by the Committee on April 30th.

In an effort to reduce wasteful spending, the President recently proposed 224 rescission items totaling $7,879 million. While the Appropriations Committee's Bill exceeds the total level of rescissions proposed, it is the Administration's view that the committee has taken an unnecessary, undesirable, and unproductive approach by targeting cuts in critical strategic and other defense programs.

In particular, the Administration strongly objects to the rescissions of: $l.3 billion for the Strategic Defense Initiative; $1.0 billion for the B-2; $0.l8 billion for the National Aerospace Plane and National Launch System; and about $0.4 billion for unidentified classified programs.

The President proposed over $7 billion in defense rescissions by identifying those programs that are no longer needed as a result of changes in the external threat to national security. Cutting critical programs is not a viable alternative to eliminating unnecessary programs such as the Seawolf Submarine, M-l tank conversion, F-l4 aircraft modifications, and reducing unnecessary National Guard and Reserve Equipment funding. In addition, the Administration has not had an opportunity to review the Classified Annex for the classified programs and strongly objects to language that would incorporate the Annex by reference.

The committee approved only $l2 million of the $737 million in domestic program reductions proposed by the President, and substituted what the Administration believes is a gimmick. The Administration strongly opposes the $743 million rescission of section 8 certificate amendments because it would not result in any decrease in Federal spending, instead, the rescission would only increase the unfunded liabilities for these long-term subsidies. The funds for these section 8 amendments are needed to cover the long-term requirements of subsidized rental housing contracts.

FY 1992 appropriations for International Affairs programs have already been cut substantially more in percentage terms than either domestic or defense programs, relative to the spending limits in the Budget Enforcement Act. Funding for foreign assistance is especially constrained under the Continuing Resolution and because of reprogramming of existing funds to the former Soviet Republics. The Administration believes that most of the reductions identified by the Committee would adversely affect the Administration's ability to support important foreign policy objectives.