On the recordJuly 8, 1997
let me explain very briefly the amendment that I put before the Senate. This amendment would direct the Department of Defense to conduct a study of alternatives to our present approach to chemical weapons disposal. Depending on the conclusion of this study and its evaluation, there is a potential savings to the taxpayer, somewhere in the area of $3 billion to $5 billion, and perhaps much more, in the costs of disposing of these weapons. The Chair might wonder why the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is interested and involved with this issue, and to what degree does he have expertise in this area that falls under the auspices of the Department of Defense and under the Defense authorization bill. The Chairman would respond, Madam President, by noting that, as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I spend a great deal of time and energy in the area of nuclear waste and nuclear waste disposal and the transportation of nuclear waste. I might add that there has been moved globally about 25,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste throughout the world. We have, currently, in some 80 reactors in 31 sites in the United States, high-level nuclear waste that we are contemplating at some time moving to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. So I think the qualifications for a contribution to the area of disposing of chemical weapons is appropriate in the body of the amendment. This amendment simply calls for a study.…
Source
govinfo.gov




