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

(Senate Floor)
(Sponsors: Hatfield (R), Oregon; Bums (R), Montana)

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 Senate Appropriations Committee.

Committee Funding Levels Unaffordable

The Administration does not support the level of funding in the Committee bill. The Committee would add $700 million above the President's request, including $943 million for unrequested programs partially offset by cuts in requested programs and rescissions of balances. With the Nation feeing 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 aimed 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 $943 million added by the Committee would fund 133 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 has chosen to provide $217 million for 35 low-priority projects and programs that are not even in the Department of Defense long-range plan.

Other Objectionable Committee Actions

The Administration objects to the Committee's:

•   Deletion of funding for Phase II of an Army equipment prepositioning storage complex at a classified location in Southwest Asia. This essential project should not be delayed in the uncertain hope that funding will be provided by other countries;

•   Deletion of funding for a flood control prbj ect 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; and,

•   Appropriation of only the 1996 increment of funding for Phase IV of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. This action could lead to higher construction costs and would force a future Congress to make appropriations to complete the project.