[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 98 (Friday, July 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7250-S7253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION FUNDS FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support an amendment 
I have offered to the national Defense authorization for fiscal year 
1998 that sets conditions for continued United States assistance to 
Russia for the purpose of chemical weapons [CW] dismantlement and 
destruction. I offer this amendment because I am disturbed that--
despite the fact that the United States has already provided $150 
million in CW destruction aid to Russia through the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction [CTR] Program--we appear no closer today than when we started 
this endeavor to meeting our core objective of eliminating Russia's 
offensive chemical weapons capability.
  Instead, Russia has to date failed to demonstrate a commitment--
either political or financial--to destroying its chemical weapons 
capability. Russia has not lived up to CW agreements it has signed. It 
has failed to implement obligations undertaken in the 1990 Bilateral 
Destruction Agreement [BDA], which calls for United States verification 
of the destruction of Russian chemical stocks. And Russia is not 
working with us to resolve outstanding compliance issues associated 
with the 1989 bilateral Wyoming Memorandum of Understanding, which 
requires both sides to fully and accurately account for their 
respective chemical weapons stockpile. Moreover, Russian ratification 
of the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] remains a distant prospect, 
despite the fact that one of the principal arguments made in favor of 
United States ratification was that it would induce the Russians to do 
the same.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, as we continue to pour into Russia 
more and more chemical weapons destruction aid, the Russians continue 
to pour more and more rubles into developing ever more deadly chemical 
weapons. According to press reports, Russia has developed three new 
nerve agents made from chemicals--used for industrial and agricultural 
purposes--which are not covered by the CWC. This development program 
has been confirmed by a prominent Russian scientist who was jailed for 
revealing Moscow's continuation of covert chemical weapons production. 
In addition, Russia continues to modernize its strategic offensive 
forces. According to a recent Hoover Institution study, Russian 
spending on research and development for strategic

[[Page S7251]]

weapons has increased sixfold in the last 3 years. They are developing 
an upgraded mobile ICBM; working on miniaturized nuclear warheads; 
building a new class of SLBM-carrying submarines; and constructing 
enormous underground command and control bunkers to protect against a 
nuclear attack by the United States.
  In light of these ongoing strategic and chemical modernization 
efforts, it is more than reasonable, Mr. President, to question 
seriously Russian claims that they do not have the financial 
wherewithal to destroy their chemical weapons stockpile. It seems to me 
that United States assistance to Russia for CW destruction has, in 
fact, had the perverse effect of underwriting Russia's offensive 
chemical program. Moreover, the practice of providing unconditioned 
funding reduces, if not eliminates, any incentive for Russia to set 
aside its own resources for matching United States funds. I would note 
that, while the United States has authorized $150 million for the 
purpose of destroying Russian chemical weapons and nearly half of that 
has been obligated, Russia has committed only $24 million for 
destruction of its own CW stocks, but has failed to obligate or spend 
any of this money.
  My proposed amendment conditions fiscal year 1998 United States 
assistance to Russia for CW destruction--totaling $55 million--to 
Russia's living up to existing agreements concerning destruction and 
dismantlement of its chemical weapons capability. The amendment closely 
parallels the approach taken in the fiscal year 1996 National Defense 
Authorization, when both Houses of Congress agreed to fence--but not 
cut--Nunn-Lugar funds for CW-related activities until the President 
certified certain conditions were met. It is also very similar to a 
provision contained in the Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat 
Reduction Act of 1997, S. 495, which the Senate approved in April of 
this year. The intent is to reassure the Russians that--if they are 
serious about getting rid of their chemical weapons--we are fully 
prepared to offer them financial assistance to do so. However, the 
amendment is intended to make equally clear that the United States 
Congress does not intend for the American taxpayer to subsidize a 
continuing Russian offensive chemical weapons capability.
  Specifically, the amendment requires the President to certify that 
three conditions are met before Cooperative Threat Reduction funds for 
CW destruction may be released:
  First, that the Russians are making reasonable progress toward 
implementation of the 1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement [BDA];
  Second, that the United States has made substantial progress toward 
resolution, to its satisfaction, of outstanding compliance issues 
related to the Wyoming MOU and BDA; and
  Third, that Russia has fully and accurately declared all information 
regarding its chemical weapons programs.
  If the President cannot certify that these conditions are met, the 
proposed amendment does provide an alternative for releasing funds. In 
such a case, the President must however certify that ``the national 
security interests of the United States could be undermined'' by not 
carrying out the CW destruction activities provided for in the CTR 
Program.
  Mr. President, it was my original hope to go beyond what we agreed in 
S. 495, and to send an even stronger message to the Russians that a 
mutually beneficial bilateral relationship requires both parties to 
demonstrate a firm commitment to live up to agreements already 
undertaken and to work together toward common goals. I am disturbed 
that, since enactment of S. 495, the CWC has entered into force without 
Russian participation, Russia has failed to renounce its offensive 
chemical warfare program, the Russian Duma has refused to allocate any 
new funds for CW destruction, and we have not reached any agreement 
under the CTR Program to cap our own contribution to this endeavor. 
Nevertheless, I am satisfied that this amendment sends a signal to the 
Russians and, if enacted into law, I encourage the President and senior 
administration officials to use this amendment for maximum leverage to 
induce the Russians to once and for all forswear a offensive chemical 
weapons capability.


                      land conveyance at fort dix

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, countless thousands of American 
soldiers received their basic training at Fort Dix Army Base in my home 
State of New Jersey. However, the 1988 BRAC reassigned the basic-
training mission of Fort Dix into a much more limited training role for 
our reserve forces.
  The economic impact in the surrounding communities was devastating. 
Local merchants whose business depended upon business generated by the 
Army personnel at Fort Dix suddenly saw their consumer base gone along 
with 3,500 jobs and countless others in the subsequent years.
  With funding assistance from the Federal Government and the 
Burlington County Department of Economic Development, a new master plan 
was drafted to reduce the area's reliance on the military and begin 
development of a downtown shopping area as well as new housing 
facilities.
  While the community struggles to re-build, the majority of the land 
formerly occupied by Fort Dix has been moth-balled and sits idle. For 
years, the community has been negotiating with the Army to acquire a 
35-acre plot of land owned at Fort Dix owned by the Federal Government 
for use in the downtown development.
  I am pleased that this transfer now enjoys the support of the Army 
and that an amendment to transfer this 35 acres to the Borough of 
Wrightstown along with an additional 5 acres to the New Hanover Board 
of Education for an expected expansion of the school was included in 
H.R. 1119 that recently passed the House of Representatives.
  I had planned to offer a similar amendment to this legislation but 
after consultations with subcommittee chairman Inhofe and ranking 
member Robb I have decided to withdraw the amendment and would instead 
like to engage in a colloquy with my distinguished colleagues.
  Mr. President, I know you are familiar with this issue and are 
sympathetic to the plight faced by communities like Wrightsborough who 
have experienced significant economic difficulties in the wake of base 
closures. I am confident that based on my conversations with you that 
when this legislation goes to conference you and Senator Robb will give 
every consideration to the merits of this issue and the amendment 
adopted by the House.
  Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Torricelli, for bringing this issue to 
the attention of the subcommittee. I am sympathetic to the plight of so 
many of our communities which have had to essentially re-build in the 
wake of base closings and you have my assurance and that of this 
subcommittee that we will give every consideration of this proposed 
conveyance when it is discussed in the conference.
  Mr. ROBB. I, too, would like to thank the Senator from New Jersey for 
bringing this issue to our attention and assure you that the 
subcommittee will review this issue in conference in the context of our 
policy of not interfering with the BRAC disposal process and that it 
will receive the consideration it deserves when it is discussed in 
conference.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I would again like to thank Chairman Inhofe and 
Ranking Member Robb for their attention to this important issue.


                              section 824

  Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to clarify the intent underlying section 
824 of the Defense Authorization Act. Section 824 does not in any way 
affect or address the issue of the Executive authority that the 
President may have to carry out empowerment contracting programs or 
other similar programs that make use of benchmarks and other incentives 
to support various categories of business.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I agree with your understanding. You accurately 
describe my view of the intent of section 824.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I concur. That is my understanding as well.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senators for their cooperation.


                                  esop

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I recently learned of a dispute between the 
Department of Defense and a number of contractors regarding the 
allowability of cost of employee stock ownership plans, known as 
ESOP's.
  According to the contractors. DOD has retroactively changed its 
interpretation of the relevant accounting in a

[[Page S7252]]

manner that will cost contractors millions of dollars and could drive 
some of them out of business completely. The contractors also say that 
DOD has improperly applied the standards of a proposed rule even after 
that proposed rule has been withdrawn.
  I am concerned about the effect this could have on these companies 
and the employee's retirement plans which could be jeopardized by this 
action.
  I had intended to attach an amendment to prohibit DOD from applying 
the terms of the withdrawn rule but because that matter is currently in 
litigation I will instead withhold that amendment and work this out in 
conference. In discussions with the Senator from Michigan, Senator 
Levin, he expressed concerns about the equity of any retroactive 
application as well.
  Mr. WARNER. I share my colleague's concern about this issue and the 
possible impact it could have on employee stock owned companies. I 
understand the need to protect the viability of our ESOP companies and 
their employees, and will continue to work with them and the Department 
of Defense to resolve this issue.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. I certainly share his concern 
about any action by DOD to retroactively apply a new standard, or to 
apply the terms of a rule that has been withdrawn.
  However, the Department of Defense disputes the contractor's 
position, and says that the issue is currently in litigation. I 
understand that the House has included a provision addressing this 
issue in their version of the bill, and I don't think we should lock 
this in until we have an opportunity to hear out both the contractor 
and the Department.
  I would be happy to work with Senator Robb on this issue, and if it 
turns out that the Department has retroactively applied a new standard, 
I will fully support the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I share the concerns expressed by Senator Robb and have 
asked the Defense Contract Audit Agency to give me a detailed 
explanation of their current position on this dispute.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank my colleague from Virginia, the Senator from 
Michigan, and the Senator from Pennsylvania. I will not offer the 
amendment at this time, and I look forward to working with them in 
conference.


                      proposed expansion of usuhs

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I was disappointed to read language in 
the committee report accompanying the fiscal year 1998 Defense 
authorization bill which called upon the Uniformed Services University 
of the Health Sciences [USUHS] to propose the construction of an 
additional building on the USUHS campus. While I fully appreciate such 
language is not binding, the provision is a clear invitation to the 
controversial school to expand the physical plant of a program which 
many already consider to be costly.
  More particularly, the provision is inconsistent with the view of a 
number of Members of Senate and the other body that USUHS not only 
should not be expanded, but instead should be terminated. That view is 
shared by others as well. The Department of Defense has proposed 
phasing out this school, and proposals to close the school have also 
been offered by the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], the Grace 
Commission, and the National Performance Review.
  Mr. President, USUHS is the most expensive source of physicians for 
our military, according to CBO costing 4 to 10 times as much as other 
sources and supplying only a tiny fraction of the needs of the Pentagon 
for new physicians--less than 12 percent in 1994.
  Expanding the physical plant of a program that is already 4 to 10 
times as expensive as alternative sources of physicians for our 
military makes no sense, and is inconsistent with both the increasing 
pressure on the Defense Department's budget and our efforts to balance 
the budget.
  Mr. President, I urge the Department of Defense to carefully review 
the non-binding language included in the report accompanying the fiscal 
year 1998 Department of Defense authorization legislation before it 
moves to expand a school that cannot justify its current cost to 
taxpayers.


                       Land Conveyance Provisions

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to ask the senior Senator from South 
Carolina, and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Thurmond, and the senior Senator from Michigan, and ranking minority 
member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, to clarify the 
committee's position on land conveyance provisions in the Defense 
authorization Bill.
  It is my understanding that the chairman and ranking member oppose 
special legislation for the conveyance, at other than fair market 
value, of any properties, facilities, or installations which have been 
closed or realigned under the jurisdiction of the Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission [BRAC] if such legislation would interfere with 
the statutory disposal process for BRAC properties. Thus, the committee 
has not included any such conveyances in the fiscal year 1998 Defense 
authorization bill.
  Further, it is my understanding that the Senate conferees to the 
fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense authorization bill will oppose 
any conveyances of properties, facilities, or installations closed or 
realigned in the BRAC process if those conveyances would interfere with 
the BRAC disposal process contained in current law.
  Mr. THURMOND. The senior Senator from New Jersey's understandings are 
correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I concur with the chairman.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. As the chairman and ranking member are aware, I have 
requested that the committee include provisions to facilitate 
conveyances to two New Jersey communities in the fiscal year 1998 
Department of Defense authorization bill. However, I have been told 
that since my requests concern properties closed under the BRAC which 
are already in the midst of the statutory closure process, the 
committee could not support these requests.
  Accordingly, if any provisions for conveyances of properties, 
facilities, or installations closed or realigned by BRAC that would 
intervene in the statutory BRAC disposal process are included in the 
conference agreement to the Defense authorization bill, I request that 
provisions also be included to convey the Naval Reserve Center in Perth 
Amboy, NJ, to the city of Perth Amboy, for economic development 
purposes, and the Nike Battery 80 family housing site, East Hanover 
Township, NJ, to the township council of East Hanover, for low and 
moderate income housing.
  Mr. THURMOND. As the Senator knows, the outcome of conference cannot 
be forecast. As chairman it is my goal to support the Senate position 
and provide the Nation the best possible defense bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the Senator from New Jersey's concern and it 
is the committee's understanding that the outcome of the current 
disposal process which is already underway for the two properties the 
Senator mentioned is likely to be consistent with the outcomes that the 
Senator's amendments would have provided.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate the Senators' recognition of the 
importance of these conveyances to the economic well-being of these New 
Jersey communities, and thank the Senators for their agreement to my 
request.


                       twrs privatization funding

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the 
Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the title 31 
provisions on the Department of Energy programs.
  Mr. SMITH. If the Senator will yield, I would be pleased to engage in 
a colloquy.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator. I was prepared to offer a floor 
amendment to this bill, S. 936, to address a very critical program at 
the Department of Energy site at Hanford. As the chairman is aware, a 
major and costly cleanup effort is underway at that site as a result of 
its contributions to the cold war achievements. Part of the cleanup 
effort will address the highest threat to human health, at the site, 
the 177 underground storage tanks that not only hold hazardous waste, 
but high and low levels of radioactive wastes. The Hanford tank waste 
remediation system project, known as TWRS, is the most critical and 
costly element in the cleanup of the Hanford site. Those underground 
tanks contain at-risk nuclear wastes, which have already

[[Page S7253]]

leaked into the environment. Adequately addressing this situation is 
absolutely essential, and is in fact codified in the Tri-Party 
Agreement entered into by the DOE, EPA, and Washington State. 
Regardless of the method of contracting selected, the time line 
required in that agreement must be met.
  Currently, DOE is employing an innovative contracting approach to 
dealing with the remediation of those tank wastes called privatization. 
DOE embarked on privatization to attract outside financial resources to 
finance the final design, construction and operation of cleanup 
projects, which would in turn allow their scarce budget resources to be 
used to accelerate other cleanup actions. The Department also wanted to 
take advantage of a commercial approach that has shown in the private 
sector not only to save dollars, but to reduce the time required to 
accomplish the task.
  Section 3104 of the bill authorizes $275 million for DOE 
environmental management privatized projects, including $147 million 
for TWRS at Hanford. This funding is critical to demonstrate to the 
privatization contractors the Department's financial commitment to 
proceed with privatization. Without sufficient funds being reserved, 
the privatization contractors--which plan to put up their capital to 
develop the cleanup project--and the contractors' investors have little 
assurance that TWRS or other privatization contracts will be fully 
funded.
  While I am concerned that the committee's authorization is not high 
enough to preclude some out-year BA spikes for the privatization 
program, I will forgo offering an amendment to increase this year's 
funding with the understanding that the committee recognizes the need 
to provide at a minimum $147 million in budget authorization for TWRS 
to send the correct signal to the contractors and financial community.
  Do I have the assurance of the Senator that he will stand fast on the 
Senate position of $147 million for TWRS in the upcoming conference 
with the House?

  Mr. SMITH. If the Senator will yield, yes I will vigorously defend in 
the conference the Senate position of providing at least $147 million 
for TWRS.
  Mr. GORTON. Even if we secure the full $147 million in conference, as 
I hope we do, the fiscal year 1998 authorization is significantly less 
than the administration request. Does the failure to authorize TWRS 
funding at the administration's request level in any way suggest that 
Congress is backing away from the TWRS privatization project?
  Mr. SMITH. If the Senator will yield further, the fact that we did 
not authorize TWRS at the level initially recommended by the 
administration in no way should be viewed as prejudicial. We believe 
the authorization of $147 million, coupled with the $170 million 
already appropriated in fiscal year 1997 is sufficient for the TWRS 
project to proceed with absolutely no delay in the schedule or change 
in the intended work scope. The TWRS project will have $371 million in 
authorized funds available if the committee mark becomes law. Given 
anticipated spending rates for both contractor teams, the TWRS project 
will end fiscal year 1998 with a surplus of $207 million. We believe 
this authorization level sends the proper signal to the contractor and 
the investor communities that Congress is committed to cleaning up 
Hanford's tank farm.
  Mr. GORTON. Does the committee and the chairman further understand 
that the $147 million provided in fiscal year 1998 represents a very 
minimum amount given the overall work intended, and the need to bank 
some budget authority to avoid significantly larger budget authority 
requirements in later years?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes, and I can assure the Senator that this committee will 
take a close look at the TWRS project next year, and if the issues and 
reporting requirements identified in section 3131 are addressed by DOE, 
and hopefully they will be, we will provide the budget authority 
necessary for the continuation of the project.
  Mr. GORTON. Finally, section 3131, particularly subsection (b), 
suggests that the authorization amount for privatization projects as 
defined in section 3104 cannot be used for new contractual obligations 
until DOE provides a report setting forth a number of basic cost, 
construction, and savings related provisions. Yet, in the context of 
the TWRS project, contracts are already in place with two contractors. 
Each contract contains two parts: a part A in which the contractors 
will provide deliverables to support the construction and operation of 
a TWRS facility, and a part B in which DOE, assuming part A 
deliverables are acceptable, authorizes the contractor, or contractors, 
to proceed with the permitting and construction of a waste processing 
facility. Since two Hanford tank waste remediation systems' contracts 
have already been awarded, and any followon work for part B would be 
considered an exercised option, I want to be clear that these 
provisions in section 3131 do not constitute an abrogation or 
termination of the current contracts in existence.
  Mr. SMITH. If the Senator will yield further, that is correct. It is 
not the intent to abrogate or terminate the existing contracts. 
However, it is the intent of the provision that any future 
privatization contracts or contract renewals or options exercised 
pursuant to an existing contract funded under section 3104 must be 
preceded by a detailed DOE report to Congress as called for in section 
3131(b) of the bill. With respect to the TWRS contract, the section 
3131 limitations and notice and wait requirement are applicable to the 
authorization to proceed with phase 1B. We are in no way attempting to 
slow down work on the Hanford tank farm cleanup. We are, in fact, 
trying to ensure a stable funding environment for such projects in 
order that they can move forward expeditiously.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator for his clarification on these 
points. I also appreciate his assurance to support $147 million in TWRS 
in conference and his demonstrated commitment to the environmental 
management privatization concept. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________