Office of Management and Budget Print this document

July 8, 1997
(House Floor)

FY 1998
(Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; Packard (R), California)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.R. 2016, the Military Construction Appropriations Bill, FY 1998, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee. The Administration objects to the reallocation of national defense funds from Department of Energy programs to Department of Defense programs, including military construction programs, an action that we believe is an unacceptable deviation from a clear term of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement. Your consideration of the Administration's view would be appreciated.

Unrequested Programs Added by the Committee

The Committee has added $886 million to the President's request, for 94 specific, unrequested projects and other programs, partially offset by $86 million in reductions to requested programs and other adjustments. Although much of the unrequested funding is for items that are consistent with DOD's long-range military construction plans, almost $200 million would be used for low priority items that are not in DOD's long-range plans. It is particularly unfortunate that funding for the projects that are not in DOD's long-range plans has been added at the expense of higher priority programs in the President's request. The Administration believes that unrequested funding should be deleted, and funding for requested programs should be restored.

Other Objectionable Features

The Administration objects to the Committee's:

  • Appropriation of only $20 million of the $63 million requested for construction of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. The Administration opposes incremental funding of this project and urges the Committee to provide the full amount of the request.

  • Failure to include requested authority that would enable the Secretary of Defense to transfer appropriations within the appropriation accounts in the Military Construction Appropriations Act. Similar transfer authority in Defense Appropriations Acts has been used with great success to meet unplanned requirements, without reducing the opportunity for congressional oversight.

  • Reduction of $21 million from the $30 million request for Defense-wide planning and design. This reduction would delay construction of many of the strategic fuel storage projects that are required to meet operating plans.

Return to this article at:

Print this document