|
The Administration strongly opposes Division A of H.R. 1757, as reported by
the Rules Committee, which would micromanage the planned reorganization of
the foreign affairs agencies. Moreover, under the open rule for the bill,
several very objectionable amendments, which are described below or
in the attachment, may be considered. Of particular concern are amendments
that would: (1) authorize foreign affairs programs at levels below those
provided for in the 1998 Budget Resolution; (2) establish unreasonable
conditions and restrictions on the payment of arrears to international
organizations; and (3) impose unwarranted restrictions on international
family planning programs. In addition, there are other amendments, as well
as provisions of the bill, which would restrict the President's ability to
conduct foreign relations. If Division A or any of these amendments
are included, alone or in combination, in the bill presented to the
President, his senior advisers would recommend that H.R. 1757 be vetoed
Foreign Affairs Reorganization
H.R. 1757 should permit bipartisan movement towards the common goal of
reorganizing and reinventing the State Department, ACDA, U.S. Information
Agency (USIA), and the Agency for International Development (AID). The
Administration strongly opposes the reorganization provisions that were
added to the bill without hearings, debate, or consideration by the
International Relations Committee. These provisions would mandate many of
the details on how to implement such a complex reorganization, thereby
prejudging how the foreign affairs agencies are to be restructured. Such a
directive would be incompatible with the flexibility needed by the
President to reorganize the foreign affairs agencies to meet the challenges
of the 21st century. The Administration, however, supports the Hamilton
amendment on reorganization, which will achieve our common objective.
In addition, statutory requirements to create certain positions and specify
criteria for personnel positions and bureaus (sections 1301, 1303, 1304,
1305, and 1306) undermine the Administration's ability and authority to
organize the Department of State and manage U.S. foreign affairs. These
and other restrictions on foreign service staffing levels, (particularly
section 1326) along with proposed amendments which would require
counterproductive reductions in AID staffing levels, are particularly
problematic. This is especially true at a time when the Administration is
working to implement the President's plan to restructure foreign affairs
agencies.
Foreign Affairs Appropriation Authorization Levels
The appropriation authorization levels in H.R. 1757, in the aggregate, are
consistent with the Budget Agreement for fiscal year 1998. The
Administration, therefore, would strongly oppose any amendments to reduce
foreign affairs authorizations below those levels or, in the case of the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), to delete the Agency's entire
authorization for fiscal years 1998-1999. The Administration also urges
the House to provide appropriation authorization levels in FY 1999
consistent with the Budget Agreement.
International Organizations (IO) Arrears
The Administration is pledged to reforming the United Nations (UN) and
other international organizations while enhancing U.S. credibility by
paying arrearages -- a top priority of the Administration. The
Administration has been working with the Congress to identify specific
reform benchmarks, but there is a limit to what can reasonably be
negotiated with other sovereign member states. While the Administration
supports the Hamilton UN reform amendment, it strongly opposes the other
amendments which may be considered that could actually undermine the
ability of the United States to exercise leadership, achieve significant
reform, and to work effectively with the UN.
International Family Planning
The Administration strongly opposes the Smith amendment's restrictions on
international family planning programs, which go far beyond those contained
in current law. These restrictions would severely undermine U.S.
leadership in international population assistance efforts. The result of
the amendment's provisions would be an increased incidence of unintended
pregnancy, maternal and infant death, and abortion. These restrictions
would put in jeopardy funding to the most experienced and qualified family
planning and maternal-child health care providers working at the grassroots
level to meet the growing demand for family planning and other critical
health services in developing countries. The amendment, in effect, would
impose in statute, limitations on international family planning assistance
that were rejected by the Administration when it overturned the so-called
Mexico City policy. The Administration remains adamant in its opposition
to both the intent and the effect of this unacceptable amendment.
Foreign Relations Restrictions
H.R. 1757 also contains additional highly objectionable provisions that
would restrict the President's ability to conduct foreign policy. For
example, there are restrictions related to Jerusalem, which the
Administration strongly opposes. The Administration's concerns are
described further in the attachment. The Administration will seek to
modify or delete these provisions as the legislative process continues.
Finally, other objectionable amendments have been proposed that would
severely restrict the President's authorities and make it harder for any
Administration to react to unanticipated contingencies.
The Administration is continuing to review H.R. 1757 and may seek further
changes to the bill as the legislative process continues.
H.R. 1758, "The European Security Act of 1997"
The Administration welcomes congressional support for enlargement of the
NATO Alliance, as reflected in H.R. 1758. This "open door" approach to
NATO enlargement will allow Alliance membership to remain open to other
Central and Eastern European democracies after the first state or states
are invited to join. Conversely, the Administration would oppose
amendments requiring the President to differentiate among prospective
members and rate publicly their relative preparedness to join the Alliance.
Pay-As-You-Go Scoring
H.R. 1757 could increase direct spending; therefore, it is subject to the
pay-as-you-go requirement of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA)
of 1990. OMB's preliminary scoring estimate is that the PAYGO effect of
this bill is zero. Final scoring of this legislation may deviate from this
estimate.
|
