Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3517 - Military Construction Appropriations Bill, FY 1997

(House Floor)
(Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; Vucanovich (R), Nevada)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.R. 3517, the Military Construction Appropriations Bill, FY 1997, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee.

Committee Funding Levels Unaffordable

The Administration does not support the level of funding in the Committee bill. The Committee would add $907 million above the President's request -- $979 million for unrequested programs offset by a $79 million cut in requested programs and a rescission of $7 million in balances that will not be available for obligation in FY 1997. With the nation facing serious budget constraints, such an increase for this bill is not affordable.

The President is committed to providing quality housing and facilities to the men and women of the armed forces. The President's budget provides sufficient funding for that purpose -- $9.1 billion in all, including $3.9 billion for family housing. The Administration appreciates the Committee's support of the request for the base realignment and closure program, the family housing program and requested construction projects.

Unrequested Programs Added by the Committee

The $979 million added by the Committee would fund 112 unrequested projects and other programs. This unrequested funding is unaffordable and should be deleted.

In particular, given the very tight constraints on discretionary spending, it is unacceptable that the Committee chose to fund 42 low priority projects and programs at a cost of $303 million that are not even in the Department of Defense long range plan. It is precisely this type of spending, for projects that fail to meet the criteria for the Department's long term planning requirements, that would be subject to line item veto if the President had the authority this year.

Other Objectionable Committee Actions

The Administration objects to the Committee's:

•   Deletion of funding' for a flood control project at McClellan Air Force Base, California. This action could hamper privatization and reuse of the base.

•   Imposition of a ceiling on the amount of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) II, III and IV funds that can be spent on environmental cleanup. This action could limit the ability to close bases and transfer property to local reuse authorities, thereby delaying economic development in base closure communities.