Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I just take a moment to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senators from Alaska and Pennsylvania, as they relate to our friend Howard Greene. I think you have to understand the institution to understand the value of an individual like Howard Greene. I think you have to understand the fairness, you have to understand that your word is good, that when you tell a Senator something, that is the way it is. If something happens that it cannot occur that way, you have the good judgment to come back and say to that Senator it cannot happen now, and tell him why. I have never talked to Howard Greene and asked for anything, but what I received the most courteous attention as if I was the only one seeking any kind of information or help from him. So I will miss Howard Greene. I think the Senate will miss Howard Greene. I hope those who are taking Howard's place will understand that they are filling very, very large shoes. To my friend Howard, I wish him well. I hope his days ahead are full of pleasure, and I hope that he can find something that will fulfill him as much as his operation here in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. That is correct. The only thing I was attempting to do here--if there are other amendments that come up, we will set yours aside. Once that amendment is taken care of, yours will come back as the pending business. That is what I am trying to do, because there will not be a vote tonight.

Mr. FORD. I would say to my friend that I will have a very short opening statement. I think we can encourage our colleagues, if they have any amendments that have not been taken care of in the managers' amendment. I think many of those have already been taken care of. They will be in the managers' amendment. So, for all practical purposes, I would be more than pleased to see if any of my colleagues have any amendments they would like to put on, because, at some point tonight, I think the chairman of the subcommittee will want to get a finite list of any amendments that are not taken care of in the managers' amendment, or are agreed to or voted on tonight. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent because of illness in the family.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent because of illness in the family.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent because of illness in the family.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent because of family illness.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent due to family illness.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent because of illness in the family.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I make a point of order the Senate is not in order.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent because of illness in the family.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. In his letter, President Clinton wrote: . . . I realize that technology is changing rapidly and that it is our responsibility to explore all alternative means of destruction. . . . He continues: . . . As we go forward with our program to dispose of these dangerous weapons, we will not pass on an opportunity simultaneously to look for alternatives to incineration. I urge the House-Senate Conference to act favorably on this amendment . . . But today the American public is seeing what can happen when policy is made behind closed doors. I can only hope that those responsible for this irresponsible action simply didn't understand the impact of leaving us with language that is much, much weaker. If that's the case let me tell you as clearly as I can that your actions essentially leave us emptyhanded. Because of this indiscretion we won't have a chance to discover if there's an alternative to the baseline incineration program. Instead, the conferees have chosen to spend $12 billion on a program which the affected citizens haven't accepted--and with good reason--as a safe method of destroying chemical weapons. Recent reports of the nerve gas leak in Utah further underscore just how much is at stake. As Craig Williams, a spokesman for the Chemical Weapons Working Group put it, ``This program is 12 years behind schedule and 700 percent over budget. They are desperately trying to keep it afloat.'' I'm outraged that back room deals in the Senate have not only made us a silent partner in the Army's efforts, but will essentially lock in the baseline incineration program. This was done despite a letter from the President supporting the Ford-Brown language and despite the overwhelming evidence that safer alternatives exist. This change causes delays of at least a year in the commencement of an alternative pilot program and gives the Secretary of Defense authority not to conduct a pilot program based upon a paper assessment. Those responsible for this are fooling themselves if they think I'm the only one who will recognize what a sham this language makes of our efforts and our constituents' concerns. I wonder if you've considered the whole transportation issue? Did you realize that we have to transport neutralized chemical agent and residual materials to a central facility for incineration? What will you tell the site that becomes the dumping ground for all other sites? That's a real possibility since the language doesn't limit shipment of neutralized chemical agent and residual material to the chemical demilitarization sites. Thanks to this new conference language, any State that has a permit to burn hazardous waste may be a potential shipment point. Mr. President, this language puts the alternative program under the current chemical demilitarization management--exactly opposite from the Ford-Brown amendment. Their justification for doing this is that ``the conferees are concerned that a divided program under separate managers would result in duplication of effort and increased costs and would jeopardize safety.'' The Ford-Brown language resolved many of the problems that have brought us to this point today. Not only would it have set out a 3-year deadline for completion, but our language stipulated that no funds were to be expended for the purchase of long lead materials that are incineration specific. It also gave the Secretary of Defense latitude to appoint the best individual for the program, even if this person came from another agency. By making the Secretary accountable, we could have ensured the pilot program wasn't compromised. Our amendment would have allowed the Department of Defense to transfer funds to other parties within the Federal Government to ensure that this project would be completed in an efficient and timely manner and again, so that there would be an independent review and analysis of alternative technologies. It also required accountability with a report to be filed with Congress each year on the progress of the program. So whether you're talking about accountability or effectiveness, this conference report language flat out fails the affected communities. In fact, it biases the program in such a way that no one in the effected communities will believe anything that comes out of the Army Chemical Demilitarization Program. We already know that lawsuits have and will be filed in other States who are opposed to the baseline incineration program. This situation could be avoided if the conferees had stayed with the Ford-Brown language. And more important, it could have been avoided if those people working behind-the-scenes to kill our provision remembered that they ultimately answer to the American people, not to the National Research Council or those running the Army chemical demilitarization show. While the conference report isn't amendable, I haven't given up on this and will be doing everything I can to reverse this grave policy error. Exhibit 1 The White House, Washington, DC, July 17, 1996. Hon. Wendell H. Ford, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Wendell: I am pleased that we were able to reach an agreement on the Ford-Brown chemical weapons demilitarization amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that the Senate adopted on June 26 during debate on S. 1745. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded in its 1994 study that the continued storage of these obsolete and dangerous weapons poses severe environmental and safety problems for workers and communities. I am dedicated to ensuring that these weapons are destroyed as quickly and safely as possible. I am also committed to going the extra mile to explore whether there may be safer and more environmentally sound alternatives to the Army's baseline incineration system, even though the 1994 NAS study concluded that the baseline system has been demonstrated as a safe and effective disposal process for the stockpile. I continue to believe that a well- designed incineration system can be a safe and environmentally acceptable means of destroying these weapons and that any potential decrease in disposal risks through alternative approaches must be balanced against the increased risk of storage by delaying destruction. Still, I realize that technology is changing rapidly and that it is our responsibility to explore all alternative means of destruction. My Administration will work very hard to ensure that all Americans have a safe and healthy environment. As we go forward with our program to dispose of these dangerous weapons, we will not pass on an opportunity simultaneously to look for alternatives to incineration. I urge the House-Senate Conference Committee to act favorably on this amendment. I am asking the Secretary of Defense to work with the Congress to ensure that this pilot project receives the highest priority in the Chemical Demilitarization Program. I commend you for seeking alternative solutions to this very difficult problem. Sincerely, Bill.

Mr. FORD. Will Senator Nunn yield me a few minutes?

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we're here today to vote on the conference report to the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill. But before I begin my remarks on this legislation I want to take a moment to commend my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Georgia, Sam Nunn. Today, the Senate will see the last Defense conference report handled by my colleague, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is already feeling the tremendous loss. Both as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and its ranking member, Senator Nunn gained a reputation for working with members on both sides of the aisle. His ability to forge compromises in the best interest of the Nation has made Senator Nunn not only a skilled legislator, but also a true leader. In addition to thanking the committee, the chairman, and the ranking member, I also want to give special thanks to Senator Coats for his tireless effort to preserve our language to assist the Navy's privatization efforts at the Louisville Naval Ordnance Station and the Indianapolis Naval Surface Warfare Center. I want to turn now to the 1997 fiscal year Defense authorization bill's conference report. I was very pleased to see the conferees retained my funding for the Urban Combat Training Center at Ft Knox, along with my language to protect the pensions of certain employees affected by the BRAC privatization effort and on impact aid. However, I'm very disappointed that the conferees dropped my language on the chemical demilitarization program. While the final bill language is a compromise from the legislation Senators Coats, Lugar, Hutchison, and I introduced a few months ago, it accomplishes our goal of providing a deferred annuity for those Department of Defense employees targeted for privatization as directed by the Base Closure Commission and who consequently, will lose their benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System. This 2-year pilot program: Requires the GAO to evaluate and report to Congress on the successes or failures of the program; leaves the Secretaries of the military services the discretion of implementing a program; and indexes a deferred annuity. In their report on the Senate Defense authorization bill, CBO estimates that the civilian retirement annuities, section 1121, proposal would reduce spending by $362 million by the year 2003. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an outline of what this provision does and why it was needed.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I'm also very pleased that conferees kept my amendment on impact aid in the final bill. Since the Truman administration, the Federal Government has acknowledged its responsibility in assisting school districts educate federally connected children through the Impact Aid Program. In 1994, Congress made a change to this program and said that if a school district which provides an education to children whose parents are civilian and work on Federal property does not enroll 2,000 of these students and this does not impact a school district by 15 percent then the school district would not be able to count these children for payment. With this change, we drew a line in the sand which was arbitrary and unfair. We ignored the fact that a school district may be heavily impacted, but may not enroll 2,000 of these students in it school district. The end result was that our rural school districts were penalized unfairly because of their size. But, these students have as much of an impact on smaller school districts as they do on any of the larger school districts. I am pleased to see that the provision I offered lowering this threshold to 1,000 students or 10 percent impact, has been retained. This has been a difficult change to make, and I'm pleased and thankful for the support this amendment has received from my colleagues, especially Senator Warner and other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. We can all be proud that we corrected an error that would have caused school districts in 42 States unjust hardships. Despite being very pleased to see the Coats-Ford pension changes and my impact aid language included in the final bill, I'm very disappointed the conferees dropped language Senator Brown and I had included on chemical weapons demilitarization. Maybe we ought to treat this conference report like a crime scene. Let's dust for fingerprints and see just who it was who ripped the Ford-Brown language out. While we're at it let's find out what their motives could have possibly been. For those who decided to play behind-the-scenes politics with this deadly issue let me remind you that it only takes one drop of a nerve agent like sarin to kill a person. A major release would kill 1 in 10 people within a 40-mile radius according to some projections. Their decision seems even more imprudent with the news of a nerve gas leak in Utah. I find it amazing that the Army remains as hard as a bull's head on this issue despite having to literally shut down operations in Utah almost as soon as they started because of a leak. With all their big talk about advanced technology, it took just one leaky gasket to close up shop. That's why the Ford-Brown language had the support of the President, who expressed his satisfaction that an agreement had been reached on such a critical issue. I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated July 17 from the President be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, October 2, 1996 will mark the 200th birthday of Liberty Hall in Frankfort, KY. This historic hall is one of Kentucky's finest 18th century-homes, serving as the residence for U.S. Senator John Brown and four generations of his family. Senator Brown was one of Kentucky's first U.S. Senators, holding office from 1792 to 1805. He was known as a strong advocate and voice for the developing lands west of the Allegheny Mountains. At the time of his death, he had the distinction of being the last living member of the Continental Congress. Liberty Hall itself has been a house museum since 1937. Its architecture and gardens rank it among the finest homes in the country of that period. Constructed by Senator Brown between 1796 and 1800, the house was named after his father's grammar school in Virginia. The celebration of this fine home's 200th birthday, not only highlights an important landmark in Kentucky's history, but also serves as a tribute to the preservation movement and its achievements in Kentucky. I hope all those who visit Kentucky's capital city, Frankfort, will take time to visit Liberty Hall to not only see a beautiful 18th century mansion, but also learn about this honorable man who contributed so much to Kentucky and the Nation.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, before we start, we had a minute on each side. Do they need it? I think we might as well get started. I don't think we need it on this particular amendment, but I wanted to be sure. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, there are 2 minutes equally divided prior to each piece of legislation. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. That is what I was saying. On the others, I wanted to alert the Chair to that.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.