Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. VOTE ON Amendment No. 4435

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FORD. I encourage the approval of the amendment.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, why do we need this amendment? I am proposing that the Department of Defense set up a pilot program to review alternative technologies for the destruction of chemical munitions. Currently, the Army has a review underway that only examines the use of these technologies for bulk sites. The Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot and the Pueblo Chemical Depot are nonbulk sites that house munitions, so we need to examine the feasibility of using alternative technologies for nonbulk sites as well. Question: What are the unique provisions of this amendment? First, this amendment would direct the Department of Defense to appoint someone who hasn't been in direct, or immediate control of the chemical weapon stockpile demilitarization program. I strongly believe that this program needs new blood, an individual who is objective and not wedded to the incineration process. Second, this amendment prohibits the expenditures of funds for the construction of incinerators at both the Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky and at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado for 1 year. Question: How do you know that there will not be local opposition to pilot testing an alternative technology? I am hopeful that the pilot program will include a decisionmaking process that will include State and local governments, local community groups and that all parties in this process will reach a consensus. With a consensus building process, I believe that there will be less local opposition to the pilot testing of an alternative technology, and in future years destruction of obsolete chemical weapons will be allowed to proceed. Question: Where will the pilot project take place? Site selection will be decided contingent on the technical merits of the technology chosen for evaluation and the best place for that technology to be tested. Question: What is the difference, if any, between your amendment and what is in the appropriations bill? There are several differences. First, based on Department of Defense and private sector estimates, I am asking for $60 million for a 3-year period to conduct this pilot project. The appropriation's language requests $40 million for the same study with no timeframe for the completion of the study. I believe it is critical to have a timeframe or the project may drag on. Furthermore, the appropriation language requires that at least two technologies can be reviewed, I believe this is micromanagement on the legislative level and that those decisions should be left to the experts doing the job. Question: Are we putting the communities in more danger by not going ahead with incineration? What about chemical munition leaks? Based on performance history of the baseline incineration process with its legal challenges and permits difficulties, the baseline incineration disposal approach will extend well beyond the existing 2004 deadline and also beyond the 2007 anticipated chemical weapons convention deadline. On the other hand, I believe that alternative approaches may be easier to get permits and with fewer legal challenges. This amendment could expedite the common objective of safe, cost-effective expeditious disposal. I can understand the concern about aging munitions and the possibility of leaks, but according to the Department of Defense's interim status assessment for the chemical demilitarization program, the handling of the munitions to conduct a more thorough survey is also a source of risk that need not be incurred given the apparent slow rate of deterioration. Defense, in their report, also states: The rate of deterioration is not markedly increasing; there is no evidence of immediate danger from stockpile storage; the rocket stockpile could continue to be safely stored. The most recent evaluation performed by the Army in 1994 indicated that with even the most conservative assumptions, the probability of a rocket auto-ignition is less than one in a million before 2013. Mr. President, this legislation does not stop the Army from going forward with the baseline incineration program at sites other than Kentucky and Colorado. This legislation does not change the dates required by Congress for the destruction of our chemical weapons by 2004. But let me point out to my colleagues that this date of 2004 has been changed three times by Congress. When the chemical treaty goes into effect, and I hope the Army is listening to this, the treaty calls for 10\1/2\ years for the destruction of chemical weapons, from the date the treaty is ratified. So, let's say, Mr. President, that the treaty is ratified by 65 countries in January 1997. We would have 10\1/ 2\ years from 1997 to destroy our chemical weapons--but if we cannot do it in that timeframe then the treaty allows a country to ask for 5 additional years. That would place the destruction date in the year 2013.

Mr. FORD. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I thank my friends. Amendment No. 4415

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

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my friend, the floor leader, from Virginia. Amendment No. 4419 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to identify and demonstrate a feasible alternative to demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions)

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment on pilot projects for identified and demonstrated feasible alternatives to demilitarization of assembled chemical munitions.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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

Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD. So when we have the vote we could automatically go to this. I am perfectly willing to do that.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is an issue that hits home for me. We have a facility in Richmond, KY, known as the Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot. This facility houses the most dangerous chemical agents known to mankind such as GB, VX, and mustard agents in various projectiles and rockets. Given the extremely hazardous nature of these agents, my primary concern must be for the health and safety of Kentuckians, and all Americans who live near these obsolete weapons. And I am not alone. Acting out of the same concerns, the State of Kentucky has put into place rigorous regulations governing the permit process for operating an incinerator to destroy chemical weapons. To date, the Army has failed to get a permit from the Kentucky State EPA because the Army has failed in its application to meet several basic tests, including providing sufficient evidence that: Neither humans nor the environment will be harmed by emissions from the incinerator; burning the chemical weapons would be safer than any possible alternative technologies; should the incinerator malfunction, enough of the nerve gas would be destroyed instead of released; and during a worst-case scenario accident, there are adequate plans in place for evacuating the public. In 1981, the Army chose the baseline incineration process as the best and safest method for destroying chemical weapons. Yet just this month, 15 years later, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing on whether incineration adequately protects the health and safety of the public and the workers. I fail to understand how the Army can continue along this path when legitimate questions are still being raised and are still not being adequately answered. We're now finding that many of the alternatives previously reviewed and rejected for the destruction of chemical weapons have been developed to the point where they may not only be considered viable options, but may be better choices than incineration. Unfortunately, the Army's actions have the appearance of moving forward simply for the sake of sticking to the original plan. I understand the Army's concern over already investing billions of dollars in the incineration process. But we are dealing with the health and safety of our citizens. And when it comes to issues of health and safety our citizens deserve the best. To ensure this happens, Senator Brown and I offer this amendment to the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization bill, requiring the Department of Defense to conduct a 3-year pilot program. Under the pilot program the Department of Defense will determine if there is a feasible alternative to incineration for the disposal of chemical munitions. The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress 6 months after the program has been completed on whether there are alternative processes that are as safe and as cost-efficient as baseline incineration. Based on this report we can determine whether baseline incineration or an alternative method is the best way to demilitarize the assembled chemical munitions at the Lexington/Blue Grass Army Depot and the Pueblo Chemical Depot. Let me add that while the Army has a review underway at this time, that review only examines the use of these technologies for bulk sites. Because the Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot and the Pueblo Chemical Depot house munitions, the Army's current study is irrelevant to these sites. This amendment would direct the Department of Defense to appoint an executive agent to lead this program who has not been in direct or immediate control of the chemical weapon stockpile demilitarization program. I strongly believe for this program to be successful it will need new blood, an individual who is objective, forward thinking, and not wedded to the incineration process. Second, while this pilot program is in effect, this amendment prohibits the expenditures of funds for the construction of incinerators at both the Lexington Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky and the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado for 1 year. Should it be determined that there is no alternative technology then funds may be expended for the construction of incinerators. Mr. President, I am hopeful the pilot program will include a decisionmaking process that will actively involve the State and local governments and local community groups, so that all parties involved in this process can reach a consensus on where pilot testing will take place. With consensus I believe there will be a future for alternative technologies in chemical demilitarization, and we can safely proceed with destruction of obsolete chemical weapons. This amendment specifies that of the funds authorized to be appropriated for chemical demilitarization for fiscal year 1997, $60 million will be set aside to conduct this pilot program for nonbulk sites, and that none of the $60 million will come from the funds for the alternative technologies bulk pilot program. Clearly something must be done. With good reason, the State of Kentucky will not issue a permit to the Army. But, it would also be a mistake to simply walk away from the problem. I believe my amendment makes sense for both the Army, the Kentuckians who live in that area, and for other depots that will eventually confront this same problem. Mr. President, without this amendment it is doubtful that the Army will ever be able to get its permit to incinerate munitions in Kentucky, let me bring to your attention the following: Section 6929 of title 42 of the United States Code, specifically recognizes and reserves to the Commonwealth the authority to impose reasonable restrictions directly relating to public health and safety with respect to the management of hazardous wastes beyond the minimum standards established under federal law. Furthermore, Kentucky State law requires that: In considering alternatives to the proposed activity, the cabinet shall affirmatively consider all reasonable alternatives, including alternatives that could be developed, and shall issue a permit only where it finds by clear and convincing evidence that no alternative treatment or disposal option, including transportation, exists or could be developed that would provide greater protection against exposure or harm to the public or environment. How can the State of Kentucky under these conditions ever issue a permit when the Army has yet to look at alternative technologies for nonbulk sites? Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the Department of Defense moves forward in a way that will not place a single American at risk. I ask unanimous consent that the list of organizations supporting this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD. I have no problem. At the request of the managers, I was asked to lay this down.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the amendment No. 4112 deals with impact aid. What I am offering today is basically a technical amendment to the Impact Aid Program. The House has added $33 million to this program. I am supporting this effort by the distinguished majority and minority leaders, Senators Boxer, Conrad, Craig, Dorgan, Exon, Gorton, Hatch, Inhofe, Levin, Murray, Pressler, Robb, and Warner. This amendment has the complete endorsement of the membership of the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools. Mr. President, since the Truman administration, the Federal Government has acknowledged its responsibility in assisting school districts educating federally connected children through the Impact Aid Program. This amendment addresses a change made to the Impact Aid Program during the 1994 authorization. Under the reauthorization, school districts would not be able to compute payments for children whose parents are civilian and work on Federal property unless a school district enrolled at least 2,000 of these children and only if such enrollment constitutes 15 percent of the school district's total enrollment. This change is arbitrary and unfair. What about a school district that has a small total enrollment, but of which 25 percent are Government employees? Or a district that has over 3,000 of these children, but because of the school's large size, this represents perhaps only 10 to 13 percent of its total enrollment? Mr. President, the amendment I offer today would restore some measure of equity and would recognize the impact that the Federal Government has in these communities by lowering this threshold to 1,000 civilian students or 10 percent of a school district's total enrollment. For those of you who are not familiar with this, because the Impact Aid Program is not fully funded, school districts must use a complicated formula for calculating the payments they will receive, also known as their learning opportunity threshold payment. This amendment would allow 421 school districts nationwide to calculate payment for their civilian students. However, of this number, 13 school districts already are eligible to calculate their civilian students by meeting the 2,000 and 15-percent threshold set during the 1994 reauthorization. While this amendment affects 14,000 weighted Federal student units in the remaining 409 school districts, my colleagues should be aware that of those 409 school districts, 282 already are eligible to qualify for some form of basic support from section 8003 without their civilian students. The remaining 127 school districts would be able to reenter the Section 8003 Program. These 127 school districts enroll 2,743 weighted Federal student units. Although some may assume that if additional students are added to the program it will cost more, the actual impact of this amendment on existing school district payments is negligible. Short of fully funding this program, no matter how much money the Impact Aid Program receives in fiscal year 1997, the fact that the new need-based program will be fully implemented means that of the 1,570 school districts in the Section 8003 Program, 1,200 will receive some varying degree of decrease in payments in order to fully fund the 250 districts classified as high-need school districts. If the intent of the 1994 reauthorization was to target the high-need school districts, then that is exactly what will happen with or without this amendment. The amendment I offer helps minimize the loss the remaining districts will see due to the phase-in of this new need-based formula by allowing them to calculate payments for their civilian students. In fact, even at level funding, the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools estimates that every school district will see their full learning opportunity threshold payment, even with the change to 1,000 civilian students or 10-percent total enrollment. I urge my colleagues to support this important change which has the full support of our impact aid schools. This amendment restores some measure--I underscore--some of the equity and recognizes the impact that the Federal Government has on these communities by lowering the threshold to 1,000 civilian students or 10 percent of the school district's total enrollment.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this part of the amendment is acceptable. I understand that my friend from Vermont has an amendment in the second degree that also will be accepted. So I yield the floor so my friend from Vermont can offer his amendment. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to lay down an amendment that would be pending following this vote. What is the procedure?

Mr. FORD. I so request.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4112.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand, after the modifications, that both sides have agreed to this amendment. I am grateful.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.