Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GOVERNMENT
House Defeats Chemical Arms Amendment Like a spring perennial, the issue of funding for production of binary chemical weapons has come up again on the House floor. This time around, members seeking to halt production suffered a major setback.
By a significant margin, 230 to 191, House members defeated an amendment to the 1988 Defense Department authorization bill offered by Rep. Dante B. Fascell (D.-Fla.), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Fascell amendment would have deleted funds for the final assembly of binary artillery shells and for the removal of chemical munitions now stored in West Germany. The latter condition would be voided, however, if a European member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization accepted the deployment of binary chemical weapons.
Currently, the U.S. stocks unitary nerve gas artillery shells and bombs. The Pentagon has been developing binary nerve gas shells and bombs to replace these unitary weapons. Under the binary concept, two relatively nontoxic chemicals would be kept separate, and would not combine to form toxic nerve gas until the shell was fired or the bomb launched.
Aspin: important not to stop program
Rep. Beverly B. Byron (D.-Md.), who was the opposition floor manager, called the Fascell amendment a catch-22. "Once you cut through the verbiage, the intent of the Fascell amendment is clear: Kill the binary weapons program/' she argued.
If successful, the amendment would have done just that. The first shells will come off the production assembly line by the end of this year. Had the amendment passed, final assembly of the shells would have been prohibited.
The House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Les Aspin (D.-Wis.), earlier deleted the Administration's request for $25 million for limited quantity production of the Bigeye bomb. The Bigeye is the only other binary weapon near production status. Its development has been plagued with technical problems, many still unresolved.
Those in favor of the Fascell amendment argued, among other things, that producing binary weapons at this time could derail ongoing chemical weapons negotiations in Geneva (C&EN, March 30, page 14). U.S. negotiators have reported " 'significant progress' toward the achievement of a multilateral chemical weapons agreement by early next year," declared Rep. Nicholas Mavroules (D.-Mass.). Those opposing the Fascell amendment argued that progress at Geneva was achieved because the U.S. moved ahead on binary arms production. "If you are going to get an agreement, it is important that we not slow down or stop this program," Aspin said.
Aspin offered an amendment , which Rep. John E. Porter (R.-Ill.) originally intended to introduce, that would prevent the removal of chemical arms now stored in Europe unless a European member of NATO agreed to station binary weapons on its soil. This amendment passed overwhelmingly.
Its passage raises interesting Constitutional questions. Which branch
Fascell: offered binary arms measure
of government has the final say on weapons deployment?
President Reagan last year agreed to remove U.S. chemical stocks from West Germany by 1992. West Germany has not agreed to accept binary weapons, nor has any other European NATO member. Now the House says such removal cannot take place unless a NATO country accepts binary weapons. Of course, the question becomes moot if the Senate bill does not contain a similar provision and the House amendment is deleted in conference committee.
Hobbled by a filibuster on parts of the Defense authorization bill, the Senate has yet to address the issue of chemical weapons funding. The Senate Armed Services Committee already has deleted $20 million of the $25 million requested by the Administration for Bigeye bomb production.
Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R.-Ore.) and Sen. David H. Pryor (D.-Ark.) may offer amendments to block the assembly of binary artillery shells for at least one year, and/or cut out the remaining $5 million for Bigeye production.
Lois Ember, Washington
16 June 1, 1987 C&EN
