[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 123 (Monday, July 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10317-S10318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCain:
  S. 1900. A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States 
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental 
Conflict Resolution. Congressman Grijalva has introduced a similar bill 
in the House of Representatives.
  In 1998, the Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. 
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution with the purpose of 
offering an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over 
environmental conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often 
result in lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to 
resolve. In cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for 
court proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is 
still a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need 
for alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to 
address the rising number of environmental conflicts

[[Page S10318]]

that have clogged Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress.
  The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in 
recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and 
his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to 
build a consensus among fractious and even hostile interests. The 
Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden 
within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many 
agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability.
  The success of the institute is far greater than we could have 
imagined. The institute began operations in 1999. Agencies from the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Interior and 
Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal 
Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and 
others have all called upon the Institute for assistance.
  Among its many accomplishments, the Institution has also assisted in 
facilitating interagency teamwork for the Everglades Task Force which 
oversees the South Everglades Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest 
Service requested assistance to bring ranchers and environmental 
advocates in the southwest to work on grazing and environmental 
compliance issues. Even Members of Congress have sought the institute's 
assistance to review implementation of the Nation's fundamental 
environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, to assess how 
it can be improved using collaborative processes.
  The demand on the institute's assistance had been much greater than 
anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not 
anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal 
Government. The institute has served as a mediator between agencies and 
as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving 
overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long-
term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and 
designing international systems for preventing or resolving disputes.
  This legislation simply extends the authorization for the Institute 
for an additional 5 years. Support for the institute's service is an 
investment that will ultimately benefit the taxpayers by preventing 
costly litigation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                  ____

  By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 1902. A bill to limit cost growth associated with major defense 
base closures and realignments implemented as part of the 2005 round of 
defense base closure and realignment; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, one of the primary goals of the 
Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, process is to reduce 
costs. Unfortunately, we have seen the cost of implementing BRAC 
balloon out of control. Back in 2005, Congress agreed to implement the 
recommendations of the BRAC Commission based on the understanding that 
it would cost the American taxpayers $21 billion, a substantial 
investment. But now, only two years later, we are looking at a price 
tag of $30 billion, which is a 43 percent increase.
  If costs continue to rise at this rate, we will be looking at even 
more of a burden on the American taxpayer by the time the base closures 
and realignments are completed in 2011. In my home State of New Jersey, 
we are keenly aware of some of the wildly inaccurate cost estimates 
used in the BRAC process. The closing of New Jersey's army base at Fort 
Monmouth was originally expected to cost $780 million, now we are 
looking at a $1.5 billion price tag. Part of this inflated cost is due 
to the egregious miscalculations on how much it would cost to move the 
U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, currently located in New 
Jersey, to West Point, NY. Although the BRAC Commission's original, 
one-time implementation cost estimate was $29 million, current 
estimates put the move at nearly $200 million. Many communities and 
families will be greatly impacted by the closing of Fort Monmouth and 
the relocation of the military prep school. Knowing that these 
decisions were based on miscalculations and misinformation does not sit 
well with our State, and it should not sit well with taxpayers across 
the country either. If American families are being forced to foot a 
bill they weren't expecting, there should be an escape hatch.
  That is why I am introducing the BRAC Cost Overruns Protection Act of 
2007 or the BRAC COP Act. This legislation will work to control the 
excessive cost overruns in BRAC and ensure that BRAC is maximizing our 
taxpayers' money. This bill, which I am introducing with Senator 
Lautenberg, is based on principles found in existing law concerning 
cost overruns in weapons programs, known as the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. 
Let me take a few moments to discuss exactly how this legislation will 
work.
  The BRAC COP Act will create a trigger mechanism to require a re-
evaluation of any major base closure or realignment should the actual 
cost exceed BRAC's estimated cost by more than 25 percent. In order to 
monitor BRAC costs, this bill will require the Secretary of Defense to 
write biannual reports on the costs of implementing the pending base 
closure or realignment recommendations mandated by BRAC law. If the 
secretary determines that the actual cost of implementing a major base 
closure or realignment recommendation has exceeded the 25 percent 
threshold, the Defense Secretary will then notify the Chairman and 
Ranking Member the Congressional Defense Committees and devise a 
business plan to reduce the cost, without readjusting the baseline 
estimated cost, so that it does not exceed the 25 percent limit.
  The Secretary will then make a recommendation to the President on 
whether to continue the base closure or realignment. The BRAC COP Act 
also supports transparency in this process, so if the Defense Secretary 
recommends that the President continue or modify the base closure or 
realignment, despite the excessive cost overruns, the Secretary must 
include an explanation of why it is necessary to continue with these 
expenditures. After reviewing the Secretary's recommendation, the 
President will make his own recommendation and submit it to Congress. 
Just like the congressional procedure for voting on BRAC law, Congress 
will then have the option to vote to disapprove the President's 
recommendation.
  Let me be clear: this legislation will not overturn BRAC, nor is it 
intended to re-open the BRAC process. This bill simply asks that the 
Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Congress take a second 
look when we face exhorbant cost overruns. The BRAC COP Act will only 
affect the largest base closures and realignments that are over budget, 
so we will not be analyzing every single one of the BRAC 
recommendations.
  It is time that the Defense Department is held more accountable for 
its expenditures. This Congress and the American people do not want to 
continue providing blank checks so that the Pentagon can rework its 
accounting tables, regardless of the costs. Congress supported the 
recommendations of the 2005 BRAC Commission based on the fact that 
these closures and realignments, although inconvenient, would end up 
saving money in the long run and addressing the changing requirements 
of our military. It now appears that cost-benefit analysis has changed. 
The BRAC COP Act will work to ensure that the 2005 BRAC law, and any 
future BRAC laws, do not go grossly over budget.
  This bill is good for our military and our communities, and I ask my 
colleagues to support this fiscally responsible legislation.

                          ____________________