United States Government Publishing Office publisher pbl distributor dst United States Government Accountability Office National Security and International Affairs Division author aut Government Organization text government publication eng GAOREPORTS Legislative Agency Publications gao legislative 2010-08-12 U.S. Government Printing Office 1998-11-16 monographic deposited born digital 23 p. GA 1.13:NSIAD-99-34 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-34 P0b002ee18037714b f:ns99034 DGPO 2010-08-12 2011-03-28 GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-34 machine generated eng fdlp REPORT GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-34 NSIAD-99-34 Prioritizing Environment evaluation Waste disposal Pollution control Environmental monitoring Military facilities Defense budgets Defense operations Budget cuts Budget authority rescission DOD Defense Environmental Restoration Program Letter Report NSIAD Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on: (1) the Department of Defense's (DOD) process for allocating approved environmental cleanup budgets when funds received are less than requested or budget rescissions occur; and (2) reported cleanup schedule delays due to lack of funding.<p/>GAO noted that: (1) DOD develops and allocates approved budgets through its departmentwide planning, programming, and budget process; (2) the components used DOD guidance to establish priorities and distribute funds to the various installations, but the impact of that guidance is not necessarily traceable to specific installations or sites; (3) during fiscal years (FY) 1993 to 1997, Congress took three actions that significantly affected funding for DOD cleanup activities; (4) in FY 1995, Congress appropriated $400 million less than DOD requested and then rescinded an additional $300 million of the amount appropriated; (5) Congress appropriated $200 million less than DOD had requested for FY 1996; (6) in each case, DOD components adjusted funding priorities in light of the congressional actions and DOD guidance; (7) while specific guidance varied, both written and verbal guidance encouraged priority for sites of high risk and discouraged cleanup studies that were not essential; (8) data contained in DOD's annual reports to Congress and in DOD components' records do not show a direct relationship between installations receiving less or more funding than planned and those reporting cleanup schedule delays due to funding; (9) for example, during FY 1995 and FY 1996, about half of the Army installations with the largest decreases in funding reported cleanup schedule delays--a frequency similar to Army installations with the largest increases in funding; (10) during this period, GAO also found that actual funding changes under the DOD process often varied from that initially envisioned because of such reasons as inherent uncertainty during cleanup planning; and (11) for example, DOD initially identified a potential decrease in funding for two sites at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, whereas the Army allocated a slight overall funding increase to that installation, which has 205 cleanup sites. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-34/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-34.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-34/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-34.pdf GAO/NSIAD-99-34 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-34 Letter Report GAO/NSIAD-99-34; Environmental Cleanup: Defense Funding Allocation Process and Reported Funding Impacts; Prioritizing Environment evaluation Waste disposal Pollution control Environmental monitoring Military facilities Defense budgets Defense operations Budget cuts Budget authority rescission DOD Defense Environmental Restoration Program