From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> |
Date: | Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:20:58 -0800 (PST) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Re: BUDGET CUT RUMORS |
At the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee meeting in San Francisco last week, the Energy Department actually released its tentative FY96 Enviromental Management Budget. The request formally rises to $6,592 billion from $5,984 billion in FY95, but the new figure includes $843 million in other program not previously counted as part of Environmental Management. Thus, the comparable figure is $5,749 billion, a reduction of $235 million. The largest item in the $843 million is $685 million "for managing cleanup at former defense facilities at the Savannah River Site." Department-wide, the proposed Environmental Management budget for FY 96 is: Waste Management, Corrective Action $2,716,551,000 Environmental Restoration $1,993,731,000 Nuclear Materials & Facilities Stabilization $1,679,711,000 Technology Development $390,510,000 Uranium Enrichment D & D $288,807,000 Analysis, Education, and Risk...? $157,022,000 Compliance & Program Coord. $81,251,000 Transportation Management $16,158,000 SUBTOTAL $7,323,741,000 Use of Prior Year Balances ($300,000,000) Savannah River Pension Funds ($37,000,000) D&D Fund Deposit Offset ($350,000,000) D&D Fund Foreign Fee ($45,000,000) TOTAL $6,591,741,000 (D&D=decontamination & decommissioning of buildings) More important, the Energy Department confirmed reports that the budget will be cut significantly in future years. Funding will gradually be cut through 1998 (more than a billion dollars that in FY98), and then it will level off. However, even after planned savings through efficiency, the gap between funding and requirements (needs) will rise. That is, in the FY 2000, even if the Department managed to share more than $2 billion from its Environmental Management budget through efficiency gains, the budget will come up $2.5 billion short. It is widely agreed that the Energy Department cannot meet these budget goals unless the state governments where it has facilities agree to renegotiate their (supposedly) legally binding Federal Facilities Agreements. | |
References
| |
Prev by Date: Re: BUDGET CUT RUMORS Next by Date: More Budget Cuts. | |
Prev by Thread: Re: BUDGET CUT RUMORS Next by Thread: MCCAIN EXPLAINS HIS PROPOSAL |