This Statement of Administration Policy provides the
Administration's views on S. 2521, the Military Construction
Appropriations Bill, FY 2001, as reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee. Your consideration of the Administration's views would be
appreciated.
The President has requested urgently needed emergency supplemental
funding to fight against drug production and trafficking, to provide
disaster assistance to victims of hurricanes and floods in the United
States and abroad, and to sustain our military and civilian operations
in Kosovo and the region, thereby protecting military readiness. Funding
for UN peacekeeping and other stabilization measures in Kosovo is
especially important to the eventual successful withdrawal of U.S.
troops. The House passed emergency supplemental legislation addressing
these urgent needs on March 30th. Regrettably, this legislation has
moved slowly in the Senate and now appears to be bogged down by a number
of controversial provisions. These include an amendment mandating troop
withdrawals from Kosovo, a provision that would severely hinder the
Federal Government's pending tobacco litigation, significant cuts to key
international programs, as well as a number of anti-environmental
riders. Moreover, the Senate has fragmented our consolidated request
into separate bills, slowing the process dramatically and jeopardizing
this urgently needed funding. Regrettably, the decision to link FY 2001
spending bills to FY 2000 supplementals is likely to delay further
rather than expedite action. If a bill containing such provisions listed
above were presented to the President, the President's senior advisers
would recommend that he veto the bill.
The Administration strongly opposes the Byrd/Warner amendment on
Kosovo. This provision would damage U.S. credibility overseas, undermine
our position as the leader of NATO, and inflame the situation in Kosovo
where the United States continues to have important national interests
at stake. If the bill were passed with this language, the President's
senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.
FY 2001 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FUNDING
The Administration commends the Committee for reporting an FY 2001
bill that funds almost all of the Military Construction projects
requested in the President's 2001 Budget. Especially noteworthy is the
full funding of the requests for Chemical Demilitarization, Ballistic
Missile Defense, and Base Realignment and Closure programs. However, the
Administration is concerned that the overall funding level of the
Committee bill would drain critical resources from other programs. The
bill includes funding for 90 projects that were not requested, many of
which are not even in the DoD five-year plan. The Administration
believes that the President's budget request correctly addresses our
most important FY 2001 military construction and housing needs and that
additional funding is not required.
Overall Funding Level and Unrequested Projects
The Administration questions the Committee's increase of $600 million
to the funding level requested in the President's budget. Within this
overall net increase, the Committee has funded about 90 construction
projects that were not requested in the President's budget. Many of
these projects are not funded in DoD's Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP). The Department of Defense has a rigorous process for selecting
projects to be included in the FYDP and the budget. This process takes
into account safety, health, environmental, and military utility issues
to determine the highest priority projects. Substituting projects not in
the FYDP for those included in the FYDP undermines the careful
prioritization approved by the military services. The Administration
urges the Senate to delete funding added for unrequested projects,
especially those not in the FYDP.
NATO Security Investment Program
The Committee bill reduces the request for the NATO Security
Investment Program (NSIP) by $15 million. The Administration urges the
Senate to provide the $190 million requested in the President's budget
to support critical NATO operations fully. Moreover, the Administration
objects to section 121 of the Committee bill, which would prohibit the
use of NSIP funds or other funds provided in the bill for use in
Partnership for Peace programs in the New Independent States of the
former Soviet Union. While we believe this provision would have no
practical effect in the short term, if this provision were to become a
permanent fixture in future Military Construction Appropriations Acts,
it could adversely affect future U.S. foreign policy initiatives as well
as future NATO-led operations. The Administration urges the Senate to
delete this restriction.
General Rescission of Unobligated Balances
Section 125 of the Committee bill is a general provision that would
rescind $73.5 million in unobligated balances from DoD's major military
construction and family housing accounts. These construction funds are
generally available for obligation for five years. A certain level of
unobligated balances is built into our budget estimates; therefore,
reducing those funds through a rescission could adversely impact
high-priority, authorized construction projects for chemical weapons
demilitarization and medical, barracks, family housing, and operational
facilities.
Energy Conservation Investment Program
The Committee has reduced the request for the Energy Conservation
Investment Program (ECIP) in its entirety ($33.6 million), citing large
unobligated balances in this program. This program has proven its worth
by financing capital improvements that yield significant energy savings
to the Department and help in the elimination of inefficient and
high-maintenance energy systems. Moreover, actual ECIP unobligated
balances are much lower than those portrayed by the Committee and are
likely to be exhausted by the end of the fiscal year. This is due to
Congress' elimination of the FY 2000 ECIP budget request and proactive
efforts by DoD to reduce unobligated balances by aggressively pursuing
the execution of ECIP projects.
National Missile Defense
We commend the Committee for fully funding the Administration's
National Missile Defense (NMD) request. However, we object to the
general provision that would place an overly burdensome and broad
reporting requirement on the NMD program by requiring the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization and all associated contractors to notify
Congress 30 days prior to issuing any type of information or proposal
solicitation under the National Missile Defense program.
FY 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS BILL
As noted above, the Administration opposes the three-bill approach
taken by the Senate regarding supplemental funding for critical domestic
and foreign policy needs. Our specific concerns with these portions of
the supplemental legislation attached to the Military Construction bill
are described below. We want to work with the Congress to ensure that
supplemental funding is enacted quickly and that urgent needs are met.
Kosovo
Byrd/Warner Amendment. The Administration opposes the
inclusion of this language in the Military Construction Appropriations
Bill. In recommending a veto, the Secretary of Defense stated in his
May 11, 2000, letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, "While
strong messages from Congress on the importance of burden-sharing can
be helpful, [he] strongly believe[s] the Kosovo language in the
Supplemental is counterproductive to peace in Kosovo and will
seriously jeopardize the relationship between the U.S. and our NATO
allies." If a bill were passed including this language, the
President's senior advisers would concur with Secretary Cohen and
recommend that he veto the bill.
First, by making a deployment or withdrawal decision completely
dependent on specific actions by other countries, the Senate Committee
would effectively cede control over our foreign policy and troop
deployments to foreign powers, independent of our national interests.
The President, as Commander-in-Chief, should retain the flexibility to
judge our progress on burdensharing and encourage good faith efforts;
he should not have his hands tied by rigid, numeric targets. Second,
by mandating a date-certain withdrawal, U.S. policy would be on
auto-pilot, constricting our ability to react to or deal with changing
situations on the ground. A sudden U.S. departure would undermine this
mission and could lead to the unraveling of KFOR. It could damage the
strength and durability of the NATO alliance. Finally, by passing this
amendment, the United States would cast doubt on its commitment to "go
the distance" in Kosovo. The uncertainty about U.S. intentions could
encourage extremist forces to take actions that could put U.S. forces
at increased risk in the hopes of an early American departure.
Funding for International Programs. The Administration
opposes the lack of funding in either this or the Foreign Operations
bill for the requests relating to United Nations peacekeeping
operations, the international civilian police force, the
revitalization of the economy and civil society in Kosovo, the
strengthening of democracies in the region, and the safety, security,
and operational needs of Americans carrying out these programs.
Failure to fund these elements of the multilateral effort to restore
peace and democracy in the region can only prolong instability,
endanger the hard-fought progress that has been made to date, and
undermine the U.S. voice in civilian implementation. Continued delay
in providing these funds will prevent our efforts to carry out the
ongoing stabilization process in a region where national security
interests are at stake. It will also undercut the positive momentum of
the new Croatian Government and the opportunity to bolster Montenegro
in the face of pressure from Serbian President Milosevic. As Defense
Secretary Cohen also stated in his May 11, 2000, letter to the Senate
Appropriations Committee, "The requested funds support essential
civilian infrastructure that would facilitate a prudent exit strategy
for Kosovo and achievement of long-term stability in the Balkans." Reduction to Kosovo Military Operations Funding. The
Administration opposes the Committee's reduction to the Overseas
Contingency Operations Fund (OCOTF) relating to Army operation and
maintenance expenses. Experience to date validates the
Administration's original request for Kosovo. Therefore, a reduction
of $200 million to the OCOTF for the Army would result in reductions
elsewhere in the Army's FY 2000 program in order to fully fund its
Kosovo costs. The Army would likely defer depot maintenance, implement
supply constraint Army-wide, and defer civilian hires, resulting in
reduced readiness. The Administration urges full funding of its Kosovo
request. Delay in Availability of Funding. The Administration
greatly appreciates the Committee's efforts to appropriate contingency
operations funding as close as possible to the time when it is needed.
However, the proviso added to the Overseas Contingency Operations
Transfer fund requiring submission of detailed OP-5 and OP-32 budget
exhibits thirty days before these funds can be obligated would further
delay the availability of this urgently needed funding. We urge the
Senate to drop this provision.
Plan Colombia
The Administration commends the Committee's support for the
governments of Colombia and other countries in the region in their fight
against drug traffickers. However, the Administration has a number of
concerns with the Committee's proposed treatment of funding for Plan
Colombia.
Plan Colombia is a comprehensive approach to combating drug
production in the region and requires the sustained effort delineated in
the Administration's proposal. Under that proposal, funding was
requested through both Defense and State Department accounts. The
Committee splits this comprehensive approach by addressing needs in the
Military Construction bill and the Foreign Operations appropriations
bill. This bifurcation is not a sensible way to address an integrated
plan.
Setting aside that basic issue, the Administration appreciates the
Committee's consideration of the funding requests, particularly in the
Military Construction bill for the construction of essential Forward
Operating Locations in Ecuador, Curacao, and Aruba. However, we have
serious concerns with several funding issues and problematic provisions
in this and the Foreign Operations bill. These include the absence of FY
2001 funding in the Foreign Operations bill, the impact of the Byrd
amendment, cumbersome reporting requirements, and the substitution of
Huey II for Blackhawk helicopters, which would greatly hinder the
implementation of the Plan.
In particular, the Administration strongly opposes the Byrd amendment
limitations in the Foreign Operations bill on support for Plan Colombia.
This provision would forbid the use of funds from being used to support
Plan Colombia, absent a Presidential request and congressional approval.
This language could halt all ongoing counter-drug programs, air traffic
surveillance activities, routine military training, intelligence
collection activities, basic human needs and development work,
agricultural development, and U.S. Customs programs linked to the Andean
region, including those funded from appropriations already enacted into
law. This amendment also would place a restrictive cap on the number of
personnel who can operate in Colombia, leaving too little flexibility to
carry out essential training, development programs, and Plan oversight
as needed.
The substitution of the 60 Huey II helicopters for the 30 Blackhawk
helicopters is also objectionable. The Huey II helicopters are
significantly less capable than Blackhawks, with slower speeds, smaller
capacity, and less range. In addition, it would take twice as many Huey
IIs as Blackhawks to fulfill the same mission, which means twice as many
helicopter pilots would need to be trained, and twice the amount of
infrastructure, such as hangar space, would be required.
Other Issues
Assistance to Vieques, Puerto Rico
We commend the Committee for providing the requested funding to
implement the President's Directives on Vieques. The training facility
at Vieques is important to sustaining the readiness of our Naval forces,
yet we cannot ignore the concerns of the inhabitants of Vieques. The
Administration's plan will help balance national security with the
legitimate health, safety, and environmental concerns of residents of
Vieques. We look forward to working with the Committee to ensure that
the funding is spent effectively and efficiently in support of these
goals.
Undersecretary for Nuclear Security
The Administration supports the provision of a three-year term for
the first person to be appointed as Under Secretary for Nuclear Security
at the Department of Energy. However, the Administration opposes section
2406(b), which purports to limit the ability of the President and
Secretary of Energy to remove the Under Secretary. This provision would
impermissibly undermine the responsibility that the Constitution places
in the President to fulfill all defense-related responsibilities
established by law, including assuring the reliability and security of
the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
Government Information Technology Rescission
The Administration objects to the proposed rescission of funds for
Federal Government information technology programs and activities. This
provision, in combination with the larger rescission contained in the
Committee version of the FY 2001 Agriculture/Rural Development
appropriations bill, could force agencies to forestall or cancel
important information technology investments. Given the strong emphasis
on capital planning and investment control for information technology,
the excellent progress agencies are making in this area consistent with
the Clinger-Cohen Act, and the stringent review new and ongoing
information technology projects receive in the budget process, it would
be unwise to reduce the resources necessary to follow through with these
efforts.
|
