From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] BRAC Funding update |
I've been trying to reconcile the fragmentary and sometimes conflicting bits of information I have been receiving about the cut in fiscal year 2001 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) funding. Reportedly, the Military Construction Appropriations conference committee cut the total BRAC appropriation from $1.174 billion to $1.024 billion, a cut of $150 million, but it left the "environmental ceiling" at $865 million. In making the cut, it noted that the Defense Department - particularly the Air Force BRAC program - is not using all the funds currently appropriated. The committee believes that the Defense Department can carry out its planned BRAC cleanup projects with the funds not yet spent combined with the new appropriation. The fact that the environmental ceiling remains at $865 million is moot. New cleanup money will be cut, because that's where the committee - based on a recent GAO report - identified the unobligated funds. Furthermore, if DOD were to allocate the entire $865 million, that would leave only $9 million for other programmed BRAC activity. The conference committee has completed its action, and it's unlikely that either house of Congress or the President will hold up the entire Military Construction Appropriations budget over this issue. So what can be done? First, those communities with BRAC facilities should tell the Defense Department that funds should be allocated in a way that does not delay planned projects. Projects at Army and Navy bases impacted by last years budget cuts are particularly vulnerable. Second, to discourage further raids on cleanup funding, communities can let members of Congress know that these cuts do more than absorb unobligated funds. They make it harder to insist upon complete cleanup. Third, there needs to be a serious response to the criticism reportedly raised by General Accounting Office. The timing of cleanup spending is less certain than other construction spending because the regulatory agencies are engaged in ongoing negotiations with the Armed Services over each project. Those discussions sometimes delay activity, but by delaying funding to match on-the-ground delays, it makes it difficult to accelerate cleanup projects when they're ready to go earlier than expected. Lenny Siegel -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/968-1126 lsiegel@cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html. If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to: cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] SFAAP: Local tribe enters into Sunflower equation Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Public Meeting: Update on Gruber's Grove Bay | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] SFAAP: Local tribe enters into Sunflower equation Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Public Meeting: Update on Gruber's Grove Bay |