Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 4739 - National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1991

(House)
(Aspin D-Wisconsin and Dickinson R-Alabama)

The Administration submitted a fiscal year 1991 budget designed to ensure strong and capable military forces prepared to protect and advance American interests around the globe. That budget would maintain the U. S. capability to respond effectively to regional crises which threaten American interests, such as the current crisis in the Persian Gulf, and it takes account of the changes in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.

In contrast, H.R. 4739 provides (1) insufficient funding for crucial strategic and conventional modernization programs; (2) insufficient funding and flexibility to pursue effectively the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI); (3) insufficient troop levels to defend American interests; (4) insufficient flexibility for management of the reshaping of the armed forces, the defense civilian work force, and the defense base infrastructure; and (5) funding for items not needed for the national defense. The President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill if it is presented to him in its current form.

The bill eliminates or underfunds crucial strategic and conventional weapon systems and the SDI. Of particular concern, the bills

—  Terminates the B-2 Stealth bomber program, despite its value in a retaliatory force shaped by the limits in the START Treaty, and underfunds the strategic missile modernization programs that remain essential to deter the use of nuclear weapons.

—  Underfunds the SDI which holds promise of a future defense against nuclear weapons. As ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear, chemical, biological or high explosive warheads proliferate, the importance of SDI continues to grow.

—  Underfunds the A-12 Avenger carrier-based attack aircraft program that is essential to replacing the aging A-6 aircraft that provide the striking power for aircraft carrier battle groups.

—  Underfunds and over-restricts the C-17 cargo aircraft program that is crucial to maintaining the strategic airlift capability upon which America's ability to respond to regional crises substantially depends.

—  Underfunds and over-restricts the Advanced Tactical Fighter program that is essential to ensuring that the United States maintains air superiority in future conflicts.

The bill requires excessive cuts in military personnel. The Administration plans to carefully reshape the armed forces. However, the bill's single-year cut of 92, 000 people, in addition to the Administration's reduction of 38,000, is inconsistent with the effective reshaping of the armed forces. So too is the arbitrary reduction of the number of general and flag officer positions. Moreover, the cut of 130, 000 military personnel may create unforeseen risks during a period in which the United States has been forced to undertake substantial new overseas deployments to defend vital American interests in and around the Arabian Peninsula.

H.R. 4739 restricts the authority of the Secretary of Defense to reshape the armed forces, the Defense civilian work force and the defense base infrastructure. As the resources available for the national defense shrink, the Department of Defense's need for flexibility in administering the reduced resources becomes paramount. Enactment of the Administration's proposed "Defense Management Improvement Act, " "Military Personnel Transition Assistance Act," and "Defense Base Consolidation Act" would provide that essential flexibility.

The Administration strongly opposes statutory micro-management of the Department's allocation of its scarce resources, such as the bill's certification and prior reporting requirements related to various procurement programs, and its restrictions on personnel and on the closure or realignment of unneeded bases. Congressional restrictions, such as the requirement to more than double the size of the Special Operations oversight staff, denies needed flexibility. As the reshaping of the force structure occurs, it is imperative that the Department of Defense has the flexibility to close or realign under-utilized or unneeded bases. H.R. 4739 would purport to require the Secretary of Defense to submit legislative proposals dealing with base closures. The Constitution confers on the President the power to submit such legislative proposals as the President judges necessary and expedient. Thus, Congress may not require him to submit proposed bills.

It is critical that Congress not add low-priority or unneeded items to the defense budget. Thus, for example, the bill should not include funding for the V-22 Osprey aircraft program and for items which were not requested for National Guard and Reserve programs.

The bill would impose ill-advised, and in some cases constitutionally suspect, provisions that purport to limit the authority of the Executive Branch to deploy the armed forces. These include geographic and numerical restrictions on the deployment of personnel and equipment. Two provisions are of particular concern. First is the prohibition on fulfillment of the U.S. commitment to the NATO Alliance to base the 401st Tactical Fighter Wing at Crotone, Italy. Second is the requirement for "dual basing" of forces by assigning them within the United States and rotating them on a short-term basis through overseas deployments.

The Administration objects to sections 2811 through 2823 which grant the Department of Defense authorities for the disposition of Federally-owned real property. The provisions are at variance with existing law, particularly the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. Of special concern is Section 2822 which would authorize the nonreimbursable transfer of property known as Barracks "K" in Arlington, Virginia. GSA's transfer of this property to the Navy was the subject of intense litigation. Changing the conditions of the transfer, as this section would, could be viewed as circumventing the underlying facts upon which the U.S. District Court based its decisions and could possibly result in additional litigation.

The Administration also objects to the provisions of H.R. 4739 which (1) require an unnecessary study of the safety of removing obsolete chemical weapons from the Aberdeen Proving Ground and Lexington Bluegrass Arsenal; (2) limit the discretion of the Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, to direct programs with state and local law enforcement officials; and (3) limit the secretary's ability to make resource allocations and contract policy decisions by transferring the decision whether or not to implement OMB Circular A-76 to local installation commanders.

Additionally, the Administration strongly objects to the following amendments:

— The AuCoin-Machtley amendment which would require medical facilities of the uniformed services outside the United States to perform abortions.

— The Gilman amendment which includes the text of H.R. 2544 that allows Federal agencies to make Federal student loan payments on behalf of certain employees. The Department of Education has previously recommended that this provision be vetoed. Studies have indicated that forgiveness of loans has not been effective in inducing individuals to enter a particular profession. The Gilman amendment would set a dangerous and very costly precedent by allowing forgiveness for Federal civil servants in the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) programs, and it would lead to pressure for forgiveness for many other meritorious activities. Given the size of the GSL program, with $52 billion in loans outstanding, the potential cost to the Government is substantial. Also, the Federal Government should not be in a position of "rewarding" students who finance their education through student loans, and effectively penalizing students who choose work or savings to finance their post-secondary education.

— The Bennett amendment which limits post-government employment opportunities. The amendment is unwarranted and inconsistent with the Ethics Reform Act principles of uniform treatment of employees in all agencies and is a prejudicial deterrent to the ability of the Administration to attract capable defense managers and administrators.

— The Wyden amendment which would preclude the addition of any waste to single and double- shelled tanks at Hanford until two oversight boards certify that the risk of tank explosions is not credible. The Department of Energy (DOE) has already initiated detailed reviews related to tank safety. Use of certain double-shelled tanks is required for necessary waste processing. This provision is an improper use of the boards' statutorily-defined roles and functions, and it reduces their potential objectivity.

— The second Wyden amendment under which the DOE would be required to reimburse local, State and Federal environmental agencies for expenses related to the environmental oversight activities conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Recovery, Conservation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Local governments do not have oversight authority under CERCLA, and under current law and Federal Facility Compliance Agreements, DOE provides for reimbursement of State oversight. The Administration believes that it would be inappropriate for another Federal agency to be required to augment Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appropriations for EPA's activities; the authority already exists. The Administration is also opposed to similar requirements for EPA reimbursement in the Bustamante Amendment.