Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 2072 - Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1989

(Senate)
(Byrd (D) West Virginia)
(Whitten (D) Mississippi)

The Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 1987 limited both the President and the Congress to supplemental requests for FY 1989 that are "dire emergencies." The President's supplemental request was consistent with this agreement. Unfortunately, the House action on H.R. 2072 clearly was not. It would add $1.1 billion to the FY 1989 deficit for discretionary programs, many of which are not in dire need of funds. Unquestionably, the House bill would have to be recommended for veto.

In view of the need for prompt action on veterans funding and the lack of agreement on what constitutes a "dire emergency," the Administration has shown a willingness to compromise on the requirement for offsets. We stated during House Committee action that we could reluctantly accept a compromise package. In subsequent floor action, our Statement of Administration Position said that we could go as far as an increase relative to current law of $715 million in discretionary budget authority and $706 million in discretionary program outlays (as scored by OMB). At the same time, however, we stated that we could go no further.

The Senate Committee bill is clearly a major improvement compared to the House-passed bill. It is within striking distance of the ceiling noted above. We estimate, overall, that it would add_a net $49 million relative to the outer limits on discretionary budget authority we firmly established during House debate and in subsequent discussions with the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The Committee is to be commended especially for their decision to strike the $822 million in drug program funding that is in the House bill, and for opposing efforts to add back funds in Committee. While drug abuse is clearly one of America's most serious problems, we do not believe that an FY 1989 supplemental for drug programs is necessary. A $1 billion drug supplemental was enacted only half a year ago. The $5.3 billion appropriated for FY 1989 for drug programs is a 39 percent increase over FY 1988. That funding is not being exhausted prematurely. A Congressionally-mandated drug strategy to guide federal spending is due on September 1; and a major additional increase is planned for FY '90. The Administration urges the Senate to oppose any effort to add drug funding on the floor and to insist on the Senate Committee position in conference.

We do not believe that all the funds appropriated in the Senate Committee bill represent dire emergencies. But we recognize that there is room for argument on this. What is of primary concern to us, at this point, is the need to restore fiscal responsibility, while also assuring prompt enactment of necessary veterans funding. Given our expressed willingness to accept a compromise in the House, and given the Senate Committee's good faith effort to draft a bill within the fiscal parameters we established for an acceptable compromise, we can support moving the committee bill forward to Conference.

However, we remain very concerned about the prospect of add-ons on the Senate floor and in conference. And we are firm in our commitment to an overall limit on adverse deficit effects as noted above. Any further adverse contribution to the deficit on the Senate floor or at the conference stage would cause the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to recommend to the President that he veto the bill.