"THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW" - -
OH, THERE ALREADY IS!
Senators from 7 of 8 States Where Chemical Weapons Are Stored Unite
to Stop Pentagon's WMD Transportation Study- Arkansas Lone Holdout
In 1991 the Defense Appropriations
Bill (PL-102-172) prohibited spending tax dollars on even studying
transportation of chemical weapons from America's eight storage sites
anywhere within the continental U.S. That prohibition, as part of an appropriations
bill, expired three years later.
So, in 1995, the Congress banned the actual transportation such WMD's
by placing a prohibition on doing so in an Defense Authorizing Bill (PL-103-337),
which, unless changed, never expires.
Apparently the Pentagon still doesn't "get it." In recent decision
documents and directives, the Pentagon told the Army to revisit the transportation
option and ordered a study on this prohibited activity.
However, the U.S. Senate acted quickly. Last week, Sen. Wayne
Allard (R-CO) introduced a Bill (S-186) that would put the brakes on spending
more tax dollars on studying activities already forbidden by federal law.
It didn't take long for Sen. Allard to realize he wasn't alone on this one.
To date at least one senator from the eight storage states, with the exception
of Arkansas, has co-sponsored the legislation. The co-sponsors are: Allard
and Salazar (CO); McConnell and Bunning (KY); Shelby (AL); Sarbanes and Mikulski
(MD); Bennett and Hatch (UT); Bayh (IN); and Wyden (OR). Sources say
Senators Smith (OR), Lugar (IN) and Sessions (AL) are also considering co-sponsorship,
with Arkansas Senators Pryor and Lincoln having declined.
Ignoring the fact that transportation studies have already been done, Sen.
Lincoln said it was "absolutely essential that you have a study if you're
going to entertain the idea of transporting chemical weapons." And
Sen. Pryor stated, "My initial inclination is to vote against Senator Allard's
bill. We ought to have the study and see where that leads us."
Unfortunately, Senator Pryor, it is likely that a transportation study would
have no option but to “lead” to the Pine Bluff Arsenal in your home state
of Arkansas, since the Arsenal is the one storage site with no federal legislators
opposed to the great risk inherent in accepting hundreds of thousands of
additional chemical weapons.
Under the guise of attempting to comply with an international treaty, the
Pentagon has resurrected an idea that is not only illegal, but one that,
over two decades and numerous studies, has been deemed unsafe and a significant
terrorist risk. In 1988, after years of study and debate, the Army
issued the following as part of their Record of Decision on disposal options,
"Compared to the On-site Disposal alternative, any alternative that requires
shipment of agent and munitions to other sites for disposal would be accompanied
by handling risks, chance of transportation accidents, and threat of terrorist
activities, which in turn increase public health and safety risks."
According to Craig Williams, Director of the Chemical Weapons Working Group,
a Kentucky-based coalition of watchdog organizations, "There is no evidence
that moving these weapons will aid in meeting treaty deadlines, reducing
the risks associated with storing these weapons or any other 'cooked up'
excuse - it's simply about cutting costs while ignoring the increased dangers
known to be associated with such an approach."
"Years of underestimated costs and unreliable techniques associated with
disposal have led to desperate attempts to save money at the expense of protecting
Americans," said Williams "and such conduct must cease, be investigated and
those issuing such directives held accountable."
-- 30 --
Copies of all referenced documents are available from the CWWG upon request.
