7:52 PM 16 Jul 1998
| from: |
Kate P. |
| to: |
RUDMAN_M, Elena Kagan, Jeffrey M., John, Joshua, Kathleen A., Kerri A., Lisa M., Martha, Paul J. Weinstein Jr., Rahm I. Emanuel, Ron, Sally, Todd, Wesley P., William P. |
| cc: |
FARRAR_J, Adrienne C., Charles, Charles R. Marr, Elizabeth, Emil E., Jessica L., Jill M. Blickstein, Jonathan H., Judy, Kevin S., Laura, Lisa, Melissa G., Michelle, Paul J. Weinstein, Peter A., Robert L., Shannon, Victoria A. |
Below is the conferees letter on Military Construction FY99
Appropriations. House & Senate action is possible next week. Please
review the draft and provide comments/clearance by 2:30pm tomorrow. We
aim to send the letter Friday afternoon. Thanks.
The Honorable Bob Livingston
Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
u.s. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the AdministrationD,s
views on H.R. 4059, the Military Construction Appropriations Bill, FY
1999, as passed by the House and by the Senate. As you develop the
conference version of the bill, your consideration of the
AdministrationD,s views would be appreciated.
The Administration is disappointed that the House and Senate have
chosen to increase funding above the level requested for the Military
Construction Appropriations Bill, while reducing the PresidentD,s request
for national defense programs funded by the Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill and the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Bill.
Unrequested Projects
The House has added $575 million to the President's request for 89
unrequested projects and unrequested increases in funding for several
programs, partially offset by $130 million in reductions to requested
items. The Senate has added $846 million to the PresidentD,s request for
104 unrequested projects, partially offset by $150 million in reductions
to requested items. Though much of the unrequested funding is for items
that are funded in DoDD,s Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), $203
million for 32 projects in the House bill and $99 million for 14 projects
in the Senate bill would be used for items that are not in DoDD,s FYDP.
Although many of these projects may have some military utility, they are
of much lower priority than the projects requested in the FY 1999 Budget
and contained in DoDD,s FYDP.
Funding Priorities
The Administration urges the conferees to reconsider the funding
added by the House and Senate for unrequested projects, especially those
not in the FYDP, and to redirect this funding to requested programs both
in the Military Construction and the Defense appropriations bills.
The Administration is particularly concerned about the reductions
from requested military construction funding levels for:
Advance Appropriations. Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill
provides the advance appropriations of $568.6 million requested for a
number of large construction projects, especially ammunition
demilitarization facilities. Advance appropriations would ensure that
full funding is available to complete projects before construction
begins. Without full funding, it is difficult to optimize planning,
scheduling, and cost control. The Administration opposes incremental
funding of these projects and urges the conferees to provide the advance
appropriations as requested ..
Chemical Demilitarization Construction Program. The Senate would cut $50
million from the $125 million requested. A reduction of this magnitude
would extend the construction schedules at Pine Bluff, Umatilla, Aberdeen,
and Newport and increase life-cycle costs. The Administration is
committed to meeting the Chemical Weapons Convention 2007 deadline for the
destruction of U.S. chemical stockpiles and to developing alternatives to
current incineration technology. To support these objectives, the
Administration urges the conferees to approve the House funding level for
this important program.
NATO Security Investment Program. The House would cut $16 million from
the $185 million request, and the Senate would cut $32 million. Although
the House level is preferable to the Senate level, we urge the conferees
to provide the full amount requested.
Language Issues
The Administration is concerned with the language in the Senate bill that
would restrict the use of NATO construction funds. In addition, the
Administration urges the conferees to provide the requested transfer
authorities.
Restriction on the use of NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) funds.
The Senate bill would prohibit the use of NSIP funds for Partnership for
Peace programs or to provide support to non-NATO countries. No NSIP funds
have been, or are proposed to be, spent on projects that do not have
direct military benefit to the Alliance. Indeed, NSIP-funded proposals
for projects that happen to be located in non-NATO countries must meet the
same NATO military criteria as NSIP projects located in the 16 NATO member
nations. The Alliance must have the flexibility to allocate NSIP funds as
needed to satisfy NATO military requirements. Restrictions of the type
included in the Senate bill could invite other NATO members to restrict
their NSIP contributions according to narrow national concerns. The
restriction could adversely affect future NATO-led military operations.
The Administration urges the conferees to remove this restriction from the
bill.
General Transfer Authority. Neither the House nor the Senate bill
includes the requested authority enabling the Secretary of Defense to
transfer funds 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.
HomeownerO,s Assistance Program Transfer Authority. The Administration
supports the provision in the Senate bill that would provide authority to
transfer funds from the Base Realignment and Closure account to the
HomeownerO,s Assistance Program account. The provision would ensure that
funds are available to assist Government employees who have to sell their
homes in depressed real estate markets resulting from base closures.
We look forward to working with the conference committee to
address our mutual concerns.
Sincerely,
Jacob J. Lew
Acting Director
Identical Letter Sent to The Honorable Bob Livingston,
The Honorable David R. Obey, The Honorable Ron Packard,
The Honorable W.G. Hefner, The Honorable Ted Stevens,
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, The Honorable Conrad Burns,
and The Honorable Patty Murray
7:52 PM 16 Jul 1998
| from: |
Kate P. |
| to: |
RUDMAN M, Elena Kagan, Jeffrey M., John, Joshua, Kathleen A., Kerri A., Lisa M., Martha, Paul J. Weinstein Jr., Rahm I. Emanuel, Ron, Sally, Todd, Wesley P., William P. |
| cc: |
FARRAR_J, Adrienne C., Charles, Charles R. Marr, Elizabeth, Emil E., Jessica L., Jill M. Blickstein, Jonathan H., Judy, Kevin S., Laura, Lisa, Melissa G., Michelle, Paul J. Weinstein, Robert L., Shannon, Victoria A. |
Below is the conferees letter on Military Construction FY99
Appropriations. House & Senate action is possible next week. Please
review the draft and provide comments/clearance by 2:30pm tomorrow. We
aim to send the letter Friday afternoon. Thanks.
The Honorable Bob Livingston
Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the Administrationo,s
views on H.R. 4059, the Military Construction Appropriations Bill, FY
1999, as passed by the House and by the Senate. As you develop the
conference version of the bill, your consideration of the
Administrationo,s views would be appreciated.
The Administration is disappointed that the House and Senate have
chosen to increase funding above the level requested for the Military
Construction Appropriations Bill, while reducing the Presidento,s request
for national defense programs funded by the Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill and the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Bill.
Unrequested Projects
The House has added $575 million to the President's request for 89
unrequested projects and unrequested increases in funding for several
programs, partially offset by $130 million in reductions to requested
items. The Senate has added $846 million to the Presidento,s request for
104 unrequested projects, partially offset by $150 million in reductions
to requested items. Though much of the unrequested funding is for items
that are funded in DoDO,s Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), $203
million for 32 projects in the House bill and $99 million for 14 projects
in the Senate bill would be used for items that are not in DoDO,s FYDP.
Although many of these projects may have some military utility, they are
of much lower priority than the projects requested in the FY 1999 Budget
and contained in DoDO,s FYDP.
Funding Priorities
The Administration urges the conferees to reconsider the funding
added by the House and Senate for unrequested projects, especially those
not in the FYDP, and to redirect this funding to requested programs both
in the Military Construction and the Defense appropriations bills.
The Administration is particularly concerned about the reductions
from requested military construction funding levels for:
Advance Appropriations. Neither the House bill nor the Senate bill
provides the advance appropriations of $568.6 million requested for a
number of large construction projects, especially ammunition
demilitarization facilities. Advance appropriations would ensure that
full funding is available to complete projects before construction
begins. Without full funding, it is difficult to optimize planning,
scheduling, and cost control. The Administration opposes incremental
funding of these projects and urges the conferees to provide the advance
appropriations as requested.
Chemical Demilitarization Construction Program. The Senate would cut $50
million from the $125 million requested. A reduction of this magnitude
would extend the construction schedules at Pine Bluff, Umatilla, Aberdeen,
and Newport and increase life-cycle costs. The Administration is
committed to meeting the Chemical Weapons Convention 2007 deadline for the
destruction of U.S. chemical stockpiles and to developing alternatives to
current incineration technology. To support these objectives, the
Administration urges the conferees to approve the House funding level for
this important program.
NATO Security Investment Program. The House would cut $16 million from
the $185 million request, and the Senate would cut $32 million. Although
the House level is preferable to the Senate level, we urge the conferees
to provide the full amount requested.
Language Issues
The Administration is concerned with the language in the Senate bill that
would restrict the use of NATO construction funds. In addition, the
Administration urges the conferees to provide the requested transfer
authorities.
Restriction on the use of NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) funds.
The Senate bill would prohibit the use of NSIP funds for Partnership for
Peace programs or to provide support to non-NATO countries. No NSIP funds
have been, or are proposed to be, spent on projects that do not have
direct military benefit to the Alliance. Indeed, NSIP-funded proposals
for projects that happen to be located in non-NATO countries must meet the
same NATO military criteria as NSIP projects located in the 16 NATO member
nations. The Alliance must have the flexibility to allocate NSIP funds as
needed to satisfy NATO military requirements. Restrictions of the type
included in the Senate bill could invite other NATO members to restrict
their NSIP con'tributions according to narrow national concerns. The
restriction could adversely affect future NATO-led military operations.
The Administration urges the conferees to remove this restriction from the
bill.
General Transfer Authority. Neither the House nor the Senate bill
includes the requested authority enabling the Secretary of Defense to
transfer funds 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.
HomeownerO,s Assistance Program Transfer Authority. The Administration
supports the provision in the Senate bill that would provide authority to
transfer funds from the Base Realignment and Closure account to the
HomeownerO,s Assistance Program account. The provision would ensure that
funds are available to assist Government employees who have to sell their
homes in depressed real estate markets resulting from base closures.
We look forward to working with the conference committee to
address our mutual concerns.
Sincerely,
Jacob J. Lew
Acting Director
.
Identical Letter Sent to The Honorable Bob Livingston,
The Honorable David R. Obey, The Honorable Ron Packard,
The Honorable W.G. Hefner, The Honorable Ted Stevens,
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, The Honorable Conrad Burns,
and The Honorable Patty Murray
