Veto The Defense Bill

The Center for Security Policy today called on President Bush to veto the FY1991 Defense authorization bill if the version reported out of House-Senate conference yesterday receives the approval of the two chambers.

While this legislation commendably includes funds for the B-2 bomber and provides most of the funds needed for the V-22 Osprey aircraft — two systems the Center has strongly supported — it fails to provide adequately for a number of other, vital systems and capabilities. Of the latter, the Center believes two are so egregious as to demand presidential rejection of this bill: the effective termination of the MILSTAR communications program and the wholly inadequate funding and legislative hamstringing of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

"Mr. Bush surely remembers the therapeutic effect achieved when, at his urging, then-President Reagan vetoed the FY1989 Defense authorization bill," said Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., the Center’s director. "Opponents of a strong defense were shown to be exactly that — to their great discomfort in the midst of sharply contested elections. Serious deficiencies in the legislation were corrected and key programs restored as a result. In addition, the executive branch’s leadership on defense matters was reestablished."

Gaffney added, "Ironically, the bill Vice President Bush judged unacceptable was in many respects superior to the FY1989 legislation. It did not feature the current bill’s draconian cuts in manpower nor did it propose to squander limited defense resources on congressional ‘pet rocks’ like economic conversion programs and environmental research initiatives. Most importantly, it recognized — as Congress has consistently done until this year — the vital need for the MILSTAR program as an indispensable element of U.S. conventional and nuclear capabilities."

Should the President choose to veto this legislation, there is every reason to believe that he can secure needed improvements to it. The fact that the House Republican conferees were excluded from the final decisions on this bill, and have chosen as a result not to sign the final conference report, ensures that a veto would be sustained.

What is more, should the President now heed the counsel of those who recommended against a veto of the FY1989 bill (notably, Sens. Sam NunnWarner (R-VA) and long-time Bush confidant and current NSC Advisor Brent Scowcroft), he will be seriously undermining members of his own party on the Hill. While recent differences with House Republicans over the deficit reduction package may cause the President to be less sensitive to their interests, were he to refrain from vetoing this legislation, he would become party to congressional practices and procedures that ensure defense bills will be still worse in the future. (D-GA) and John