Statement of Administration Policy: S. 1894 - Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY 1997
This Statement Has Been Coordinated by OMB with the Appropriate Agencies
(Senate Floor)
(Sponsors: Hatfield (R), Oregon; Stevens (R), Alaska)
This Statement of Administration Polio/ provides the Administration's views on S. 1894, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY 1997, as reported by the Committee. The President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto a Defense appropriations bill that does not address die concerns discussed below.
The Administration believes that the Committee bill is a significant improvement over the House-passed bill in several key areas, including its provision of full funding for the Seawolf Submarine, four DDG-51 Aegis Destroyers, depot maintenance activities, and the Nunn-Lugar program. The Administration also appreciates the Committee's support of the Civil-Military program and rejection of the House action on executive compensation and defense industry restructuring costs.
The Administration does not, however, support the overall increase of more than $10 billion above the President's request reflected in the Committee bill. With the Nation facing serious budget constraints, the Committee's recommended increase for this bill is not affordable.
The President's budget better supports defense requirements by fully funding currant readiness and by projecting significant increases in funding for modernization for the turn of the century. This is when defense technologies now in development will be ready for production. The Administration firmly believes that America can maintain a strong defense without sacrificing vital domestic programs.
The Committee added $7.1 billion for unrequested procurement items and did not provide $1.2 billion for procurement projects requested in the President's budget for FY 1997 and needed by the Department. In its procurement increase, the Committee included $3.3 billion for weapons and systems that are not in die long-range modernization plans of the Department of Defense.
Similarly, the Committee added $3.4 billion for unrequested research and development (R&D) items, while failing to provide $0.9 billion for R& D projects requested in the President's budget. The R&D increase includes about $1.7 billion for programs that are not in the long- range modernization plans of the Department Other programs in the long-range plan receive unnecessary increases under the Committee's mark. These unwarranted increases include $300 million to accelerate development of U.S.-based defenses against strategic missiles, funding that is not warranted by the threat, and acceleration of the space-based missile warning system, "SBIRS."
The Administration objects to the Committee's:
• Reduction of $150 million in funding for the Dual-Use Applications Program (DUAP). This program supports development of technologies that can be applied to both commercial and defense systems, thereby reducing the cost of defense systems. Appropriations at the requested level of $250 million are important to the affordability of defense systems and the viability of the defense industrial base;
• Reductions in funding for spare parts inventories, civilian personnel, military transportation, recovery of revolving fund losses, the Federal Energy Management Program, and Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid;
• Restrictions on the President's flexibility to conduct foreign relations regarding North Korea and on other foreign policy prerogatives; and,
Other Concern
• Section 8015 would prohibit contracting out certain functions without an analysis of the most efficient and cost-effective organization for those functions, but would waive this prohibition in some circumstances, including where the function "is planned to be converted to performance by a qualified firm under 51 percent Native American ownership." In light of Adarand Constructors. Inc, v Penna. 115 S.Ct. 2097 (1995), this language should be revised to make clear that it refers to ownership by members of Federally recognized tribes, see Morton v. Mancari. 417 U.S. 535, 552-55 (1974).
William J. Clinton, Statement of Administration Policy: S. 1894 - Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, FY 1997 Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/327596