Senate Action on DERA Funding.

[gkripke@Essential.ORG]

Posting from Gawain Kripke <gkripke@Essential.ORG>

To: Interested Colleagues
From: Gawain Kripke, Friends of the Earth
Date: March 8, 1995

**** WARNING, THIS IS A VERY LONG POSTING *******

I thought I would give you a quick run-down Senate action so far on the 
Defense Supplemental bill. I have described the legislation in earlier 
posts, so I will not repeat myself (if you would like me to post those 
to you, please send me a message).

On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate took up the bill, H.R. 889 (it retains 
its House number in the Senate for obscure reasons). After initial 
opening statements, Senator Bingaman (D-NM) offered a nonbinding 
"Sense of the Senate" resolution in support of the TRP which was 
slashed $ millionin the bill.

In a surprise move, Sen. McCain (R-AZ) offered an amendment to the 
bill to cut an additional $300 million from the TRP and shift $150 
back to the DERA account. This would leave the DERA account with a 
$150 million cut -- the same as in the House bill. This move was 
surprising to me because Sen. McCain has been a critic of environmental 
spending in the defense budget.

After some debate, the McCain amendment was defeated 22-77. I should 
point out that while the amendment would have been a good thing for the 
DERA budget, the general impression was that the real motive was to kill 
the TRP. In any case, it is an extremely positive occurance that Sen. 
McCain is trying to be helpful for defense cleanup.

The Senate then took up several Helms amendments to exempt Fort Bragg 
from the Endangered Species Act, on foreign aid, Cuba, and whatever 
else... There were no more relevant votes or debate on Tuesday. 
The Senate spent a lot of today fighting over whether to stip Sen. 
Hatfield of his chairmanship for voting on principle against the 
Balance Budget Amendment. The bill was debated on the floor but no 
votes were taken.

Following are some excerpts from the debate to give you a flavor. Please 
note that these are excerpted. This is not a full recording of events or 
statements. I have taken these down from the online Congresional Record 
provided by the Library of Congress:

*****************************************************

SEN. STEVENS (Chairman of Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee): We
have made reductions to the TRP account, environmental and defense
conversion accounts. These reflect the availability of funds, and they
reflect to a certain extent a change of direction for the programs, but
basically it is because that is where the money is that has not been
expended in this fiscal year. To the extent that any funds remain
available for the TRP in the future, I believe they must be specifically
directed and identified military priorities. 
 The committee proposal strikes a fair balance to proceed to
conference with the House, and I would urge Members of the Senate on both
sides of the aisle and particularly on both sides of the TRP debate, to
endorse the level that is in this bill because it is different from that
in the House. 
 I believe I was the originator of the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program but I viewed with increasing alarm the steady increase
in spending in that program with little to show for it. Despite the
progress in that fund, the Department of Defense still spends only about
50 percent of the amounts in the environmental restoration account for
cleanup activities. Almost 50 percent now goes for studies, plans, and
legal fees. In comparison, when we build new facilities, the cost for
those is about 6 to 7 percent. Only 6 to 7 percent of the funding goes
for design, planning and litigation in the planning and building of new
facilities. 
 PAGE
S3581
 Now, our cut does not impact any funds provided to meet
environmental hazards at bases identified for closure in the 1988, 1991,
and 1993 BRAC rounds. S 3582 Those funds are appropriated separately in
the military construction bill and were not addressed by this bill. 
 We do face another base closing round this year. I know that,
recognizing that two Alaska bases are on the list to be closed: Adak naval
station, and Fort Greely at Big Delta, AK. I am sensitive to the defense
conversion and transition issues. Amounts provided in recent bills have
gone well beyond the original goals, however, of those programs as they
were established when the defense drawdown defense following the gulf
wars. 
 PAGE
S3581
 In particular, the cuts proposed by the committees address
areas where the Congress has significantly earmarked funds for specific
projects. While not canceling or terminating any one project, the
Secretary will have to substantially scale back spending in this area. 
Again, that will have to be done because that is where the money is. If
we have to find almost $2 billion in these accounts at this time, we have
to find accounts where the remaining balance will justify taking some of
the money out and still leaving the program operable for the remainder of
the year. Spending to ease the impact of these defense cutbacks cannot
come at the significant loss of immediate military readiness. However, I
assure all interested Members that we want to work to ensure the highest
priority programs continue to be adequately funded. 

SEN. NUNN: Also, environmental cleanup is being impacted severely under
this bill. And that environmental cleanup is not only something that has
to be done in base closures, but we have solemn commitments to Governors
in a number of States that we are going to carry that out. And as we cut
back on these environmental impact funds in the Department of Defense,
make no mistake about it, there are going to be lawsuits involved,
litigation involved, contractual obligations that are going to have to be
breached. I do not say that all of that is going to flow from this bill. 
But it is going to flow if we continue to have to take these
kinds of actions.

SEN. MCCAIN: Madam President, this amendment would restore half, $150
million, of the committee-recommended cut in defense environmental
restoration account, and the amendment would offset this spending with
recision of an additional $302 million in the Technology Reinvestment
Program known as TRP. The net effect of the amendment is to reduce
defense budget authority by $152 million and outlays by $110 million in
fiscal year 1995, which could be credited to deficit reduction. 
 Madam President, first of all, in the past several years, as
we all know, the Department of Defense has experienced significant
increases in the cost of environmental cleanup, as have most public and
private industries. All we have to do is look at the Superfund and know
of the enormous challenges that face this country in the area of
environmental cleanup. 
 PAGE
S3587
 Because of these costs, I think the reduction of $300 million
in defense environmental restoration is too severe a reduction. In
addition, my colleagues should be aware that the account which is being
cut will be the source of funding to clean up at bases recommended for
closure in the 1995 round, at least until the 1996 appropriation of BRAC
cleanup is approved. Cutting this account could therefore have an effect
on the cleanup of bases that are being closed. 
 Finally, Madam President, State and local governments have the
ability under the law to enforce stricter standards for cleanup than
Federal law requires. State and local governments also have the ability
to levy fines and penalties against the Department of Defense if it fails
to comply with these standards. If too much is cut from this account,
then the Department of Defense may find itself using environmental
restoration funds to pay fines and litigate court cases arising from
noncompliance with State and local laws. That does not seem to be an
efficient use of these limited dollars. 
 Madam President, the fact is that when we close a base or even
if we have an open base and there is an environmental problem on those
bases, I think our obligation is clear. Our obligation is clear that we
clean up that base. Clearly, it is a very expensive proposition. And
there is no doubt that if we cut these funds, somewhere there will be
military installations that are environmentally unsafe. 
 PAGE
S3587
 I do not see how we get around that obligation. I do not see
how we can just cut money for environmental cleanup and ignore the very
severe situations that exist today. There is a base in my own home State.
It will be many years before the environmental cleanup is completed. The
estimate of the cost of that cleanup, by the way, has increased by a
factor of 10 since the base was recommended to be closed just 3 years ago. 
 So, I do not really understand how we rationalize a reduction
in environmental cleanup funds. I do not think my record indicates that I
am some kind of a wild-eyed environmentalist, to say the least. But I do
not see how we cannot fulfill the obligation that we have to the taxpayers
of America, and that is to clean up defense installations which reside in
their States and their communities that are in need of environmental
cleanup. 

SEN. MCCAIN: I also want to return for a minute to the issue of
environmental cleanup. Unless a base is environmentally clean, or
substantially so, a base cannot be turned over to the local authorities,
or whoever is involved in the negotiations for the use of that base. We
know what happens to the costs of environmental cleanup. And now for us
to cut the funding for environmental cleanup, in my view, would be a very,
very serious mistake. 

SEN. STEVENS: Madam President, there is a great deal of what the Senator
from Arizona said with which I agree, but I think that he has overlooked
the task that we had. We had the task of finding almost $2 billion, and
we are five-twelfths through the year in terms of the moneys with which we
are dealing. As a practical matter, the largest account that is unspent
is, in fact, that which is entitled `environmental funding.`
 It is a little bit more than $5.5 billion, and we are
affecting by the recommendations we have made here less than 6 percent of
the total funding for the environmental accounts. Other items that we are
dealing with, particularly in terms of the TRP funds, represent a great
deal more of the account. 
 Let me just say this: If I had a way now to put the money that
is in either account into the military construction bill, I would do that. 
In the last year, at my request, we added - and that was one of those
infamous congressional add-ons to the budget - $81 million for additional
military housing. I wish we could get a greater interest in upgrading
this housing, and I think that the story on the front page of the Post is
very accurate. 
 PAGE
S3588
 But the problem really is that if we look at the environmental
account, which we did in great detail, we are looking at a project where
they still plan to spend $810 million in this fiscal year on studies of
these environmental restoration sites. We have eliminated a substantial
portion of those studies. That is what our cut does. 
 We have urged that the Department proceed now and not spend so
much money studying these projects and instead do them. They are not that
large and they mostly can be done without these enormous nationwide
studies. They just seem to be enveloped in studies. We will have reduced
the budget request by $700 million through this rescission, and it is
primarily aimed at that study account. If we look at this account, as I
have said, DOD has spent almost 60 percent of all of the cleanup funds we
have made available so far on studies. We think that at a time of
emergencies such as this is, it is time to reallocate funds. Again, we
are not increasing funds for either the TRP, that is the Technology
Reinvestment Program, or the environmental restoration account. We are
decreasing both. So we are talking about where to cut more. 
 PAGE
S3588
 If we look at the amount of money available, there is a great
deal more money available in the environmental S 3589 restoration account,
mainly because it is reserved for studies which can be conducted next
year, if necessary. If they are necessary, we can appropriate money for
them in 1996. But right now, there are other projects which are
ongoing in the Technology Reinvestment Program.

SEN. BINGAMAN: Madam President, I wish to speak briefly to support the
statements the Senator from Alaska has made and the position the
Appropriations Committee has come to the floor with in this area. 
 As I think the Senator from Arizona pointed out, his amendment
would do two things, two very different things. It would, first of all,
cut and eliminate the technology reinvestment project by rescinding all of
the funds in that program, which I think would be a very misguided action
by this Congress. 
 Second, it would restore some of those funds to the
environmental cleanup activity. The Senator from Arizona pointed out that
he himself has not been known as a wild-eyed environmentalist. I think
that was the phrase he used. I certainly think there is some truth to
that. 
 PAGE
S3589
 Earlier, after this last election, on December 5, 1994, he and
Senator Warner sent a letter to President Clinton urging that much of the
funding be dropped in the defense budget and specific programs be
eliminated, and in that list of programs he sent to the President he
himself proposed that DOD and DOE defense environmental programs be
reduced by $930 million in fiscal year 1995. 
 The proposal of the subcommittee is to reduce them by $400
million total, and I think that is a much more reasonable level of funding
in those areas. 

SEN. MCCAIN: Madam President, let me thank the Senator from New Mexico
for reading the letters I sent to the President. I appreciate it. I will
try to make sure that he is made aware of the correspondence I have
between myself and the President and the Secretary of Defense. I point out
to my friend from New Mexico, he did not get several of my
correspondences, nor the gist nor intent of the recommendations I made. 
 First of all, I made the recommendations and I stated in the
letter, `reduce overemphasis on environmental cleanup and reduce funding
to account for management savings, use of more effective technologies and
less stringent standards.` That is out of a $6 billion overall
authorization, and is in keeping with the CBO recommendations. 
 PAGE
S3590
 For the edification of my friend and colleague from New
Mexico, I wrote a letter on January 23 of this year where I stated: 
 As you know, I wrote to the President on December 5, 1994, asking that
he defer the obligation of funding for certain defense programs, including
the environmental accounts of the Departments of Defense and Energy. I
would like to clarify my intent in including $930 million in DOD and DOE
environmental accounts in the listing of programs characterized as lower
priority funding. First, let me assure you that I understand the
importance of environmental cleanup and fully support the need to provide
adequate funding to accomplish this daunting task. Therefore, I believe
it is incumbent upon the Department of Defense to bear its fair share of
the burden of remediating any problems resulting from the conduct of
necessary military activities. However, I also feel strongly that costs
such as research and education, as well as other costs not directly
related to actual cleanup activities, should be borne equally by all
entities, whether governmental or private, rather than one or two federal
agencies. 
 PAGE
S3590
 It is in this context that I suggested that a portion of the
DOD and DOE budgets for environmental programs be reviewed and
reconsidered in the context of more fairly and appropriately allocating
the fiscal burden of federal environmental programming across all
government agencies. 
 So I want to assure my friend from New Mexico, to clear up any
misconception as my intent in the letter I sent to the President on
December 5 and January 23. I would be glad to provide him with a copy of
those. 
 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be
printed in the Record. 
 PAGE
S3590
 There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows: U.S. Senate,
 January 23,
1995. 
 Hon. William Perry,
 Secretary of Defense,
 PAGE
S3590
 The Pentagon, Washington, DC. 
 Dear Mr. Secretary: As you know, I wrote to the President on
December 5, 1994, asking that he defer the obligation of funding for
certain defense programs, including the environmental accounts of the
Departments of Defense and Energy. I would like to clarify my intent in
including $930 million in DOD and DOE environmental accounts in the
listing of programs characterized as lower priority funding. 
 First, let me assure you that I understand the importance of
environmental cleanup and fully support the need to provide adequate
funding to accomplish this daunting task. Therefore, I believe it is
incumbent upon the Department of Defense to bear its fair share of the
burden of remediating any problems resulting from the conduct of necessary
military activities. However, I also feel strongly that costs such as
research and education, as well as other costs not directly related to
actual cleanup activities, should be borne equally by all entities,
whether governmental or private, rather than one or two federal agencies. 
 PAGE
S3590
 It is in this context that I suggested that a portion of the
DOD and DOE budgets for environmental programs be reviewed and
reconsidered in the context of more fairly and appropriately allocating
the fiscal burden of federal environmental programming across all
government agencies. 
 You and I are both aware of the growing scarcity of defense
dollars to carry out our national security priorities. Therefore, we must
work together now to ensure that we put the immediate needs of our common
defense as our first priority. 
 As Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Armed
Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over the environmental
restoration program of the Department of Defense, I intend to look into
these issues very closely during the FY 1996 budget review. I would like
to request your assistance in identifying specific areas of the
Department`s environmental restoration accounts which you believe should
be distributed outside of the Department. In this review, I would ask that
you look closely at research and education funding, as well as the
standards and remediation techniques to ensure that cleanup funding is
being used efficiently and in the most cost-effective way to protect human
health. 
 PAGE
S3590
 As always, I appreciate your assistance in this matter. I
will be sending a copy of this letter to the Secretary of Energy. 
 Sincerely, John McCain,
 U.S. Senator.

SEN. LEVIN: Madam President, I will vote against the McCain amendment to
cut funding from the technology reinvestment project. I find this an
unpleasant task because I am strongly in favor of full funding for
environmental cleanup and restoration at closed DOD bases. I am also a
proponent of the technology reinvestment project. The McCain amendment
would cut twice the amount of funding from TRP than it would restore to
DERA. That tells me that the purpose of this amendment is to kill the
technology reinvestment project, which I believe is wrong. As the
previous amendment offered by Senator Bingaman showed, it is the sense of
the Senate that the TRP is important to our national security, and ought
to be the norm for the way the Pentagon does business. 
 PAGE
S3591
 I believe that the TRP is a good example of a new way of doing
business between the Federal Government and the private sector, one that
is cooperative, cost-shared, competitive, and mutually beneficial. Kerry: 
While I agree with the objective of the McCain amendment to restore
funding to the Defense Environmental Restoration Act accounts to provide
for environmental cleanups on defense bases, I cannot support the transfer
to DERA from the TRP program. The $150 million reduction in the DERA
program, while regrettable, is a small portion of the overall DERA
program. In addition, DERA is not the only program in the Defense budget
that provides environment cleanup funding. On the other hand, the
proposed cuts in the McCain amendment coupled with the TRP reductions
already contained in the committee-reported Senate rescission bill, would
virtually eliminate the TRP program. 

SEN. KENNEDY: Madam President, I oppose this amendment. It seeks to
achieve a laudable goal, mitigating the cuts imposed by the Supplemental
Appropriations Act on the environmental cleanup of Department of Defense
facilities. It would do so, however, by eliminating the Department`s
premier dual-use technology program, the technology reinvestment project. 
I support this vital program to maintain our military`s technological edge
into the next century. Therefore, I oppose the McCain amendment. Through
its environmental restoration effort, the Defense Department is fulfilling
its obligation to the communities of America where military facilities
have contaminated the land, water, or air. The President, the Secretary
of Defense, and the leaders of the service branches have a solemn
commitment to protecting our citizens S 3593 from environmental threats
caused by Department activities. 
 Some have criticized the Department`s environmental
restoration program as being a nondefense activity, since the funding for
the cleanup does not go directly into the modernization or maintenance of
our forces, and is therefore beyond the scope of the Department`s
responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. Keeping its
lands free of contamination is a clear obligation of any private or public
entity, including the Department of Defense. 
 PAGE
S3592
 An example of the urgency of addressing this problem can be
found in my home State of Massachusetts. Over the decades of the cold war,
activities at Otis Air Force Base and Camp Edwards on Cape Cod have
resulted in drastic contamination. Roughly 65 million gallons of ground
water have been contaminated, threatening public water supplies and
recreational ponds. Last year, the Department of Defense settled on a
plan for cleaning up the contamination. This cleanup will take years to
implement. Reductions in the environmental fund will delay these vital
cleanup programs. Under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Perry and
Sherri Goodman, the Deputy Under Secretary for Environmental Security, the
Clinton administration has laid out a plan for addressing the huge cleanup
problem facing the Department. The $1.78 billion we voted in last year`s
budget is a downpayment on a cleanup program that will be implemented well
into the next century. 
 Although this amendment would add funds for the clean-up, a
goal I support, it would do so by taking funds from the technology
reinvestment project. The TRP combines the best of national technology,
national security planning, and acquisition reform. It seeks to ensure
that the Nation`s high-technology industries, as they readjust to the
shrinking defense budget, will still carry out research and development to
meet national defense needs. 

 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who
desire to vote? 
 The result was announced - yeas 22, nays 77, as follows: 
 (ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 101 LEG.)
 YEAS - 22
 Abraham Bradley Brown
 Campbell Chafee Craig
 Faircloth Feingold Gorton
 Gramm Grassley Helms
 Hutchison Inhofe Kassebaum
 Kempthorne Kyl McCain
 Nickles Roth Snowe
 Warner
 PAGE
S3593
 NAYS - 77
 Akaka Ashcroft Baucus
 Bennett Biden Bingaman
 Bond Boxer Breaux
 Bryan Bumpers Burns
 Byrd Coats Cochran
 Cohen Conrad Coverdell
 D`Amato Daschle DeWine
 Dodd Dole Domenici
 Dorgan Exon Feinstein
 Ford Frist Glenn
 Graham Grams Gregg
 Harkin Hatch Hatfield
 Heflin Hollings Inouye
 Jeffords Johnston Kennedy
 Kerrey Kerry Kohl
 Lautenberg Leahy Levin
 Lieberman Lott Lugar
 Mack McConnell Mikulski
 Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murkowski
 Murray Nunn Packwood
 Pell Pressler Reid
 Robb Rockefeller Santorum
 Sarbanes Shelby Simon
 Simpson Smith Specter
 Stevens Thomas Thompson
 Thurmond Wellstone
 NOT VOTING - 1
 Pryor
 So, the amendment (No. 322) was rejected.