|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Debate Continues on Chemical Weapons Relocation
Lawmakers and a Defense Department official jousted Monday over the best way to eliminate the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile by the 2012 international treaty deadline, the Salt Lake Tribune reported (see GSN, April 8). The Army’s study of potential relocation of weapons to already-operating incinerators from depots in Colorado and Kentucky came under fire again during a Senate Armed Services subcommittee meeting. “The chemical munitions are not going to be transported, one, because it’s a violation of federal law and, two, because community concerns with public safety,” said Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). “It makes … no sense whatsoever for you to be spending significant sums of money to be studying alternatives that we know are illegal under United States law.” Defense Undersecretary Michael Wynne countered that Congress should consider all options to ensure the United States meets its Chemical Weapons Convention obligations, even if it means changing existing law, the Tribune reported. “If you really wanted to comply with the chemical weapons treaty you would accommodate some of the options we’re considering, such as transportation,” he said. The Senate this week is expected to consider a defense spending bill that would bar military consideration of weapons relocation and force the Pentagon to release more than $700 million for construction of neutralization facilities at Blue Grass, Ky., and Pueblo, Colo. A House of Representatives version of the spending bill does not include the language on chemical weapons, according to the Tribune. The Army is set to finish considering weapons elimination options by April 30, meaning it could be concluded before the two houses of Congress approve a bill potentially blocking the study (Robert Gehrke, Salt Lake Tribune, April 12).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
