[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 61 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5070-S5072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       RESCINDING $230 MILLIONS IN MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last month the Senate debated the 
Defense supplemental appropriations bill. Although I supported this 
legislation, I expressed my dismay that the Appropriations Committee 
chose to fully offset the $1.9 billion supplemental from the fiscal 
year 1995 Defense budget. In a practical sense, that action cut the 
 [[Page S5071]] Defense budget by almost $2.0 billion at a time when 
the readiness levels of our Armed Forces are teetering on the edge.
  Since 1985, the Defense budget has decreased by 40 percent in buying 
power. The 1995 Defense budget, which is being used to fund the 
Administration's ill-conceived foreign ventures, has already been 
reduced by $40 billion below the 1990 budget even without the reduction 
in purchasing power from inflation. Today, with this supplemental, we 
add insult to injury by further cutting the 1995 Defense budget to fund 
domestic programs.
  The committee's amendment to H.R. 1158 further reduces the already 
constrained Defense budget by over $200 million, including the $104 
million in critical base closure funds, $27 million for projects to 
meet environmental responsibilities at our overseas base, and $69 
million for NATO infrastructure funding.
  I must point out the irony here, in the committee's attempt to reduce 
funding, it may actually be increasing the cost to the Department by 
rescinding the NATO funds. I am advised that these funds have all been 
obligated and this rescission may require breaking contracts and 
therefore incurring additional costs.
  Possibly the most damaging effect this supplemental will have is on 
base closure. The recommendation to further cut the base closure 
account at a time when the Base Closure Commission is reviewing 
recommendations to add more bases to the closure list is, in my 
judgement, misguided.
  It does not make sense to reduce funds critical for the closing and 
cleaning up of bases--funds that are used to pay civilian severance, 
environmental restoration, and the civilian and military relocation 
costs associated with closing a base. These cuts, proposed by the 
Appropriations Committee, will not only delay the closure process, they 
will negatively impact communities that are desperately looking for 
alternative uses for these bases to speed up their economic recovery. 
Just last year, Congress rescinded $507 million in this same account 
and caused havoc to the closure process and our communities which are 
still trying to recover from the cuts.
  I have an amendment prepared to offer which will restore the funding 
for the base closure account. However, in order not to delay this 
process any longer, and after conferring with the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction who assured me he would consider 
restoring the funds during the joint conference on the bill, I will not 
offer the amendment.
  Mr. President, let me close by stating that reducing the Defense 
budget every time there is an unexpected defense or domestic need 
requiring a supplemental is not a sustainable policy over the long 
term, nor is such a policy in the interest of our national security. 
The men and women of our Armed Forces expect better from the Senate. 
These dedicated individuals, who risk their lives daily and endure long 
separations from their families, have earned our support. I am 
committed to providing that support and hope my colleagues in the 
Senate and on the Appropriations Committee will join me in stopping 
this erosion to the Defense budget.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter addressed to me 
dated March 10, 1995, from John Deutch, Deputy Secretary of Defense, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              The Deputy Secretary of Defense,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 1995.
     Senator Strom Thurmond,
     U.S. Senate, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request your assistance 
     in resisting the proposed rescission of $230 million in the 
     fiscal year 1995 Military Construction appropriation.
       The Senate proposed rescission of $104 million for the Base 
     Closure and Realignment Account (BRAC) impacts the Department 
     of Defense's ability to implement the base closures as 
     mandated by law. The Department makes every effort to 
     minimize the impact on communities. The ability to close as 
     expeditiously as possible not only saves the federal 
     government money that we have counted on, but also provides 
     the communities with early opportunities for economic 
     development and job creation. Our experience with the fiscal 
     year 1994 rescission was that it severely impacted both 
     Service and community closure efforts.
       The proposed $69 million rescission of NATO funds is of 
     significant concern. These funds are currently obligated and 
     any rescission would incur additional costs for contract 
     terminations of ongoing construction projects. It also sends 
     a very negative signal concerning our support for the NATO 
     Alliance.
       The proposed overseas reductions of $27 million primarily 
     affect our ability to meet our environmental 
     responsibilities. The worldwide unspecified reduction of $30 
     million places a burden on the Services to find alternative 
     sources of funds for needed projects. We already face a $137 
     million unallocated reduction in the fiscal year 1995 
     appropriation.
       On behalf of the Department of Defense, I request that the 
     Senate reconsider the proposed $230 million rescission.
                                                      John Deutch.
              restoring rescission of base closure funding

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support the efforts of my colleague from 
South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, to restore funding $104 million in 
funding for base closure accounts, which the Appropriations Committee 
recommended for rescission. It is vitally important that these funds 
remain available to pay for the necessary costs of closing, cleaning 
up, and transferring unnecessary military bases to the communities for 
reuse.
  The Appropriations Committee indicates in the report accompanying the 
bill that these rescissions are being taken because large amounts of 
appropriated funds remain unobligated in these accounts. That may be 
true. But that in no way means that the funds are not necessary.
  The accounts from which the committee recommended rescinding $104 
million include the funding for environmental restoration at closing 
military bases. These costs are not insignificant, and they represent a 
Federal liability which must be met.
  On Monday, March 27, the Washington Post reported on yet another 
study that concluded that ``the cost of cleaning up military bases is 
skyrocketing * * *.'' My colleague from Alaska has often raised this 
problem of the increasing cost of cleaning up closing military bases as 
a reason to delay the BRAC process. Yet, now the committee is 
recommending that we rescind funds already appropriated for 
environmental cleanup at closing military bases. I cannot understand 
the logic of doing so.
  These accounts from which the committee recommends we rescind money 
also include funding to pay for military construction at bases where 
consolidations and realignments will occur because of BRAC actions. The 
cost of providing this new infrastructure was factored into the BRAC's 
decision-making process and is important to provide necessary support 
for activities moved to other locations. It is not reasonable to assume 
that adding functions to an existing base will not require some 
expenditure of funds for buildings and support.
  All of these funds are necessary to complete the base closure and 
realignment process. There are specific projects and activities for 
which these funds were appropriated--jobs which need to be completed so 
that the communities surrounding the closing bases can implement their 
reuse plans as quickly as possible.
  I wonder whether the committee would consider, as a possible reason 
for the large amount of unobligated balances in these accounts, that 
the process for closing bases is, without exaggeration, ponderous.
  In my home State of Arizona, Williams Air Force Base, which was 
ordered closed in 1991, has been screened for Federal agency reuse at 
least three times. Homeless applications are still pending at the 
Department of Health and Human Services. The Air Force Base Conversion 
Agency and the local communities have not yet agreed on the final 
details of reuse of the base. Here we are, nearly 4 years after the 
BRAC ordered the base closed, and the Air Force is still paying the 
bill for maintaining the base. And more importantly, the community is 
still not able to recover fully from the economic impact of losing the 
base.
  The base closure process ought not take 4 years to complete. I intend 
to introduce legislation to streamline the Federal screening process 
and to give greater flexibility to recognized community groups to 
coordinate, develop, 
 [[Page S5072]] and implement reuse plans for closing bases.
  Until the process is fixed, however, it is not surprising that large 
amounts of the base closure funding remain unspent. Again, though, that 
does not mean that the funds are not needed. Eliminating these funds 
would only exacerbate the difficulty of closing bases and conveying the 
property to the subsequent owners in a timely fashion.
  This is a painful enough process for a community that relied on the 
military base in its midst for jobs and economic stability. Let's not 
aggravate the situation by imperiling the Services' ability to complete 
the process as quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, I understand that Senator Thurmond has received 
assurances from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
Subcommittee on Military Construction that the conferees on this bill 
will consider restoring these funds in the conference. I applaud that 
commitment.
  I must state, however, that I support restoring these funds with one 
condition. I believe that the restoration of these funds must not be 
done at the cost of increasing the Federal deficit. I believe the $104 
million in restored funding must be fully offset by rescissions of low 
priority funds.
  Mr. President, I had intended to offer a second degree amendment to 
rescind $104 million from the administrative and travel accounts of the 
Federal Government.
  The amendment would have provided a full offset for the cost of 
restoring the BRAC-related funds in the amendment of Senator Thurmond. 
The Senate bill already provides $13 billion in total spending 
rescissions, but this is $4 billion less than the House bill. We should 
not further exacerbate the shortfall in deficit reduction funds, if we 
can find an offsetting reduction.
  I believe the reduction of $104 million in Government administrative 
and travel expenses would have been an appropriate
 reduction. The Office of Management advised me that, in fiscal year 
1995 alone, $107.2 billion will be spent for administration and travel. 
The amendment would have rescinded only $104 million from a $107 
billion account--less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total 
expenditures. Out of a budget of $107 billion, it seems quite likely 
that the small amount which would be rescinded by this amendment will 
not be devastating to the operation of any government office. One-tenth 
of 1 percent of the administrative and travel budget of any Federal 
organization should not hamper the operations of that organization.

  Mr. President, the Department of Defense and the communities 
surrounding closing bases need the funding in the BRAC accounts to 
finish a job already underway. We should not rescind those funds. I 
believe we should rescind a minuscule portion--less than one-tenth of 1 
percent--of the Federal Government's administrative and travel budget 
to pay for these necessary BRAC-related activities.
  Unfortunately, we were unable to come to agreement on the offsets I 
intended to propose. Therefore, Senator Thurmond has chosen to rely on 
the assurances he has received from Senator Burns concerning restoring 
these funds in the conference. I respectfully urge the conferees to 
identify offsetting rescissions in other areas to pay for the 
restoration of these funds.
  Mr. President, it is imperative that we not decrease the amount of 
deficit reduction in this bill. We are undertaking the daunting task of 
prioritizing Federal spending and reducing the Federal debt, working 
toward a balanced Federal budget. By eliminating unnecessary and 
wasteful spending of prior year appropriated funds, we can begin our 
review of the fiscal year 1996 budget with money in the bank.
  Therefore, the conferees on this bill should ensure that an 
offsetting reduction is made for the restoration of these BRAC-related 
funds. The conference agreement should preserve at least the level of 
deficit reduction contained in the Senate bill, and in my view, should 
move toward the greater deficit reduction in the House bill. As 
important as this funding is for BRAC cleanup and implementation, I do 
not believe it should be restored at the cost of increasing the 
deficit.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________