136th Year... and
still on the job!
Tuesday April 12,
2005
|
|
||
|
|
136th Year... and
still on the job!
|
Tuesday April 12,
2005
|
WASHINGTON - Incinerating or shipping Pueblo's chemical weapons stockpile remain options, a Senate subcommittee was told Monday in a move that could set up a potential showdown with Congress this summer.
"We are examining every alternative we can, which, by the way, may include on-site destruction," said Undersec- retary of Defense Michael Wynne, who testified at a Senate hearing Monday.
It was the first time that a ranking Pentagon official suggested the Army might go back on its pledge to destroy the weapons in Pueblo.
Wynne said that while incineration might not be a good idea in Colorado, "scrubbers are getting better."
The Army's original plan to burn the weapons in Pueblo met with strong opposition when it first announced plans to destroy the weapons.
Wynne told the senators Monday: "The needs of the community may not meet the national interest."
Wynne expects to make a decision by mid-June on what to do with the stockpile at the Pueblo Chemical Depot and a similar site in Kentucky.
Wynne's statements frustrated both of Colorado's senators, who want to stick with the original plan to destroy the mustard agent in Pueblo using the water-neutralization technique. That method already has been used to destroy the entire mustard agent stockpile at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland.
Republican Sen. Wayne Allard and Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar grilled Wynne at the hearing before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee for Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
Allard said he thinks the Pueblo operation was being cut back because of cost overruns at six other chemical weapons sites where incineration is being used. The Pentagon called for a review of the Pueblo site after potential costs rose to $2.6 billion over the project's lifetime, up from $1.5 billion.
Local supporters of the plant say the cost increase was in response to the Pentagon's own order that the program be accelerated for national security reasons, not because of problems with the design.
Wynne's criticism of the cost increase also prompted the ranking subcommittee member, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., to tell the undersecretary it was Congress' place to decide the Pueblo project was over budget. "We have to make the decision that this alternative is too expensive," Reed said.
Salazar called for a firm timeline for the project and said he was frustrated with the "extreme waffle" of the continual changes to the project.
The United States must destroy all its chemical weapons by April 29, 2012, in order to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international treaty.
The Pueblo depot houses approximately 8 percent of the American stockpile.
Federal law bans the Army from transporting chemical weapons across state lines, so it would take an act of Congress for the Army to be able to send the Pueblo weapons to another site for destruction.
Wynne's comments regarding the transportation option prompted a quick response from Salazar, who said, "Both Sen. Allard and I would fight that. Those chemical weapons are not going to be transferred."
Wynne hinted that Congress would be to blame if the United States couldn't meet its treaty obligations.
"If you really wanted to meet the Chemical Weapons Convention deadline, you would allow for some of the alternatives we're exploring, like transportation," Wynne said.
"But transportation is precluded by law," Allard replied.
"I agree, sir, that you would have a part to play" in seeing that the United States meets the deadline, Wynne said.
Colorado's senators said they would fight any change to the law.
"It makes from my point of view no sense for you to be studying alternatives that we know are illegal under U.S. law," Salazar said.
Salazar called the latest study "nonsensical" and that incineration "was a bridge we crossed a long time ago."
No amount of money will get the program back on schedule the way it was going, Wynne said.
The Pentagon may not know until just before the deadline whether it can meet its goals, he added.
"I am hoping that by the time we get to 2010, we'll know pretty much precisely what needs to be done to meet our deadline or take another decision," Wynne said.
Colorado's senators could block President Bush's appointed successor to Wynne - Pentagon official Kenneth Krieg - from taking office if the Defense Department insists on trying to transport the weapons out of state.
"As the Senate considers nominees for Executive Branch positions, each senator has the right to review and scrutinize the positions of and seek assurances from those nominees. I will exercise those rights," Salazar said.
The 2012 deadline reflects a five-year grace period from the original deadline in 2007. "There is no prospect the treaty can be further modified in order to change that," said Donald Mahley, assistant secretary of state for arms control.
If the United States breaks the deadline, it could give other countries an excuse to keep their chemical weapons, Mahley said. He added that he doesn't expect any nations to use the American failure as a license for the whole world to miss the deadline.
Salazar asked for a June meeting among defense officials, the Pueblo plant's managers and the Colorado Congressional delegation.
In addition to Wynne and Mahley, Claude Bolton, assistant secretary of the Army, and Dale Klein, assistant to the secretary of defense, also attended the hearing.
Afterwards, Allard called the hearing "frustrating."
Referring to Wynne, the senator said, "He's bound and determined to go ahead with the study no matter what."
If the Army does try to go back to incineration or asks to change the law banning transportation, Allard said, "I don't think that's going to happen. If anything, if Congress has the chance to toughen the language, they'll toughen the language."
- Chieftain reporter John Norton contributed to this report.