Re: BERMUDA

[Polly Parks <pparks@igc.org>]

Lenny:

I think you are misreading Congress' intent in regards to overseas bases.
The Senate Armed Services Bill, section 333 is wonderful language that if
passed will realign overeas military-related clean-up to a foreign policy
issue. This is appropriate because there is no law on military host nation
cleanup. The Bermuda language is in the House Defense Appropriation bill as
is conflicting language on the Canada imbroglio in all relevant committee
bills precisely because we have no law on host nation military cleanup. 

Even in instances where there is explicit language in a treaty (such as with
the Panama Canal Treaty which requires the U.S. to "remove hazards to human
health and safety to the extent practicable,") DoD policy on overseas
cleanup has proven to be useless in 1) providing guidance to implementors;
2) protecting U.S. foreign policy interests; or 3) getting the job done. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee is taking "practicable" steps to address
this serious problem which negatively impacts U.S. foreign policy and
national security interests.

Section 333. Annual Report on environmental activities of the Department of
Defense overseas.

 "The committee recommends a provision that would require the Department of
Defense (DOD) to report on overseas environmental restoration, compliance,
and other international environmental activities. The Department would be
required to include the overseas environmental information in its annual
environmental reports to Congress. The committee is interested in oversight
of funds used in support of the Department's overseas environmental policy.
 "Specifically, the committee is concerned about the level of DOD funding
for international environmental activities, such as conferences, meetings,
pilot studies, and bilateral cooperative efforts. Between fiscal years 1994
and 1997, the Department obligated or expended about $3.5 million in support
of these international environmental activities. The use of these funds was
not based on a specific need for overseas installation access or sustained
operations, the preservation of the health and safety of U.S. troops
overseas, or legal obligations directly related to current or former DOD
functions overseas.
 "The committee is concerned that there is a growing emphasis on the
increased obligation and expenditure of limited DOD funds for international
environmental activities, which reduces funds available for domestic and
overseas environmental cleanup and compliance requirements and other defense
purposes. The Department's overseas environmental policy should be defined
by legal requirements and fiscal responsibilities. Therefore, the committee
has concluded that the international environmental activities described
above would more appropriately be funded out of the budget of the
Department of State."

I think section 333 is a fantastic first step. Incorporating host nations
into the DERP is great news as is taking a look at how dollars are currently
spent. The issue of having this go to Dept of State is more complicated. I
think the thrust is right. This is a foreign policy issue. But State is
not in a position to take this on unless there is capacity building. They
have, for some unknown reason, kept themselves institutionally as ignorant
as they could about the issue. (Knowing D.C. turf wars it's probably less
frustrating that way.)

But organization is a minor issue. This is about who can fight for the
dollars and if State embraces the task (which DoD hasn't) then this is great
news indeed.
Polly Parks