[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.
____________________