The Fighter Jet That Doesn't Need to Be Resurrected

By DALE BUMPERS, September 4, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/04bump.html

WASHINGTON -- Will decisions made in the heat of summer survive the cooler, crisper climate of fall? In the case of the F-22 fighter jet, we should all hope so.

The House's decision in July to turn down the Pentagon's request for $1.8 billion to begin production of the plane was distinguished by equal measures of common sense and courage. The only shame is that it took so long to challenge this troubled program. Congress should use the time before the issue is revisited, probably later this month when it will be taken up by the Senate, to re-examine the increasing cost, the technology and, most important, the need for the F-22.

When I was in the Senate, I tried unsuccessfully to contain this unruly program. As early as Jan. 5, 1995, eight other Senators and I offered a bill that called for its complete restructuring. Even then the plane was behind schedule and over budget, and we proposed to limit its production and delay its introduction until 2010.

Our approach was entirely consistent with a General Accounting Office report stating that America's fleet of F-15 Eagle fighters could continue to protect our air superiority until 2015. We left open the possibility of increasing production at any time if the threat picture changed.

Unfortunately, we were steamrollered by the Pentagon and by defense-industry lobbyists, and the F-22 program continued -- but not without a multitude of snags. In July 1997, as the technical problems and cost overruns became more glaring, Senator Carl Levin and I succeeded in putting a cap of $43 billion on production costs for 339 F-22 planes. This cap did not include developmental costs of nearly $19 billion -- meaning that the actual cost of what was originally supposed to be a $35 million fighter was already $180 million, and rising.

In June 1998, I introduced an amendment that would have halted the initial production of the plane until the prototypes had been flight tested for the 601 hours stipulated by the Air Force's own guidelines. This figure, significantly lower than those for preproduction testing of our less complex planes, seemed like a rock bottom "fly before you buy" requirement.

The outcome of this effort was a compromise that I strongly opposed. On the basis of a promise to complete 183 hours of flight testing of the prototypes by December 1998, the Air Force received $651 million to build two "production representative" -- fully functional -- planes without committing us to buying all 339 of the aircraft. Thus, with only 30 percent of the planned preproduction test requirements completed, the "fly before you buy" principle was ignored and production money began to flow.

Proponents of the F-22 make the timeworn argument that the $23 billion we've already spent would be lost if the program were canceled. But it's never a good idea to throw good money after bad. The key issue is what it will cost from today forward.

Despite Air Force (and Lockheed Martin) claims that we will surrender air dominance if the F-22 is delayed or canceled, the fact is the United States dominates global skies today with a huge air-war team and will continue to do so well into the 21st century. Our fighters are supported by airborne warning and control aircraft (AWAC's), electronic countermeasure aircraft, electronic intelligence aircraft, battlefield management aircraft and an armada of aerial tankers that extend the range and endurance of both fighter and attack planes.

All of our planes are armed with the world's finest air-to-air missiles and precision-guided munitions to degrade and destroy enemy air defense, and our crews are far better trained and more combat ready than any potential adversary's. Investing too much money in too few F-22's at the expense of the rest of our superb team would threaten our air-war dominance.

The questions Congress should be asking are these: What is the threat that would justify $40 billion more for the F-22? And is there a more effective and affordable way of meeting that threat? The House's nearly unprecedented decision for a pause in the rush to produce an expensive, inadequately tested aircraft provides an excellent opportunity to answer these questions thoughtfully.

Dale Bumpers was a United States Senator from 1975 to 1998.

-----------

Senator Warner Lays Keel for First Virginia-Class Submarine

NORTH KINGSTOWN, R.I., /PRNewswire/ September 3, 11:33 am Eastern Time, Company Press Release SOURCE: General Dynamics
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990903/ri_general_1.html

Reviving a time-honored shipbuilding tradition, U. S. Senator John W. Warner today ceremonially laid the keel of Virginia (SSN-774), the first of the U.S. Navy's new class of nuclear attack submarine.

The event was conducted at Electric Boat's Quonset Point facility here, and was attended by nearly 2,000 employees, local and Congressional dignitaries and Navy officials. Warner, who represents Virginia and chairs the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, chalked his initials on a steel cylinder that will form part of the submarine's hull. Electric Boat employee Michaleen Graemiger then welded Warner's initials into the hull.

Virginia is the lead ship in what will be called the Virginia Class submarine. A total of 30 ships are planned. Last year, Electric Boat and its teammate, Newport News Shipbuilding of Newport News, Va., began work on a $4.2 billion contract to build the first four ships of the class. Virginia Class submarines have been designed to affordably maintain the U.S. Navy's undersea superiority well into the 21st century.

``Virginia represents a true team effort between Electric Boat and Newport News in her design and construction that has broken new ground in the efficient leveraging of technology to accomplish these ends,'' said Senator Warner in his remarks preceding the keel laying

``I applaud the superb effort made by all of the individuals in both our defense industry and Department of Defense organizations who have contributed to the genesis and reality of this awesome warship. She is an example of success that sets the standard for our future development and procurement programs. Virginia will represent the most flexible and technologically advanced submarine that we or anyone else in the world has ever put to sea,'' Warner said.

Adm. Frank L. Bowman, director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion, used Thursday's ceremony to advance the case for building more, not fewer submarines. ``Repeatedly, studies on future submarine needs have arrived at the same conclusion: we need more submarines,'' Bowman said. ``In recent years, our warfighting commanders in chief have consistently stated that they need a force structure of about 70 nuclear attack submarines to meet their mission requirements.

``Today, we're down to 57 attack submarines, and many of our national and military leaders are feeling the pinch. There's a widening realization that we need to have more attack submarines, and the Virginia Class is key to preserving and restoring our submarine force levels -- with the right submarines to operate in the 21st century,'' said Bowman.

According to Electric Boat President John K. Welch, Virginia represents a baseline platform that promises to be the impressive lead ship the U.S. shipbuilding industry has produced. ``The Navy/industry team's commitment to capability is matched by its commitment to affordability,'' he said, describing the teaming agreement with Newport News Shipbuilding as a key element in the pursuit of affordability. ``I can't think of a better way to illustrate industry's commitment to find new ways to do business,'' Welch said.

Welch's counterpart at Newport News Shipbuilding, William P. Fricks, that shipyard's chairman, president and CEO, agreed that the teaming is proceeding well. ``I think this speaks to the caliber of the engineers, designers and shipbuilders at both companies,'' he said. ``They're excellent people who take pride in their work. I'm confident that our end products, the Virginia-Class submarines, will be a reflection of that commitment.

SOURCE: General Dynamics
More Quotes and News: General Dynamics Corp
NYSE:GD
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=gd&d=t
- news
http://biz.yahoo.com/n/g/gd.html

-----------

G.O.P. Letter Plays on Nuclear Threat to Spur Donations

By DON VAN NATTA Jr., September 4, 1999 New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/090499mcconnell-fund.html http://www7.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/letter04.htm http://www.seattlep-i.com/national/letr04.shtml http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/1999/09/04/MN50824.DTL&type=printable

WASHINGTON -- Fund-raising letters postmarked in this city have always used language that is hyperbolic. But in a recent "urgent" letter, a Republican fund-raising chairman asked for contributions of $25 or more to help the Senate protect the United States from a looming nuclear attack by North Korea.

Senator Mitch McConnell, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, began the four-page letter this way, "Dear Fellow American: My colleagues in the United States Senate must have your immediate help to protect our country from a potentially devastating nuclear attack."

McConnell said a "generous emergency gift of $25 or more" would help Senate Republicans defend the United States and "do what President Clinton will not: preserve, protect and defend the United States of America."

Included with the mailing was a "Nuclear Crisis Action Survey," a list of eight multiple-choice questions that the reader was asked to complete and return within 48 hours.

"We want your opinions," the letter said, "on how you want the Senate to act on the shocking information that has only recently come to our attention: The Communist North Korean government has obtained nuclear technology, and possibly the capability of reaching our shores with nuclear missiles."

The eighth and final question: "Will you do your part to help today?" There are boxes for amounts ranging from $25 to $1,000. Senator McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, assured the recipient that he would share the survey's results with the Senate Republican leadership.

The United States, Japan, and South Korea have threatened to cut off foreign aid and remittances if North Korea proceeds with a test of a missile that has the capability to reach Hawaii or Alaska. Two weeks ago, the United States and North Korea agreed to meet this month in Europe to discuss the matter.

Intelligence officials have said the missile North Korea plans to test is an advanced version of the Taepodong rocket it launched last year.

As chairman of the Senate Republicans' main fund-raising group, McConnell is one of the most outspoken and influential opponents in Congress to a bill that would ban unlimited campaign contributions known as soft money. Last month, McConnell urged as many as 20 executives to resign from a committee dedicated to advancing the bill that would overhaul campaign finance.

His fund-raising letter is clearly intended to play off North Korea's potential of fielding a ballistic capable of striking the United States. But it would take another technological advance to enable North Korea's rockets to have the range to reach the lower 48 states. The Pentagon last month positioned two Navy observation ships to watch for a possible test launching.

Steven Law, the executive director of the Republican committee, said that the letter was a test mailing sent to several thousand people and that the response was less than what they hoped for. But Law defended the letter's message and its tone, saying, "This is standard fare for direct mail, and it is a good deal less incendiary than some mailings I've seen."

During the cold war, he said, fund-raising letters used scare tactics about nuclear war to win drum up support.

McConnell declined to comment on the letter. And Robert Steurer, his press secretary, referred questions to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Advocates of campaign finance reform said they were outraged by the letter's message and tone, calling it a brazen effort to play upon people's fears to raise money. They also said it was the first time they could recall that a fund-raising letter depended on the specter of nuclear war.

"I've seen a lot of direct mail and people play a lot of games, but I've never seen anyone take us to the verge of nuclear war to raise a few bucks," said Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, a nonprofit public policy organization that endorses changes in campaign finance law. "Senator McConnell is obviously perfectly happy to scare the wits out of unsuspecting senior citizens and others in order to shake some campaign dollars out of them."

Charles Lewis, the founder and executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, said the letter's "fear-mongering techniques just takes my breath away."

"This sounds like a hysterical fly-by-night direct mail thing, and the fact a United States senator would allow something like that to go out under his name really takes the United States Senate to a new low," said Lewis, whose organization is a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group.

The former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Haley Barbour, said shrill language in fund-raising letters was typical and was used by Republicans and Democrats alike.

"To me, the shrillest letter I've ever seen was a Democratic letter that accused the Republicans of taking away Social Security from millions of senior citizens," Barbour said.

Of the letter bearing McConnell's name, James H. Matlack, director of the Washington office of the American Friends Service Committee, a humanitarian group affiliated with the Quakers, said the letter, which he recieved in July, was riddled with misinformation.

"It is at best misleading; at worst, it is a plain damn lie," Matlack said.

McConnell accuses the Clinton Administration of giving over $200 million of "YOUR TAX DOLLARS" to North Korea, which he said the nation used to aid its nuclear program.

In recent years, the Clinton Administration has guaranteed North Korea $200 million in aid for food in the face of widespread domestic starvation and fuel for its civilian nuclear plants, in return for a pledge to restrain its military nuclear program.

"This shameful reality," McConnell said, "is compounded by a terrifying fact: If the North Korean Communists launch a nuclear attack on our nation, THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HAVE A WAY TO STOP IT.

"By the time we retaliate with our own missiles, their nuclear bombs will have already killed hundreds of thousands of our citizens. And the reason is, the Clinton-Gore Administration for years refused to allow deployment of the military's missile defense program."

The United States has no missile defense force, but Congress is pushing for an antimissile force to be set up as soon as 2003 or 2005, and the Pentagon says that such dates may be feasible.

Law defended the accuracy of the letter, saying all its assertions were backed up by research conducted by the Republican committee.

Defying Senator, Executives Press Donation Rules Change
By DON VAN NATTA Jr., September 1, 1999 New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/090199finance-reform.html

---

A Letter and Its Response

September 1, 1999 New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/090199finance-letter.html

WASHINGTON -- Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote to 10 business executives on July 28 suggesting that they resign from a group promoting overhaul of campaign finance laws, which prompted a reply on Aug. 23 by three leaders of that group. Following is a letter sent to an executive, with the recipient's name deleted by the advocacy group, the Committee for Economic Development, and the group's reply:

Mr. McConnell's Letter

I was astonished to learn that . . . has lent its name, prestige and presumably financial backing to the Committee for Economic Development in its all-out campaign to eviscerate private sector participation in politics, through so-called "campaign reform."

This week, the Committee for Economic Development joined hands with Ralph Nader and the Sierra Club in taking out a full-page ad in The Hill, demanding new campaign finance laws that would ban corporate political activism and render the Republican Party powerless to defend pro-business candidates from negative TV attacks by labor unions, trial lawyers and radical environmentalists.

To legitimize its claim to represent the corporate community in advocating anti-business speech controls, the Web site of the Committee for Economic Development prominently lists . . . as one of the trustees that is "engaged in implement[ing] their policy recommendations."

If you disagree with the radical campaign finance agenda of the Committee for Economic Development and resent its abuse of your company's reputation, I would think that public withdrawal from this organization would be a reasonable response.

Thank you for considering my great concern over these developments.

The Committee's Letter

We are responding to your letter of July 28 to several trustees of the Committee for Economic Development (C.E.D.) urging them "to resign from C.E.D." because of our recent policy statement on campaign finance reform.

Your letter refers to a full-page ad that C.E.D. and other organizations sponsored urging the Senate to work toward meaningful campaign finance reform. We make no apologies for expressing our views and associating with groups such as AARP, the League of Women Voters, and the Sierra Club. In our view, it is entirely appropriate for groups with diverse interests to speak out jointly on an issue that they believe threatens the vitality of our participatory democracy. In fact, we find it ironic that you are such a fervent defender of First Amendment freedoms but seem intent to stifle our efforts to express publicly our concerns about a campaign finance system that many feel is out of control. Efforts to secure funding for the Republican Party should not be based on silencing other organizations.

You also accuse C.E.D. of an "all-out campaign to eviscerate private sector participation in politics." We respectfully submit that you have misread our report. First, it is disingenuous to imply that a business organization such as C.E.D. wants to silence the private sector or is anti-business. Second, if C.E.D.'s recommendations were enacted tomorrow, there would be more, not less, money available to finance elections. These funds would come primarily from individual contributions -- either directly or through political action committees -- not through loopholes in existing laws that have created today's unregulated, apparently limitless, flood of soft money. Our proposal would restore the principle that campaign contributions should be made by individuals not corporations or unions.

We know that a majority of the House and the Senate supports campaign finance reform. That sentiment is also shared by a growing number of business community leaders. We hope that you will reconsider your opposition and enable the issue to be discussed and voted on this fall in the Senate.

Those of us at C.E.D. applaud your many years of public service. We respect and share your commitment to the First Amendment. However, many of our trustees happen to disagree with you on this issue.

-----------

Congress ... THE FINAL STRETCH

By John F. Harris and Eric Pianin Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, September 5, 1999; Page A10
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-09/05/166l-090599-idx.html

Here are some major issues the 106th Congress will face when it returns to wind up its first session, which is expected to last until at least late October:

... Action is also possible on subjects ranging from creation of a temporary nuclear storage facility in Nevada and a nuclear test ban treaty to regional trade agreements and funding for Kosovo peace operations....

-----------

Payday from nuclear waste
The Joseph Oat Corp. in Camden gets a $21.4 million contract to build canisters to be used at weapons site.

By Henry J. Holcomb PHILADELPHA INQUIRER, September 3, 1999
http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/99/Sep/03/business/OAT03.htm

The costly cleanup of the vast Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state - a relic of World War II and the Cold War - is turning into a boon for a small, family-owned Camden firm, the Joseph Oat Corp.

It soon will begin making 400 stainless steel canisters strong enough to hold the site's spent nuclear fuel rods for at least 40 years.

The $21.4 million contract is the largest ever won by the 211-year-old Oat company, said Ron Kaplan, its president/operations.

Additionally, the contract could lead to more and larger jobs as the nation deals with growing stockpiles of nuclear waste, Kaplan said.

Cleanup of the 560-square-mile Hanford site, near Richland, Wash., the nation's largest stockpile of lethal radioactive nuclear waste, will continue for several decades.

And other military sites and nuclear power plants with the same problem dot the nation's landscape.

The federally owned Hanford site produced the "Fat Boy" atomic bomb that the United States dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945, and its reactors continued to produce weapons-grade plutonium until 1988.

The nuclear-waste storage tanks there are submerged in cooling water, and the contents of many remain a mystery. Many of the tanks date to World War II and were designed to last only a decade. An estimated one million gallons of water contaminated by radioactive leaks from the tanks has seeped into the Columbia River and surrounding water tables, according to government reports.

The canisters to be made by Oat will each be 14 feet long, two feet in diameter, and weigh 3,500 pounds. They are designed to safely hold spent nuclear fuel rods "that never completely burn out - they could melt down and generate extremely high temperatures at any time over the next several thousand years," said Edward S. Marinock, Oat's sales vice president.

The canister design has been certified by federal agencies as safe for transporting the rods over public roadways to distant storage areas. The first will be delivered in June, with the rest due over the next 29 months.

"They will be very sophisticated cans," said Robert G. Slebodnick, an Oat project engineer. "They will be built to the same standards as a nuclear reactor, the highest-quality classification."

Oat, with 130 employees and $40 million in annual sales, won the contract in nationwide bidding, based on a combination of price and experience in nuclear-related work, Kaplan said. It will be a subcontractor to Fluor Daniel Hanford Inc., the government's prime cleanup contractor at the site.

Oat's contract, which will generate about 80,000 hours of skilled shop labor and 20,000 hours of administrative and engineering work over three years, also will benefit other area companies.

For example, the Tura Machine Co., Folcroft, will handle much of the machine shop work on the canisters, Kaplan said.

Oat was founded in Philadelphia in 1788 as a maker of evaporators and stills for the sugar and rum industries.

Martin Kaplan and the late Maurice Holtz bought the company in 1966. Kaplan is still chief executive officer, and the families of the two men still own and run it. In the 1970s, the firm won a contract to build a petrochemical-acid processing unit that wouldn't fit in its old shops at 236 Quarry St. in Philadelphia.

So it leased space in an old New York Shipyard building in Camden. A short time later, it moved all its operations to the site, which is now part of the South Jersey Port Corp. Broadway Terminal.

Its facilities include what is believed to be the world's largest "clean room," used for metal fabrication.

That 13,000-square-foot room, where much of the nuclear canister fabrication work will be done, has higher-than-usual air pressure to keep contaminants from seeping in. The air inside is finely filtered six times an hour to a cleanliness standard like that at plants where aerospace and computer parts are made.

In recent years, Oat has emerged from a field of 300 fabrication firms worldwide as one of a dozen qualified to work with zirconium, titanium, and other high-grade alloys. Such metals, which are used in petrochemical processing units and nuclear applications, hold up much longer under high heat and also resist corrosion.

Oat has held an "N Stamp" since the late 1960s, certifying that its equipment and quality-control procedures meet Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards.

The canisters for the Hanford site are designed to last at least 40 years but probably will last 75 additional years, said Marinock, Oat's sales vice president. "After that," he said, "it will be up to smart people not yet born, to figure out what to do with the waste."

-----------

Stopping nuclear blackmail

US News, September 3, 1999
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/990308/8pol.htm

Bill Clinton likes to say that no Russian missiles are targeted at the United States. But we have every reason to believe that there are, or soon will be, North Korean missiles targeted at this countrymissiles capable of delivering nuclear or chemical and biological warheads. In a few years, and without much warning, Iranian and Iraqi missiles could also be targeted at us and our allies. What can we do to stop such missiles once they are launched? Not a thing.

None of this was clear eight months ago; it is undeniable now. The question is whether our government will build a missile defense system to protect our cities, military bases, and oil fieldsand to block the kind of nuclear blackmail suggested by China's threat, during the Taiwan Strait crisis of 1996, to bomb Los Angeles.

A full warning came from the report last July of the commission on missile threats headed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. This was a bipartisan commission, with members who have often disagreed on weapons issues. The panel had access to all U.S. intelligence sources, and its conclusion was unanimous: Rogue states could "inflict major destruction on the U.S." within five years of deciding to do so, and with little or no notice to us.

This contradicted the Clinton administration line that we would have plenty of notice of a missile attack. That conclusion was based on a 1995 national intelligence estimate that said there would be no threat to the 48 contiguous states for the next 15 years. (Evidently, the administration didn't think that the constitutional obligation to "provide for the common defense" applies to Alaska and Hawaii.) The Rumsfeld report at first seemed to do little to change the views of President Clinton's top defense advisers. On August 24, five weeks after the report was released, Gen. Henry Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote that "the intelligence community can provide the necessary warning" of hostile missile development and added, "We view this as an unlikely development." A week after that, on August 31, North Korea launched a 3,000-kilometer range, two-stage Taepo Dong 1 missile over Japan. The launch indicates that North Korea has made progress in building the Taepo Dong 2, whose 10,000-kilometer range includes not just Alaska and Hawaii but much of the continental United States. No matter: In September, all but four Senate Democrats blocked action on a bill sponsored by Thad Cochran, a Republican from Mississippi, and Daniel Inouye, a Democrat from Hawaii, that would have forced the administration to deploy a missile defense system as soon as technologically feasible.

A new world.

The case against rapid deployment rests on three arguments: (1) the threat isn't real, (2) the technology is impossible, (3) it is more important to maintain the antiballistic missile treaty signed with the Soviet Union in 1972, which bars most missile defense systems. The Rumsfeld report demolished argument 1. Argument 2 is still raised by some who note that we have spent large sums on missile defense since Ronald Reagan proposed it in 1983, with disappointing results. But stopping a few rogue-state missiles with the computers of 1999 is much easier than stopping hundreds of Soviet missiles with the computers of 1983. As for argument 3, the strategic environment in which the ABM treaty was adopted no longer exists. The argument for the treaty was that a missile defense system might provoke a Soviet or American first strike. But the proximate missile threats now come from states that might risk such a strike.

The Clinton administration is split on missile defense. The president has called for more spending but a later date for possible deploymenta typical Clintonesque straddle. Defense Secretary William Cohen, who supported missile defense when he was in the Senate, conceded in January that the threat is real and more important than preserving the ABM treaty intact. "We will need to negotiate changes to the ABM treaty," Cohen said. "If the Russians don't agree, we have the option to opt out, and we will opt out of the treaty." Secretary of State Madeleine Albright delivered the same message to Russian Prime Minister Yevgeni Primakov in Moscow. But the next day a National Security aide called the ABM treaty "a cornerstone of strategic stability," and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger used the same words in a February 3 letter threatening a veto if Congress passed the Cochran-Inouye bill.

Even so, the bill is likely to pass soon with at least 60 votes. The House is poised then to pass a bill that calls for deployment of an antimissile system, though it sets no deadline. But even though Congress wants to move forward on missile defense, progress is not certain. The technical difficulties are serious, and important administration officials remain lukewarm or even hostile to missile defenseeven as the North Koreans and other rogue states take aim at American targets.