[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7431-S7432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CHEMICAL WEAPONS DISPOSAL

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I intended to offer an amendment to the 
defense appropriations bill that would have stricken the language that 
made it impossible for the Department to study alternatives to the 
methods we currently employ for disposing of chemical weapons. During 
the consideration of the Defense authorization bill last week, I 
offered an amendment to provide for a study. This amendment was readily 
accepted by the floor managers and was included in the final bill which 
the Senate passed overwhelmingly last Friday. Depending on the 
conclusions of the study, the taxpayers of this country could save 
somewhere between $3 and $5 billion. This is real money. Perhaps they 
could save much more in the cost of disposing of these chemical 
weapons.
  This was just a study. It did not mandate changes in the program at 
this time. It merely provided Congress with an opportunity to 
responsibly evaluate alternatives in the future. I think it is clear we 
need to take a fresh look at this program so we can responsibly 
evaluate whether safer and cheaper alternatives to the present system 
exist.
  In 1985, the Congress directed the Army to destroy our stockpile of 
obsolete chemical weapons. These are the nerve gases and the various 
other agents that are so deadly. The Senate took action and reiterated 
this commitment by ratifying the Chemical Weapons Treaty earlier this 
year, and we are in the process of disposing of those weapons. But the 
present system, I suggest, is not working the way it should. The 
present system is increasingly expensive, and a timeline for completion 
of the program is increasingly uncertain.
  If we look at the figures, according to the GAO, the program faces 
dramatically increasing costs. I am going to describe where these 
weapons are in a moment. The stockpile disposal program went from an 
initial estimate of $1.7 billion as the cost of disposing of these 
chemical weapons in 1985 to a current estimate of about $12.4 billion. 
So, as we begin to look at the cost of disposing of these weapons, why, 
the cost just simply goes out of sight. The nonstockpile program could 
cost an additional $15.1 billion and it is estimated now to take 40 
years to complete.

[[Page S7432]]

  We have these weapons stored in various locations around the country. 
Clearly, we want to dispose of the weapons. But now they are telling us 
it is going to take 40 years to dispose of them. It is a hole out there 
we are going to pour money into for 40 years. The estimate is a minimum 
cost of over $27.5 billion. But, remember, that is up from what the 
original estimate was in 1985 of $1.7 billion. So we go from $1.7 to 
$12.4 to $15.1 to $27.5. And now we are talking about 40 years.
  These stockpiled munitions are, obviously, highly deadly. Their long-
term viability is questionable. We simply cannot continue to postpone 
our responsibility to act on this program at this time. We have 
stockpiled munitions at nine sites, and here they are, Mr. President, 
with disposal facilities up and running at only two. The only two we 
have running are one out in the Hawaiian Islands, Johnston Atoll, out 
there, about 600 miles south of Hawaii, and recently, Tooele in Utah is 
up and running. These facilities are costing well over $1 billion in 
Tooele, and the Johnston Island site is somewhere around $1.3 billion 
or thereabouts.
  It is interesting to note where we are. We are in Alabama, we are in 
Arkansas, we are in Colorado, we are in Maryland, we are in Kentucky, 
we are up here in Indiana, and, of course, we are in Umatilla, OR. 
Every State is sensitive, including the State of my friend, the Senator 
from Oregon. The reality is they want this removed from these various 
States where they exist. So the Department of Defense and the Pentagon 
and the appropriate committees have determined the best way to get rid 
of it is to build individual sites at each of the seven or eight--or 
actually potentially nine--sites, at a cost of over $1 billion, and, 
once the material is disposed of, that terminates the facility because 
it is not beneficial for anything else.
  However, it is interesting to note a couple of facts. In the Johnston 
Atoll, most of the material that is being incinerated there and 
disposed of came from NATO. It came from Europe. It was shipped across 
the ocean. Some of it came from Guam. That facility is functioning. It 
is underway. There is a prohibition about it taking any more. I can 
understand the sensitivity of the delegation from Hawaii, but, again, 
as we look at this catch-22 that we are in, I am just wondering, is it 
necessary that we build six new plants? Or, can we somehow look at some 
other alternatives? Is there a way to incinerate this at sea? We have 
built incinerating barges and facilities before quite successfully. Is 
there an advanced technology? What the Senator from Alaska has proposed 
is a study, a study to see if there is another and more beneficial 
return for the taxpayers of this country for the disposal of this 
weaponry.
  In Oregon we have the adjacent coastline. In Aberdeen--in several of 
these areas we are not too far from the water. But each is very 
concerned about shipping this material across another State to get it 
to a place where you can dispose of it. So we are in this round-robin 
here. Nobody wants the stuff. Everybody wants to get rid of it. Nobody 
wants it to cross their State line. Nobody wants to take any more. 
Nobody wants to accumulate it and reduce the cost. So we simply sit 
here and watch the costs go up to $27 billion, we watch the time 
extended to up to 40 years, and we are being irresponsible by not 
allowing a study.
  That is what my amendment would have done. It would have been to 
allow a study. However, because there is a prohibition even against a 
study, the conference and/or the committee itself is refusing to accept 
my amendment, which I can understand, given the sensitivity. I can 
understand how the process works around here. But I think we need to 
highlight how irresponsible we are in just ducking this issue and 
hoping that it will be resolved on somebody else's watch.
  We have stockpiled these munitions at nine sites. We cannot, by laws 
that we passed, transport these munitions. So, you know, the 
alternative is to build these sites at more than $1 billion each at the 
same time we continue to face permitting problems at every Federal 
site, every local level at the other seven sites, and a start date for 
construction seems to be extended on and on and on. The logic of the 
present disposal system really escapes me, and, as a consequence, I 
offered the amendment so we could take a rational look at what we are 
trying to accomplish with regard to this problem.
  This again, Mr. President, is just a study. But in order to take a 
rational look at the program, it is imperative that all aspects of the 
program be considered so we can best evaluate how to proceed.
  I hope the conferees on this bill will consider their responsibility 
and reconsider the Senate language which permits us an opportunity to 
take a second look. It does not demand that we do anything. It is not 
that we ship anything, not that we do not build these, it simply says, 
``Is there another, a better, a more efficient, cost-savings way?'' I 
think there is. To suggest we are going to eliminate even the ability 
to take a look at this program, I think is terribly irresponsible on 
the part of those who bear the responsibility of addressing this, 
because this is just a study. What is the harm in looking at the 
problem?

  I had proposed striking the prohibition against the study. We could 
always ask the inspector general for a study, and probably will. But I 
did want to take an opportunity to present before the Members the 
reality. This is something we cannot hide. We cannot overlook this. We 
have a responsibility to address it. We are spending huge amounts of 
money, and the public should recognize just what our alternatives are 
and face up to the fact that this was created as a consequence of 
decisions made in the national defense interests of our Nation. We 
created this terrible nerve gas. I have seen the canisters it is in. I 
have seen how they dispose of it at Johnston Island and the manner in 
which it is taken into chambers where the explosive charge is removed, 
the gas is incinerated in one chamber in a closed cycle and the 
explosive material is taken in another chamber and incinerated. This 
was the development prototype.
  But, here we are today faced with the inability to even look at a 
better way of disposal because of the sensitivity of this issue and the 
concern, if you do a study and you find a better way, it might suggest 
you might have to move it, and, therefore, you would have to move it 
across another State, and they don't want that to happen. So leave it 
where it is, simply build the plants and get on with it and spend God 
knows how many billions of dollars in the process.
  So, you might say the Senator from Alaska is a little sensitive to 
the prohibition to even allow a study and an evaluation of a better way 
to meet our obligations to dispose of our chemical weapons.
  You might say, ``What in the world is the Senator from Alaska doing 
in this area?'' Under the responsibility as chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, I have spent an awful lot of time on the 
merits of moving high-level nuclear waste across the United States at 
various sites over an extended period of time. Hundreds and hundreds of 
shipments have moved safely without incident. I am suggesting that we 
have the technology to move this lethal material to a place to dispose 
of it that is appropriate, even perhaps in a self-contained facility 
offshore that could contain the physical process of disposal at a much 
less cost.
  With that, Mr. President, I simply make an appeal to my colleagues to 
recognize the extent of our responsibility to successfully dispose of 
our chemical weapons that have accumulated over a long period of time 
in a manner that is most responsible to the taxpayers, as well as safe, 
by using American ingenuity and technology.
  Seeing no other Member on the floor, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________