S5554 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE April 7, 1995 

Reagan years. Last I looked, we had a 

Federal budget of, now, $1.6 trillion. 

Doesn’t look like a lot of ‘‘slashing’’

and ‘‘cutting’’ to me. Does anyone seriously believe that the American public 

will buy the notion that we are tearing 

spending to ribbons when we have a 

Federal budget of $1.6 trillion? Something just doesn’t add up there. 

The reality is that we have programs 

like Head Start that are going up 140 

percent over the course of 6 years—and 

the opposition comes down here, still, 

to charge that it is being torn apart by 

Republican budget cuts. 

It is a mode of argument that simply 

will not work anymore. There is simply 

too much clear evidence to the contrary. 

There is still much to do to bring our 

Government’s house into order. But by 

any measure, the first 100 days of this 

Congress have been a darn good start. 

We owe the House our rich congratulations.∑ 

f 

SHORTSIGHTED RESCISSIONS 

∑ Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the rescission bill approved by the Senate last 

night included a very short-sighted 

cut, which I strongly opposed. The bill 

we sent to conference with the House 

rescinds $93.5 million for the base realignment and closure account for the 

1993 round of military facility closures, 

and another $10.6 million for the base 

realignment and closure account for 

the 1991 round of facility closures. 

These BRAC accounts provide the 

funds to close and realign military 

bases including, most urgently, to 

clean up an environmental contamination that the military services caused 

while they occupied those facilities. 

During consideration of the bill, I 

voted for the Mikulski amendment, 

which would have restored funds for 

cleanup of closing bases and funds for 

other important national programs. 

Now, I strongly encourage the conference committee to restore these 

funds. 

When we voted for base closures over 

the last 5 years, we also committed to 

complete environmental restoration 

and remediation at those facilities 

quickly, in fact within a maximum of 5 

years from the time closure was approved. I consider that a solemn commitment from us, and from President 

Clinton to the affected communities, 

which spent years as good neighbors to 

the military, providing all kinds of 

support. Each of those communities 

was serving our country with their support of local military facilities. The 

President and Department of Defense 

have tried to keep this commitment by 

requesting full funding for BRAC activities. We appropriated most of what 

was asked for last year. It would be a 

mistake to rescind more funding. 

Mr. President, not only is it wrong to 

renege on the commitment we made to 

cleanup swiftly the military bases we 

have ordered to close, so that reuse 

there is possible. Underfunding this activity by rescinding fiscal year 1995 

BRAC funds is also short-sighted. It’s 

probably not even penny-wise, but it is 

certainly pound-foolish. 

In many cases, Federal and State 

laws require this cleanup. At some 

bases, consent agreements now dictate 

specific cleanup activities and deadlines, the cost of which must be paid 

from the BRAC accounts. So BRAC rescissions are false savings. We still 

have to complete these environmental 

restoration activities. When we delay, 

it becomes more expensive, because the 

contamination in many cases gets 

worse. Soil and groundwater contamination can spread. And if consent 

agreements are violated because of 

lack of funds, the Federal Facilities 

Compliance Act says the Federal Government may be subject to fines and 

penalties. 

The Governor of California, Pete Wilson, recently wrote to the Secretary of 

Defense on this subject, saying: 

The continued erosion of cleanup funding 

inevitably will threaten the health of armed 

services personnel and civilians who work at 

military bases where contamination is 

present. It will also exacerbate economic suffering in communities that are struggling to 

redevelop closing bases. And, if the federal 

government will not meet its cleanup obligation, how can we expect private industry to 

do so? DOD is contractually obligated to 

seek sufficient funding to permit environmental work to proceed according to the 

schedules contained in those agreements. 

California will not hesitate to assert its 

right under those agreements to seek fines, 

penalties and judicial orders compelling DOD 

to conduct required environmental work. 

The attorney general of Texas expressed similar sentiments in a letter 

to the Pentagon, saying: 

If, in other words, the DOD and the federal 

government do not comply with all applicable cleanup laws, then other entities may 

begin to question why they should comply 

with cleanup laws. Hopefully, we have not 

reached the point of the federal government 

taking the position of ‘‘do as I say, and not 

as I do.’’

I would ask that the entire letter of 

January 25, 1995 from Governor Wilson 

to Secretary Perry, and the December 

29, 1994 letter from Attorney General 

Dan Morales to Under Secretary of Defense Sherri Wasserman Goodman be 

printed in the RECORD. 

SACRAMENTO, CA, 

January 25, 1995. 

Hon. WILLIAM PERRY, 

Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SECRETARY PERRY: I would like to 

express may deep concern about recent actions at the Department of Defense (DOD) 

and in Congress regarding cuts in funding for 

environmental restoration of military bases. 

The recent decision by Congress to cut $400 

million from the Defense Environmental 

Restoration Account (DERA) for FY95 continues a disturbing trend begun last year 

when Congress rescinded $507 million from 

the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Account. California was reassured that the 

BRAC recission would not affect environmental work at closing military bases, but 

work was indeed scaled back at several California military bases due to the cut. The 

DERA cut presumably means that DOD will 

seek to postpone or eliminate environmental 

work at operational military bases. 

At the same time, the DOD Comptroller 

has announced an additional $437 million in 

cuts for cleanup programs through FY97. 

Such actions can only encourage members of 

Congress who would like to redirect DOD environmental spending into more traditional 

defense programs. 

The continued erosion of cleanup funding 

inevitably will threaten the health of armed 

services personnel and civilians who work at 

military bases where contamination is 

present. It will also exacerbate economic suffering in communities that are struggling to 

redevelop closing bases. And, if the federal 

government will not meet its cleanup obligation, how can we expect private industry to 

do so? 

California expects DOD to comply with the 

federal/state cleanup agreements it has 

signed at California military bases. DOD is 

contractually obligated to seek sufficient 

funding to permit environmental work to 

proceed according to the schedules contained 

in those agreements. California will not hesitate to assert its right under those agreements to seek fines, penalties and judicial 

orders compelling DOD to conduct required 

environmental work. 

I would be happy to work with you to 

strengthen support in Washington for full 

funding of DOD cleanup work. One way to reduce oversight costs would be to delist military bases from the National Priorities List 

and give states the exclusive responsibility 

for overseeing base cleanups. Please do not 

hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance in these areas. 

Sincerely, 

PETE WILSON. 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Austin, TX, December 29, 1994. 

Re additional comments to the Defense environmental response task force fiscal year 

1994 annual report to Congress. 

Ms. Sherri Wasserman Goodman, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. GOODMAN: I continue to believe 

that much progress has been made in the 

cleanup program of the Department of Defense (‘‘DoD’’) as a result of the work done 

by you and your office. It is important, however, that the policies declared at the headquarters level continue to permeate down 

through the Services to the base or facility 

level. I am not quite sure at this point, in 

other words, that all of the policies and efforts set forth at the headquarters level have 

been fully embraced or implemented at the 

facility level. 

Because of possible adverse effects on future cleanups at closing bases, I am deeply 

concerned about recent action taken by the 

DoD Comptroller with regard to the DoD environmental remediation and compliance 

budget. I understand that the Comptroller 

desires to cut over a half-billion dollars from 

the DoD’s request for environmental cleanup 

and compliance. Not only would such a cut 

be short-sighted, I firmly believe that it 

would be unlawful if it is the case that all of 

the legal requirements facing the DoD could 

not be met (as a financial or budgeting matter) in accordance with Executive Order 12088 

(Federal Compliance with Pollution Control 

Standards (Oct. 10, 1978)) and the many federal facility and state cleanup agreements 

entered into in good faith by the DoD. While 

saving taxpayers’ money and ensuring military readiness are surely critically important objectives, the compliance by DoD with 

all applicable laws purposed at protecting 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

April 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5555 

our citizens’ health and safety is also extremely important. Unfortunately, DoD appears to be sliding towards the purposeful 

disregard of its cleanup obligations. 

More fundamentally, I am perplexed that a 

certain element within DoD apparently does 

not believe that a safe and healthy work and 

living environment for our servicemen and 

women (and their families) is important for 

their well-being, as well as for our national 

security. Surely, the people who are responsible for defending this country should be accorded the same degree of protection from 

carcinogens and other hazardous substances 

accorded workers and their families in the 

private sector. 

Furthermore, I assume that the Comptroller does not intend for the DoD to shirk 

its responsibility to protect the health and 

safety of the communities surrounding defense bases, especially if those communities 

consist of groups, such as Hispanics and African-Americans, which have historically been 

the victims of environmental injustice. We 

cannot pull the ladder up on these groups by 

cutting the environmental cleanup and compliance budget so soon after finally initiating environmental justice efforts. 

Lastly, regarding the remediation funding 

issue, it is clear that if DoD does not take its 

cleanup responsibilities seriously enough to 

request adequate funding, then DoD will be 

sending the worst possible signal to the private sector and the local and state governments facing similar cleanup responsibilities. If, in other words, the DoD and the federal government do not comply with all applicable cleanup laws, then other entities 

may begin to question why they should comply with cleanup laws. Hopefully, we have 

not reached the point of the federal government taking the position of ‘‘do as I say, and 

not as I do.’’

Aside from comments regarding the DoD 

Comptroller budget cutting issue, I hereby 

submit additional comments to the 1994 Defense Environmental Response Task Force 

(‘‘DERTF’’) Annual Report to Congress: 

1. Future Land Use. Whether future land 

use should be a factor in determining if DoD 

property is contaminated, or to what standards the property must be cleaned up, are 

policy questions ultimately to be decided by 

Congress. Until Congress expressly decides, 

however, whether the consideration of future 

land use is appropriate in the cleanup context, DoD must comply with all existing applicable requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) and the 

respective states in determining what constitutes ‘‘all remedial action’’ necessary to 

protect the human health and environment. 

Thus, whether future land use is a legitimate 

or legal consideration in establishing appropriate cleanup levels currently depends upon 

whether the regulators allow such consideration, either explicitly or implicitly. 

As my office has frequently stated during 

the DERTF proceedings, attempts to subsidize economic redevelopment of bases by 

allowing the cleanup standards to be loosened may be problematic in the long run for 

our communities, citizens, and base transferees, as well as short-sighted for DoD. It is 

still unclear to me whether the following 

issues have been carefully thought through: 

(1) Who or what entity decides future land 

use? 

(2) What happens when a community decides in the future to change the use of the 

transferred property? 

(3) What happens when cleanup standards 

related to a certain use are ratcheted upwards by EPA or by the respective states? 

Until the answers to such issues are further refined and a consensus is reached by all 

stakeholders, I caution against moving too 

quickly to short-term solutions that may be 

more budget-based than health and safetybased. 

2. Harmonization with Private Sector 

Standards. The goal of trying to quicklytransfer bases to our communities is to ensure quick development in order to create 

jobs and promote the economic health of our 

communities—it is not the quick transfer of 

bases for the mere sake of quick transfer. 

Unless, however, private sector lenders, developers, and investors are sufficiently comfortable that they will not face potential environmental liability, they simply will not 

get involved in the redevelopment of a closed 

base. 

Thus, it is critical that DoD’s investigative, remedial, and transfer processes mirror 

the processes found in the private sector. For 

example, the investigation and remediation 

processes established by the Services should 

reflect and fulfill the same requirements, 

roles, and functions as environmental due 

diligence efforts in the private sector. Failure to harmonize efforts between the DoD 

and the private sector in this regard will 

only result in delay subsequent to the transfer of closed bases. I have instructed my office to continue to encourage DoD to make 

every effort to harmonize, to the extent allowed by law, its investigative, remedial, and 

transfer practices with private sector practices. 

3. Base Transfers Prior to Remedial Action. The DERTF Annual Report indicates 

that the DERTF proposes to examine possible changes in the law to allow property to 

be deeded before remedial actions are in 

place and properly and successfully operating, so long as there is no increased threat 

to human health and the environment. 

Section 120(h)(3) of CERCLA requires that 

each deed transferring federal property contain a covenant warranting that all remedial 

action necessary to protect human health 

and the environment has been taken and 

that any additional remedial action found to 

be necessary after the transfer shall be taken 

by the government. Generally this means 

that base property cannot be transferred before it is cleaned up. This important statutory requirement helps to protect future occupants from harm, and the United States 

from liability. In light of the Anti-Deficiency Act and other barriers to the ensuring 

of sufficient funding for cleanups, the requirement of base cleanup before transfer 

provides the one sure means of ensuring that 

there will indeed be cleanup of the facility to 

be transferred. 

The risks involved in deeding property before cleanup is completed in accordance with 

all applicable law outweigh any potential 

benefits of such premature deeding, in my 

opinion. Even if deeding contaminated property does not actually increase the threat to 

human health, it will reduce DoD’s control 

over the transferred property, breach an important regulatory checkpoint, and increase 

the legal risks to all parties. I continue to 

believe that this option should be rejected by 

the DERTF. 

There is, furthermore, no statutory cleanup completion requirement for leases. While 

it may be, as the Services are claiming, that 

leases are not being used by the Services in 

order to avoid their cleanup responsibilities 

or to circumvent the ultimate purpose of 

CERCLA, long-term leases are clearly being 

used to avoid—strictly speaking—the provisions of CERCLA § 120(h)(3). While leases can 

and have been used to facilitate reuse in conjunction with remediation on terms that are 

fully protective of human health and the environment, it is critical that the Services 

maintain adequate control over the leased 

property in order to ensure that public 

health and safety are protected, that cleanup 

activities are facilitated, and that the lessee 

is not doing anything that might increase 

the legal liability of the government or any 

other party. I am not confident at this point 

that sufficient institutional controls akin to 

those established in the private sector longterm property management have yet been 

developed by DoD in the base closure context. 

4. Indemnification of Future Owners. The 

Annual Report points out that the Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 

(‘‘Act’’) contains provisions to indemnify 

transferees from environmental liability, 

and implies that no further study of indemnification is needed. The Act indemnifies 

states, political subdivisions and any other 

person or entity that acquires ownership or 

control of a closing base from suits arising 

out of any claim for personal injury or property damage resulting from the release or 

threatened release of hazardous substances. 

Clearly, the federal government is solely 

responsible for cleaning up contamination 

caused by its activities prior to base closure. 

CERCLA, however, provides as a general 

matter that the current owner (i.e., the 

transferee receiving title to the closed base) 

is jointly and severally liable for response 

costs. Thus the transferee may be found 

jointly and severally liable for the cost of 

clean up residual contamination left from 

military activities notwithstanding the provisions of CERCLA § 120(h)(3). I am unsure 

whether the indemnity provision cited above 

unambiguously provides otherwise. I recommend that DERTF study this issue and 

that the Act be clarified to comply with the 

common understanding of the government’s 

responsibilities. 

In any event, while who ultimately is responsible for response costs is a relatively 

straightforward legal issue, determining 

whose ‘‘molecules’’ are contaminating the 

groundwater or soil may be a very difficult 

factual issue—an issue that may only be determined after much litigation and much expense for all parties concerned. 

I look forward to continuing my office’s 

participation in the DERTF proceedings. As 

we move on to the next round of base closures, it is critical that we continue to improve the base cleanup and transfer process. 

Thank you for the opportunity to add my 

comments to the DERTF Annual Report to 

be submitted to Congress. 

Sincerely, 

DAN MORALES, 

Attorney General of Texas. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate bill rescinds fiscal year 1995 BRAC 

funding that DOD did ask for and that 

we appropriated, as we should have. If 

the conference committee accepts 

these rescissions in the BRAC accounts, it will further slow cleanup 

that has already been delayed by previous cuts. Last year Congress rescinded half a billion dollars from 

BRAC accounts to pay part of the cost 

of earthquake recovery in California. 

That reduction was spread by the Department of Defense among many facilities, and the pace of cleanup was 

slowed. 

I know some in Congress have attacked environmental restoration as 

not a legitimate Pentagon expenditure. 

But where the military caused environmental damage, especially where it 

now interferes with productive reuse of 

land and property in the middle of severely dislocated communities, that 

damage constitutes a real cost of military activities. It is just a deferred cost 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S5556 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE April 7, 1995 

created by the Federal Government, a 

bill that has not yet been paid. We 

must pay it. We promised to pay it, and 

the BRAC accounts hold the funds. 

The Department of Defense strongly 

supports these BRAC expenditures. Air 

Force Secretary Sheila Widnall told 

the Armed Services Committee: 

I cannot think of anything more shortsighted than to not fund for to rescind environmental cleanup money for BRAC bases. 

Secretary of Defense Perry told the 

Budget Committee: 

That work has to be done, there’s no doubt. 

This environmental cleanup we’re doing is 

legislatively required. It’s not as if it’s a discretion on the part of the Defense Department. 

Reducing our excess military facility 

capacity is necessary, Mr. President, 

but it is extremely painful for local 

communities whose economics have become reliant on a facility over many 

decades. Base closure causes a huge 

economic and social disruption, especially in smaller, rural communities 

where a base has dominated the local 

job picture. At lest 30 Sates are already 

directly affected by base closures initiated in the 6 years, and additional 

bases are scheduled to be identified 

this summer for closure. 

The base closure process has been 

devastating to military facilities in my 

own State of Michigan. We have now 

lost all three of our active Air Force 

bases, a number of smaller facilities, 

and still more closures have been proposed in Michigan for the current 

BRAC round IV. If the reductions proposed in this Senate bill are approved 

by the full Congress and signed into 

law by the President, the impact will 

be felt in many communities with closing bases from BRAC rounds II and III 

that are currently struggling to survive, including Wurtsmith Air Force 

Base in Oscoda and K.I. Sawyer in 

Gwinn, MI. These communities are trying to attract new businesses with new 

jobs, and the land and property that 

has been contaminated by the military 

cannot be made available for other use 

until it is cleaned up. That takes 

money, and the money must come from 

these BRAC accounts. 

Mr. President, last month 17 of my 

colleagues in the Senate wrote to the 

chairman and ranking member of the 

Senate Appropriations Committee. We 

urged the committee to fully fund environmental cleanup at closed military 

bases, and specifically to not rescind 

fiscal year 1995 funds. I ask that the 

full letter, signed by 18 Senators, be 

printed at this point in the RECORD. 

The letter follows: 

U.S. SENATE, 

Washington, DC, February 27, 1995. 

Hon. MARK O. HATFIELD, 

Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: When the President 

and Congress initiated the process of closing 

military bases, we made a solemn commitment to complete environmental restoration 

and remediation at those facilities quickly. 

We recognized that cleanup is essential before property can be released by the government and reused by local communities trying to rebuild their economies and attract 

new jobs. Congress must not now renege on 

this commitment by underfunding the Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) accounts 

that pay for this cleanup. 

Our nation’s military facilities infrastructure must be reduced commensurate with 

the downsizing of armed forces. At least 30 

states are already directly affected by base 

closures initiated in the first three rounds of 

the closure process, and additional bases are 

scheduled to be identified for closure this 

summer. Where the federal government has 

caused environmental contamination during 

its tenancy, that damage must be substantially repaired before property can be transferred to a state, locality or private owner 

for productive reuse. Environmental damage 

is a real cost incurred as a result of DOD activities and it should be paid for out of the 

DOD budget. 

In many cases, federal and state laws govern the cleanup activities required, and at 

some bases the relevant parties have negotiated consent agreements mandating specific cleanup deadlines. Costs associated 

with thses activities are paid for from the 

BRAC accounts, which the Administration 

and Congress have funded adequately in recent years. 

Defense Secretary William Perry recently 

testified to the Senate Budget Committee 

that ‘‘This environmental cleanup we’re 

doing is legislatively required. It’s not as if 

it’s a discretion on the part of the Defense 

Department. That work has to be done, 

there’s no doubt.’’ And Air Force Secretary 

Sheila Widnall testified last year that ‘‘I 

cannot think of anything more short-sighted 

than to not fund or to rescind environmental 

cleanup money for BRAC bases.’’

For all of these reasons, we request that 

you reject any rescission of FY 1995 funds in 

this area, and that you support full funding 

of the Department of Defense FY 1996 request for Base Realignment and Closure 

cleanup activities. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Patrick Leahy, Daniel K. Akaka, Barbara Boxer, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 

John Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, 

John F. Kerry, Carl Levin, Claiborne 

Pell, Patty Murray, David Pryor, Herb 

Kohl, Chuck Robb, Paul Sarbanes, Tom 

Daschle, Dianne Feinstein, Olympia 

Snowe. 

Mr. LEVIN. We hope that the committee would heed our advice. Now it is 

vital that the conference committee 

restores these funds so that cleanup 

goes forward without delay, and productive reuse in communities with 

closing bases can be accomplished 

swiftly.∑ 

∑ Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt 

will live forever in the hearts and 

minds of Americans. This memorable 

leader helped to lead this country 

through both a worldwide depression 

and a world war, and when he died he 

left the country positioned to take its 

place as the leader of the free world. 

Fifty years ago April 12, the people of 

our great country lost a President, a 

statesman, and a leader. 

Since 1971 I have had the honor to 

have served on the Franklin Delano 

Roosevelt Memorial Commission, the 

past 5 years of this time serving as the 

cochairman with my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Senator INOUYE. 

This Commission was formally established by Public Law 372 in 1955 with 

the responsibility of constructing an 

appropriate memorial to the 32d President of the United States. That memorial, which is to be unveiled in 1997, is 

a tribute not only to Roosevelt the 

President, but also to an era. 

I was 10 years old when Franklin 

Roosevelt was elected President, I was 

a 20-year-old naval officer in the waters 

off Okinawa when I heard the news 

that the President had died. Millions of 

Americans, like myself, had grown up 

with the Roosevelts. To many it 

seemed that he would be President forever. Suddenly, while the United 

States are still engaged in war, our 

Commander in Chief was gone. The 

feeling was one of loss and uncertainty, 

Roosevelt was to many Americans the 

only President we had known, to millions he was a hero and a friend. The 

future suddenly became uncertain for 

those at home and overseas. 

That uncertainty soon turned to confidence as the war was won and the 

United States took its place not only 

as the champion of freedom and peace 

but as the most prosperous nation the 

world has ever known. Roosevelt had 

ensured the future of the country by 

preparing it for the demands of the 

20th century. 

It was Roosevelt’s dedication to the 

future of this country which instigated 

such universally accepted successes as 

the GI bill of rights and the Social Security Act. The GI bill assisted over 50 

percent of the returning soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, guaranteed 

for the United States an educated and 

skilled populace unrivaled in the 

world. While the GI bill provided for 

those upon whose backs the future lay, 

the Social Security Act helped those 

who had already carried the burden. 

As is now well known, Franklin Roosevelt fought a constant battle with 

the crippling effects of polio even as he 

waged war against the Great Depression and the forces of fascism. His accomplishments as President serve as 

the greatest testament to his personal 

victories, and he survives still as an example of the human ability to challenge and overcome even the greatest 

of obstacles. 

Mr. President, the life and Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt 

serves as a reminder to each of us, to 

my colleagues in the Senate and to the 

people all across this country, of the 

ability of the American people to face 

up to and overcome any and all challenges. To look the uncertainties of the 

future in the face and to move forward 

with confidence and an unshakable 

faith. This is indeed Roosevelt’s longest and best lived legacy, his eternal 

challenge to each and every one of us. 

For as he wrote soon before his death, 

‘‘The only limit to our realization of 

tomorrow will be our doubts of today. 

Let us move forward with strong and 

active faith.’’∑ 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS