it. Do you want to have it here in Washington? He said, no, I want to have it in Richmond, KY, where people from my district can be heard and where they can come and discuss the situation as they see it.

I promised him at that time that we would do so, and we are here today to discuss this matter. I think everyone recognizes we are confronted by a very tough, very emotional, and very complicated, a very controversial issue. It has been my observation that it is also the kind of issue that brings out the very best in your Congressman.

In the years I have known him and worked with him on the Armed Services Committee, I have learned that when the going gets tough, Larry Hopkins is a darn good man to have on your side. I have also been around when some other people in Washington learned the hard way that if he cannot be for you, you sure don't want him to be against you. So I just want you here in this audience to know that in Washington, as well as back home, Larry Hopkins is demonstrating the courageous and responsible leadership we need in the U.S. Congress.

We are delighted to have this opportunity to be in his district and, Larry, at this time I am going to recognize you for any statement that you might wish to make.

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY J. HOPKINS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM KENTUCKY, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and certainly, I appreciate the very personal and warm remarks that you made about me.

Like all committees in Congress, the House Armed Services Committee is organized to reflect the political majority and minority in the House of Representatives.

I am proud to say that partisanship stops at that point with this committee, and especially with this subcommittee on investigations. There is a tacit understanding among our Members that America's security is a bipartisan issue, and it is America's security that we deal with here in legislating the conduct of the armed services.

In that spirit of bipartisanship, I commend my colleagues on the subcommittee to the people of the Sixth District this morning. I want to take this opportunity to say to my colleagues that I sincerely appreciate the effort that they have made to be here today. I recognize that there are many things that they could be doing in their own districts or back in their offices in Washington. But they chose to come here instead, because they realize the importance of this hearing.

So at this time, I hope all of you in the audience will join me in extending to them a warm bluegrass welcome.

In planning this hearing, the subcommittee extended invitations to a long list of public and private citizens, including our two Senators, each of our House Members whose district is directly or indirectly affected by this issue, as well as the Governor of the Com

monwealth, the State attorney general, other cabinet and State government officials, State legislators, and local elected officials.

Some have chosen to be here in person, several have made statements available. To all those who have responded and who perhaps agree that it is hard to imagine a more important responsibility than to participate in these proceedings, I extend my personal gratitude and look forward to hearing from you today.

I am especially grateful for the cooperation and support of Chairman Nichols in granting my request for this field hearing.

Chairman Nichols is a decorated combat veteran of the Second World War. The chairman is now serving in his 20th year as a distinguished Member of Congress from the Third District of Alabama, which incidentally is the home of the Anniston Army Depot where chemical weapons also are stored.

So he is no stranger to this issue, and shares the deep concern of this community that these munitions must be destroyed safely.

Seated to the chairman's right is the gentlelady from the 6th District of Maryland with whom I entered Congress in the freshman class of 1979. The Honorable Beverly Byron. Mrs. Byron's district is adjacent to the Aberdeen Proving Ground where chemical munitions also are stored.

The final Member with us today from the majority side trained for Congress by serving 11 years as the mayor of Bloomington, IN. He is the Honorable Frank McCloskey, affectionately known as Mr. Landslide among his colleagues, after being declared the winner by four votes in the 1984 election.

Mr. McCloskey represents the Eighth District of Indiana, which is near the Newport Army Ammunition Plant, another of the eight military installations where chemical munitions are stored.

Joining me on the minority side is a special personal friend of mine, the gentleman from Arizona's Third District, the Honorable Bob Stump. Bob is a farmer, a rancher and above all, a patriot.

He was first elected to Congress in 1976 and holds the singular distinction of serving on the Armed Services Committee as a member of the majority party until 1982 and since then as a convert to the minority side. We are proud to have you here in central Kentucky and grateful for your concern and participation in the search for a satisfactory way to rid this Nation of its aging and dangerous stockpile of chemical weapons.

Let me say to the members of this subcommittee, that just as I have commended you to my constituents, I am equally proud to commend my constituents to you. In the past 2 years of controversy surrounding the chemical weapons stored here have proven beyond doubt that the American spirit, citizenship, and common sense is alive and well in Madison County, KY. We are honored to be in the company of aroused, concerned, informed, and committed citizens who are determined to protect themselves, their families, and neighbors from the nightmarish tragedy that could result if Congress allows error in judgment to become our national policy regarding disposal of America's chemical weapons stockpile.

We cannot and we must not allow that to happen. That is the challenge which brings us here today. In February 1984, the Army shocked this community by announcing its intention to come here and incinerate the 70,000 obsolete M-55 rockets stored at the Blue

grass Army Depot, which is located, incidentally, within 5 miles from where we sit at this moment.

The Army for all appearances came here with hammer and nails in hand ready to proceed with construction.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the depot.

Those plans were met by hundreds of citizens who were up in arms about the plan and had the courage and common sense to stop the Army cold in its tracks.

They did it by asking some very simple but very important questions-questions about human safety and health and environmental impact-questions about the Army's experience with the incineration process-questions such as what would happen to the thousands of friends and neighbors and loved ones who live literally in the shadow of the depot if an accident should occur during the disposal process.

Those questions weren't answered to anyone's satisfaction that night almost 22 years ago.

And regrettably-unacceptably-all of those questions have not been answered yet, despite dozens of studies on a two-volume Draft Environmental Impact Statement released by the Army on July 1.

One question has been answered, however. It is the grimmest question of all-what happens to those who live near the depot in case an accident occurs during onsite incineration.

Let me read that answer, which is on page 2-45 of the Army's just released analysis:

Within a 10-kilometer radius of the proposed site, the estimated population at risk is 23,020 with possible fatalities of 243.

Within a 20-kilometer radius of this site, the population at risk is 55,500 with fatalities estimated 1,167.

Please bear in mind that this is only a programmatic estimate on the part of the Army, because the Army chose to do a programmatic draft environmental impact statement instead of the site-specific study that we had requested and been led to expect. The difference is significant and it cannot be obscured by bureaucratic gobbledygook.

Translated into plain language, programmatic means the Army took all eight sites in the United States where chemical weapons are stored, lumped them together, ran them through a computer, hired some consultants to interpret the results, and then hired an expert in double talk and government euphemisms to write a report hardly anyone could read, much less understand.

That is, in my view, the programmatic approach. And it just simply isn't good enough when you are holding at risk thousands of lives. And I want it understood that we are not going to be dictated to in this manner. This is Richmond, KY; it isn't going to be Chernobyl or Bhopal.

That is why we continue to insist and demand that the Army perform a site-specific analysis of the circumstances present here in Madison County and central Kentucky.

What we are asking isn't unreasonable. We just think it is crucial for the Army to put this area under its microscope and consider the impact of all the options that are available in getting rid of the chemical munitions it stored here. And that examination certainly must include a much fuller study of the transportation alter

monwealth, the State attorney general, other cabinet and State government officials, State legislators, and local elected officials.

Some have chosen to be here in person, several have made statements available. To all those who have responded and who perhaps agree that it is hard to imagine a more important responsibility than to participate in these proceedings, I extend my personal gratitude and look forward to hearing from you today.

I am especially grateful for the cooperation and support of Chairman Nichols in granting my request for this field hearing.

Chairman Nichols is a decorated combat veteran of the Second World War. The chairman is now serving in his 20th year as a distinguished Member of Congress from the Third District of Alabama, which incidentally is the home of the Anniston Army Depot where chemical weapons also are stored.

So he is no stranger to this issue, and shares the deep concern of this community that these munitions must be destroyed safely. Seated to the chairman's right is the gentlelady from the 6th District of Maryland with whom I entered Congress in the freshman class of 1979. The Honorable Beverly Byron. Mrs. Byron's district is adjacent to the Aberdeen Proving Ground where chemical munitions also are stored.

The final Member with us today from the majority side trained for Congress by serving 11 years as the mayor of Bloomington, IN. He is the Honorable Frank McCloskey, affectionately known as Mr. Landslide among his colleagues, after being declared the winner by four votes in the 1984 election.

Mr. McCloskey represents the Eighth District of Indiana, which is near the Newport Army Ammunition Plant, another of the eight military installations where chemical munitions are stored.

Joining me on the minority side is a special personal friend of mine, the gentleman from Arizona's Third District, the Honorable Bob Stump. Bob is a farmer, a rancher and above all, a patriot.

ad it by

questions

art-ques

processfriends shadow of th

E process.

se questic almost 21 regretta

He was first elected to Congress in 1976 and holds the singular distinction of serving on the Armed Services Committee as a member of the majority party until 1982 and since then as a convert to the minority side. We are proud to have you here in central Kentucky and grateful for your concern and participation in the search for a satisfactory way to rid this Nation of its aging and dangerous stockpile of chemical weapons.

answered

ronmenta

ne questic

tion of al an accide

E me rea

released

Fa 10-k

with hin a 20

es estimat

Please bea part of draft env dy that

Let me say to the members of this subcommittee, that just as I have commended you to my constituents, I am equally proud to commend my constituents to you. In the past 2 years of controversy surrounding the chemical weapons stored here have proven beyond doubt that the American spirit, citizenship, and common sense is alive and well in Madison County, KY. We are honored to be in the company of aroused, concerned, informed, and committed citizens who are determined to protect themselves, their families, and neighbors from the nightmarish tragedy that could result if Congress allows error in judgment to become our national policy regarding disposal of America's chemical weapons stockpile.

We cannot and we must not allow that to happen. That is the challenge which brings us here today. In February 1984, the Army shocked this community by announcing its intention to come he and incinerate the 70,000 obsolete M-55 rockets stored at the

significa

grass Army Depot, which is located, incidentally, within 5 miles from where we sit at this moment.

The Army for all appearances came here with hammer and nails in hand ready to proceed with construction.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the depot.

Those plans were met by hundreds of citizens who were up in arms about the plan and had the courage and common sense to stop the Army cold in its tracks.

They did it by asking some very simple but very important questions-questions about human safety and health and environmental impact-questions about the Army's experience with the incineration process-questions such as what would happen to the thousands of friends and neighbors and loved ones who live literally in the shadow of the depot if an accident should occur during the disposal process.

Those questions weren't answered to anyone's satisfaction that night almost 21⁄2 years ago.

And regrettably-unacceptably-all of those questions have not been answered yet, despite dozens of studies on a two-volume Draft Environmental Impact Statement released by the Army on July 1.

One question has been answered, however. It is the grimmest question of all-what happens to those who live near the depot in case an accident occurs during onsite incineration.

Let me read that answer, which is on page 2-45 of the Army's just released analysis:

Within a 10-kilometer radius of the proposed site, the estimated population at risk is 23,020 with possible fatalities of 243.

Within a 20-kilometer radius of this site, the population at risk is 55,500 with fatalities estimated 1,167.

Please bear in mind that this is only a programmatic estimate on the part of the Army, because the Army chose to do a programmatic draft environmental impact statement instead of the site-specific study that we had requested and been led to expect. The difference is significant and it cannot be obscured by bureaucratic gobbledygook.

Translated into plain language, programmatic means the Army took all eight sites in the United States where chemical weapons are stored, lumped them together, ran them through a computer, hired some consultants to interpret the results, and then hired an expert in double talk and government euphemisms to write a report hardly anyone could read, much less understand.

That is, in my view, the programmatic approach. And it just simply isn't good enough when you are holding at risk thousands of lives. And I want it understood that we are not going to be dictated to in this manner. This is Richmond, KY; it isn't going to be Chernobyl or Bhopal.

That is why we continue to insist and demand that the Army perform a site-specific analysis of the circumstances present here in Madison County and central Kentucky.

What we are asking isn't unreasonable. We just think it is crucial for the Army to put this area under its microscope and considthe impact of all the options that are available in getting rid of hemical munitions it stored here. And that examination cerm 1ude a much fuller study of the transportation alter