Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
-------- activists
PRESS RELEASE
CRANES FOR PEACE
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:07:24 -0600
To: worldpeace@gn.apc.org
From: networks@networkearth.org (Shannyn)
The "CRANES FOR PEACE" project was initiated to honor the Childrens' Peace Statue which was created by children in a school in Albuquerque, NM. Completed in 1994, this bronze sculpture was financially supported by $1 from 90,000 children from 63 countries and all 50 United States. It has 3000 little sculptures fashioned in wax and cast in bronze by children in 100 different countries. The children who were the creators of the statue desired for it to be permanently placed in a public park in Los Alamos, the birthplace of the Atomic Bomb. It was refused placement there by the Los Alamos County/City Council. Now it resides in Santa Fe. This is the first National Monument in the United States paid for and created by only children and it is the first International Children's Peace Statue in the world.
This Statue was inspired by a true story of a child from Hiroshima, Sadako Sasaki. Ten years after the bombing she contracted leukemia, a disease which had commonly become known by the Japanese as "Atom Bomb Disease" - a disease for which there was no known cure. While hospitalized Sadako's closest friend reminded her of an ancient Japanese legend. If she folded a thousand origami cranes, the Gods might grant her wish to live. Her struggle for life and her belief in Peace inspired her classmates to erect a Peace Statue for all the children who were the victims of the atomic bombing of Japan. Their statue, completed in 1958, stands in Peace Park in Hiroshima with the inscription, "This is our cry. This is our prayer. To create Peace in the world." Ever since mountains of origami cranes have been sent to Hiroshima for Peace Day, August 6th, in affirmation of this prayer.
We are empowering the intentions of the children who created and supported the First International Children's Peace Statue here in the US. On Hiroshima Day, August 6th, 2000, in unity with the first Peace Day ever observed in the world, children in Santa Fe (trans. City of Holy Faith) will decorate the Children's Peace Statue with the garlands of cranes. We welcome Peace cranes from all other communities from around the US and the world to intensify the prayers being gathered for this ceremony.
We hope to find a way to open the hearts of those who live and work in Los Alamos so they will accept this beautiful, healing gift from the children of the world. Please do have a look at this gift from the hearts of children smothered in 39,000 prayers for Peace on our web site: www.networkearth.org
SEND CRANES BY AUGUST 1st, 2000 TO: Cranes For Peace, 941-A Rio Vista, Santa Fe, NM 87501 - USA Please string the cranes into garlands on strong string, though the hole in the bottom to the top. Put them in a box and write on the outside of the box how many cranes are contained within. If you have a message to be read during the commemoration put it in an envelope at the top of the box.
FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO CONTACT US:
Green the Earth and Prosper
NetWorks Productions Inc. www.NetWorkEarth.org
941-A Rio Vista Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telefax (505) 989-4482
----
USA Today, 05/10/00
http://usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm
Arkansas Fayetteville - A 53-year-old woman has moved from one tree to another to protest a planned shopping center. Mary Lightheart came down from an oak on the Steele Crossing commercial development property early Monday, five days after ascending the tree to protest plans to remove several oaks. Moments later, the Goshen resident was hoisted onto another mammoth oak about 200 yards east of the first tree.
---
Gay protesters arrested
USA Today
05/10/00- Updated 05:52 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/digest/nd1.htm#game
CLEVELAND - Police arrested nearly 200 gay rights activists staging a peaceful demonstration Wednesday outside the United Methodist Church's General Conference. Activists upset by the church's stand against homosexual inclusion had called for a mass, nonviolent protest outside the convention hall where the General Conference is meeting through Friday. It was expected to take up the issue of homosexuality on Thursday. By midmorning, about 190 demonstrators who had blocked a driveway to the convention hall had been arrested on charges of aggravated disorderly conduct. Protesters said one of those arrested was Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mohandas Gandhi, India's independence leader.
---
Clinton ally leads march Tony Blankley
Washington Times
May 10, 2000
http://208.246.212.80/op-ed/ed-column-2000510173326.htm
The late, brilliant professor of semantics (and U.S. senator) S.I. Hayakawa wrote almost half a century ago that the act of communication is the basic moral act: "One begins with the sharing of perceptions about commonplace or even obvious things, so that, with the establishment of myriads of little agreements, larger and larger agreements become possible." That would be a pretty good mission statement for a news organization.
But, regretfully, not all news organizations report the details accurately, thereby justifying the confidence of their readers or viewers - which brings me to the anti-gun "Million Mom March" (a Mother's Day march on Washington which will call for registration of all handguns and other sundry gun-control measures.)
CNN's coverage is typical. Earlier this week CNN reported that "the march is the brainchild of a New Jersey mother, Donna Dees-Thomases, who conceived of the idea as she watched footage of a shooting at an area day camp." In a script that goes on for more than four single-spaced pages, that is all we learn of Ms. Dees-Thomases.
But that is just television - what about the printed word? In a major, front-of-the-section Sunday piece, the New York Times headlined its story: "Invoking the Moral Authority of Moms." Befitting the greatest news organization in the universe, the Times gives us more information. It quotes Ms. Dees-Thomases explaining: "Our maternal instincts were just kicking in . . . Everyone truly believes that until we get the politics out of this, nothing much will get done . . . This is a public health issue . . . This is personal, not political . . . We are in this for one reason alone: to keep our kids safe."
The New York Times, whose motto is "all the news that's fit to print," does manage to squeeze into this almost 2000-word report the background fact that Ms. Dees-Thomases is "currently on leave from her job as a part-time publicist for CBS." So, apparently, she is not just any New Jersey mother, but a part-time CBS publicist. But even the vaunted New York Times couldn't fit in all the news about Ms. Dees-Thomases. Before she was a part-time publicist, she was Dan Rather himself's publicist - and by reputation an exceptionally able public relations executive.
Oh, there is one other interesting fact about her. If the last half of her hyphenated name rings a bell, it's no accident. She just happens to be the sister-in-law of Susan Thomases, who just happens to be Hillary Clinton's best friend and closest political adviser. Just a New Jersey housewife, indeed. One might as well identify Queen Elizabeth as "Liz Windsor, an English mother of four."
Now, maybe all those warmhearted thoughts about maternal instincts, the kids and getting politics out of it, are genuine. But when the organizer of this event - so timely and politically useful to the Clintons - turns out to be so closely connected to the Clintons, shouldn't that be reported widely?
During the New York Republican primary, when some anti-McCain environmental ads ran on New York television, the major media formed a posse to find out who placed the adds. When it turned out to be a businessman closely connected to George W. Bush, that became the main story. For days the media itemized every available detail about the Bush connection - as well they should have. The public has a right to judge the motives of political players by knowing their background and affiliations.
The absence of such information in the New York Times piece is particularly galling, because it is an otherwise fascinating account of the role of mothers in reform crusades. I have a personal interest in that topic because for many years my mother, now retired, was an organizer for the Mother's March of Dimes, which fought polio and birth defects. Now those were public health issues bereft of politics. So it upsets me when political operatives cover their activities under the saintly mantle of motherhood.
Yet, in the lead of that New York Times article Ms. Dees-Thomases' motives are characterized as "trying to break through ideology and partisanship and make an appeal based on the moral authority of women as mothers." Thus it is penetratingly probative of the story's thesis (and of Ms. Dees-Thomases' credibility), whether Ms. Dees-Thomases is acting "as a mother" or as a political operative. To deny the readers such necessary (and available) information is to breach what professor Hayakawa called the moral act of communication.
Tony Blankley is a columnist for The Washington Times. His column appears on Wednesdays.
-------- alternative energy
Massachusetts power plants agree to cut harmful emissions
May 10, 2000
http://robots.cnn.com/2000/US/05/10/dirty.plants.ap/index.html
BOSTON (AP) -- Operators of Massachusetts' six most polluting power plants have agreed to a plan that will cut emissions of mercury and other harmful discharges by 2003.
The five companies that own the plants pledged a variety of reforms, including switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas and using new technology to improve pollution control.
The changes will cut emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide by 50 percent by 2003, state officials said Tuesday. Mercury, carbon dioxide and soot also will be reduced.
The pledges came a week after a Harvard School of Public Health study said air pollution from two of the plants -- Salem Harbor Station in Salem and Brayton Point in Somerset -- could be linked to 43,000 asthma attacks and an estimated 159 premature deaths each year.
"Citizens of the commonwealth can breathe easier today," said Gov. Paul Cellucci, who called in February for the plants to voluntarily submit plans to reduce air pollution.
The six plants all had been exempted from the federal Clean Air Act, which allows owners of power plants built before 1970 to meet lower standards than those that apply to newer plants.
In addition to Salem Harbor and Brayton Point, the other plants include Canal Station in Sandwich, Mystic Station in Everett, Mt. Tom Station in Holyoke, and Somerset Station in Somerset.
The state Department of Environmental Protection plans to draft regulations that will ensure that the changes are carried out at the six plants.
Rob Sargent, a spokesman for the public interest group MassPIRG, called the agreement a "key milestone" in the cleanup of the state's power plants.
James McGowan, senior vice president of Sithe Energies, which operates Mystic Station, said the five companies were loathe to unilaterally implement the expensive changes in such a competitive industry.
But the agreement showed, "In Massachusetts, good environmental policy means good business," McGowan said.
On the Net:
MassPIRG: http://www.pirg.org/masspirg
State's environmental department: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/dephome.htm
------- europe
EU Commission to unveil renewable energy blueprint
EU: May 10, 2000
Story by Michael Mann
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6608
BRUSSELS - The European Commission is set to unveil today its blueprint for promoting the generation of energy from renewable resources while ensuring fair competition on Europe's energy market.
The European Union's executive is expected to back Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio's plans, which would allow renewable energy producers to continue receiving special treatment for the next 10 years to ensure the fledgling technologies take root, Commission officials said.
EU governments would be able to choose how to promote "green" energy until 2010, leaving it to the Commission to propose a harmonised system later.
Individual EU states would set themselves targets for the share of their electricity needs to be met from wind, solar and water power and biomass by 2010, the officials said.
The aim would be to ensure the 15-nation bloc reaches its overall target to double the penetration of renewables to 12 percent of energy consumption and 20 percent of electricity generation by 2010, Palacio said last month.
"The plan will leave intact the existing support schemes which proved their worth in the member states while obliging the Commission to make a proposal for an (EU) system within five years," she told an audience in Spain.
The draft law would require the backing of a majority of EU energy ministers, who will discuss it for the first time on May 30, and the European Parliament.
The EU is keen to foster renewable energy, partly to help it meet targets set under the 1997 Kyoto climate change agreement to reduce emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases" and partly to reduce its dependence on oil.
But the framework law has been delayed by disputes about how to help green energy without giving certain power generators an unfair competitive advantage in the bloc's newly liberalised electricity market.
Countries with more advanced renewable energy industries, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, rejected earlier versions of the draft law which they believed would have clamped down too quickly on special subsidy programmes to help renewables.
Palacio's spokesman said each EU government had proposed its own target for domestic renewable energy production by the end of the decade.
The EU committed itself at the United Nations' Kyoto conference to cut greenhouse gas emissions by eight percent from 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.
----
European Union to Double Renewable Energy
May 10, 2000 (ENS)
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2000/2000L-05-10-05.html
BRUSSELS, Belgium, The European Commission today unveiled its long awaited proposal for a directive on renewable energy support in the 15 nations of the European Union.
The draft law aims to double the proportion of green energy from six percent to 12 percent of primary energy supply by increasing the share of renewably generated electricity from 14 percent to 22 percent by 2010.
Today's adoption of the draft directive marks the end of a tortuous process which has seen two previous proposals fall at the final hurdle after opposition from member countries, industry and environmental groups.
EU Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio outlined the thrust of the directive last month and the final draft introduces no changes.
EU Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio of Spain (Photo courtesy European Commission)
Member states will be able to keep national financial support schemes for at least five years but should eventually adopt a harmonised EU system. Non-binding indicative national targets for renewables will be set to ensure the overall European Union target is met.
Member states will have to report annually on their progress, and the Commission will propose mandatory targets if national goals are "inconsistent" with the EU target.
With the issue of support schemes side-stepped for the moment, all attention is now likely to fix on the draft indicative targets (see table below).
Though these are based on existing national targets for around half of member states, the Commission is proposing that several of them take stronger action.
At least six countries under pressure to launch new, more ambitious policies. Finland, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal are the countries affected.
The renewable energy industry and environmentalists accept that the proposed targets are ambitious but argue that they should be made immediately binding to have real effect.
They predict that finalisation of the directive will be delayed as governments try to reduce their share of the burden of reaching the 12 percent target. Commissioner de Palacio admitted today that there "may be problems" agreeing final targets in the Council of Ministers.
The directive proposes several other supporting measures for renewables. Member states would have to certify green energy schemes to enable producers to guarantee that electricity they sell is renewably generated.
Offshore wind turbines generate power in Blyth, Northumberland, England (Photo courtesy Blyth)
The certification requirements would ease green electricity trades if the European Union eventually decides for such a system, the Commission said.
Member states will also have to review planning and administrative procedures to "reduce regulatory barriers" to renewables uptake. This will include setting up single reception points for project applications, better cooperation between authorities and "fast-track" land-use planning procedures.
Although no mandatory rules will be introduced on sharing the costs of electricity transmission, system operators will be obliged to grant priority to renewable energy generators.
Connection charges, meanwhile, will have to "reflect the economic costs and benefits associated with the connection" so that costs for small generators are not "unfairly prohibitive."
European Commission plan for EU countries' renewables targets
(% of electricity generated renewably)
1997 actual 2010 targets % increase
Austria 72.7 78.1 7
Sweden 49.1 60.0 22
Portugal 38.5 45.6 18
Finland 24.7 35.0 42
Spain 19.9 29.4 48
Italy 16.0 25.0 56
France 15.0 21.0 40
Denmark 8.7 29.0 233
Greece 8.6 20.1 134
Germany 4.5 12.5 178
Ireland 3.6 13.2 267
Netherlands 3.5 12.0 243
Luxembourg 2.1 5.7 171
UK 1.7 10.0 488
Belgium 1.1 6.0 445
Overall EU 13.9 22.1 58
Source: European Commission
{Published in cooperation with ENDS Environment Daily, Europe's choice for environmental news. Environmental Data Services Ltd, London. Email: envdaily@ends.co.uk}
-------- imf / world bank
Official Testifies Before U.N. Panel on U.S. Rights Practices
New York Times
May 10, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/10us-torture.html
GENEVA -- Confronted with criticism of American police for using stun guns, the United States told a U.N. panel today it is "utterly committed" to wiping out torture but admitted its record is not perfect.
Torture is "denounced as a matter of policy" in the United States, Assistant Secretary of State Harold Koh told the U.N. Committee against Torture, which is examining Washington's first report on its compliance with a U.N. torture convention it ratified in 1994.
But "we acknowledge continuing areas of concern within the United States," Koh said. "From time to time allegations of torture do arise, particularly within the difficult domain of law enforcement."
On Tuesday, Amnesty International accused the United States of "institutionalizing" torture, especially in prisons and police forces.
In a report to the committee, the human rights group said the United States has used an "increasingly punitive approach toward offenders," which has facilitated torture and ill-treatment. The London-based group pointed to the use of pepper spray, tear gas and electric-shock devices and noted the use of pepper spray against demonstrators protesting meetings of the World Trade Organization in Seattle in December.
At a news conference later, Koh said his country's record "ranks near the very top" and said the United States should not be criticized for slowness in signing human rights treaties. "Other countries ratify these treaties and then they don't obey them. We obey these treaties and then we ratify them," he said.
Koh said he could not comment specifically on the Seattle case. But, he said, the use of chemical sprays and electric shocks is only allowed to control prisoners in dangerous situations, never as a punishment.
"My own view is that these are being used completely within the law. ... I think there are a lot of misstatements in the Amnesty report, frankly," he said.
William Yeomans, a Justice Department lawyer, told the committee that there had been successful prosecutions of U.S. law enforcement officials. They included the conviction of four New York City police officers for the severe beating of Haitian immigrant Abner Louima.
Committee chairman Peter Thomas Burns of Canada commended the United States for admitting that torture did happen, but asked why the report had not been produced earlier. He also expressed concern about the use of stun belts and guns, which Amnesty said could cause serious pain without leaving marks on the body and could also be set off accidentally.
The committee likely will issue its conclusions next week.
-------- india / pakistan
ANALYSIS-Minds finally meeting on India's nuclear ...
By Sanjeev Miglani Reuters 05/10 0653
NEW DELHI - Two years after India stunned the world by exploding five nuclear devices, Western powers have given up hectoring and lecturing but are not about to acquiesce to the Indian nuclear dream.
And India, which weathered a storm of global condemnation and is still under punitive economic sanctions from the United States, is not about to give up the bomb.
Analysts say however that there has been a gradual meeting of minds between New Delhi and Washington, which has led Western efforts to draw India into the global regime for non-proliferation since the underground blasts on May 11, 1998.
This could culminate in concrete developments before the new U.S. administration takes office at the beginning of next year, with India possibly signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
"Most people had thought that India and the U.S. would have a sustained Cold War after the tests," said Amitabh Mattoo of Jawaharlal Nehru University's School of International Studies.
"That's ended. But there are fundamental disagreements. The sanctions remain and... they have still not been able to find a modus vivendi on nuclear issues."
ATMOSPHERICS RIGHT, SUBSTANCE LACKING
Relations between India and the United States have warmed considerably over the past two years. With its eye firmly on one of Asia's most rapidly emerging economies, Washington is more inclined to water down its sanctions than bump them up again.
A multi-round dialogue on non-proliferation opened the way for a landmark visit to India by U.S. President Bill Clinton, who prodded New Delhi's policy makers to reconsider their nuclear ambitions but conceded that it was ultimately up to them.
"The atmospherics are right but nothing substantial has happened and I think both sides realise that... they have to do more than just get the atmospherics right," Mattoo said.
"India is aware that in some ways it needs to get the relationship institutionalised, especially at the strategic level, before the administration changes. I think between now and September you could see some movement."
Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is due to travel to the United States in September for the United Nations General Assembly and for an official visit to Washington.
But even if India does quickly build the domestic consensus it says it needs to sign the CTBT, the problem of a self-declared nuclear weapon state outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will remain.
As much was said on Tuesday by India's foreign minister, who told parliament: "The NPT community needs to understand that India cannot join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state."
New Delhi has long argued that the NPT discriminates in favour of the recognised nuclear powers -- Russia, Britain, France, the United States and India's giant northern neighbour, China -- denying others access to such weapons.
"India is certainly not going to give up the bomb," said retired Lt-General V.R. Raghavan. "Conversely, the world has laid down the line: it will not accept it as a weapons state."
INDIA PRESSES ON WITH NUCLEAR PROGRAMME
Security experts say that since its tests, which were answered by arch-rival Pakistan with explosions of its own, India has pressed on with its nuclear weapons plans.
"India continues to make the nuclear weapons, continues to maintain the nuclear stockpile," K. Subrahmanyam, the country's leading strategist said, referring to the government's resolve to build a "credible minimum nuclear deterrent."
Last year the government released a draft doctrine envisaging a classical nuclear force based on ships, aircrafts and missiles, though its gameplan -- at least publicly -- is still hazy.
Since the tests cannot be reversed, big powers have grudgingly switched from confrontation to engagement in the hope that they can still influence and curb India's nuclear ambitions.
The United States, for its part, is urging India to sign the CTBT and join talks to end production of bomb-making material, even though the U.S. Senate itself threw out the test ban pact.
RAZOR'S EDGE WITH PAKISTAN
The two years since the nuclear tests brought fresh tensions with Pakistan, including what a government-appointed committee described as a "short, sharp war" in Kashmir last summer.
Hundreds of armed intruders occupied a strategic stretch of strategic Himalayan ridges on India's side of Kashmir, prompting a huge military offensive and sparking fears of the world's first conflict between two nuclear-armed states.
"India and Pakistan are continually treading the razor's edge," said a retired Indian navy admiral. "The threat of a nuclear holocaust on the subcontinent cannot be dismissed on the premise that nuclear deterrence always works."
So far, nuclear deterrence on the subcontinent has given the lie to the claim that this would help India and Pakistan to cut back on conventional forces.
India has raised defence spending by a staggering 28 percent and is buying new planes, tanks and surveillance equipment.
"It was expected that the possession of nuclear deterrence by India and Pakistan would lead to the next logical step, a mutual reduction of conventional forces and ultimately a slashing of defence expenditure," said former admiral J.G. Nadkarni. "These hopes have been short-lived."
Pakistan plans to increase defence spending in 1999/2000 by five and a half percent.
----
THEATER PROVOCATEUR PROTESTS THE BOMB
Message from WAJAHAT MALIK (Pakistan) Date: Sunday, May 07, 2000 4:48 PM
From: Harsh Kapoor aiindex@mnet.fr Ever since the nuclear explosions on either side of the border, the mounting mania in favor of the bomb has been gnawing at our nerves sending chills of fear down our human spines. We are afraid of, in earnest, of turning Blue,Red,and Green. We feel like ducks sitting under a loaded gun.
Spectre of a nuclear war has made us lose our appetites. We have recurring nightmares of a nuclear holocaust disturbing our heads and sleep. In short, we are very afraid children.
I can go on and on with my rhetoric but I hope you get the picture.Some of us at "Theater Provocateur", have yawned out of our complacency and have decide to give an earful to our Government for exposing us to a certain radioactive death. It is high time we let our leaders know that we have had enough of this Chagai mountain madness. I personally think that the peace pressure groups both in India and Pakistan can achieve a nuclear free South Asia by staging strong strange protests. Let your skepticism grow wings for a while and sing, "We Shall Overcome".
In this context, Theater Provocateur on 28th May 2000, will stage a protest and a happening in the greater Blue Area of Islamabad. This show will start at 10.a.m, whence a member of the group will rappel off one of the hideous buildings in Blue Area, stop midway on the rope and unfurl a banner that will drop vertically showing this statement, "We Want Education/Food Not A-Bomb".
Meanwhile, the rest of the members of the group down below will distribute leaflets to a curious crowd that will gather naturally to witness the rappel. After that, the supporters will walk to the Presidency with the Peace Scarf to present it to the Chief Executive or the President or the guard at the gate. The Peace Scarf will carry the signatures of all the people who oppose the Bomb. For this purpose a lot of volunteers are gathering signatures on white cotton cloth pieces that will eventually be sewn together to make a long Peace Scarf.
You are required to throw in your Penny's worth if you support the cause by getting a 1 foot by 1 foot white cotton cloth and start gathering the signatures from your family, friends, relatives and neighbours etc.
Every signature will signify one perosn against the bomb.After the scarf has been presented at the gate, the crowd will disperse peacefully marking an end to the protest. Please note that this protest is going to be very peaceful and all violent elements will be avoided at all cost. Theater Provocateur wants to draw a lot of attention to the happening and for that purpose a press release will be taken out for the local and foreign media to witness the protest. Similarly, famous people from all walks of life and other intellegensia who support the cause will be enticed to be at the happening so that we can get the most media hype.
Just picture the image of a dangling man with an unfurled banner being flashed across the world on CNN or BBC. We love the media and try to use it to the maximum, to get our word out. If you want to join Theater Provocateur please do, because we at Theater Provocateur know how to thrust our wounded fingers into their faces.
Please forward this letter or rather mass e-mail it to your anyone and everyone. This is for a great cause and humanity will thank you for your troubles of clicking a few keys. Also, please gather signatures and tell other to do so, as we want a bigger and longer Peace Scarf. If you want more info please write me freely.
ZYGOTEPOET@HOTMAIL.COMPEACE AND REVOLUTION WAJAHAT MALIK(51)-854922 OR 854933
-------- israel
Israel singled out at nuke conference
USA Today
05/10/00- Updated 05:01 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/nw1.htm#sierra
UNITED NATIONS - A draft statement prepared by a U.N. conference on nuclear disarmament has singled out Israel for being the only country in the Middle East that hasn't signed onto the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The draft, which is still subject to revision before the conference wraps up next week, also notes that subcontinental neighbors India and Pakistan, which conducted nuclear tests in 1998, haven't signed and urges them to do so. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty requires nuclear powers to work toward disarmament while forbidding non-nuclear countries from obtaining nuclear weapons.
-------- imf / world bank
World Bank projects to consider environment
USA: May 10, 2000
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6602
WASHINGTON - The World Bank said on Tuesday it was preparing a new strategy to integrate environmental concerns into its development projects.
"The emphasis is on incorporating sustainability into all the Bank's activities," said Ian Johnson of the Bank's Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network.
He said in a statement that the goal of the new strategy was to ensure that economic growth did not come at the expense of people's health and future opportunities.
The World Bank has been widely criticised in the past for funding projects likely to harm the environment, including most recently a $160 million loan to China for a dam in Qinghai Province.
The Bank said the new proposal called for a "fresh look" at the Bank's environmental guidelines and strategies.
----
Japanese response to nuke accident hit
May 10, 2000
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.suntimes.com:80/output/news/far10.html
TOKYO--Japanese authorities were slow to react to a nuclear accident last year that killed two workers and exposed hundreds of others to radiation, a study concluded.
The study, to be published May 19 in the Britain-based Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, found that officials waited more than six hours before monitoring radiation levels at the plant in Tokaimura, 70 miles northeast of Tokyo.
"They could have done something to stop the accident sooner" had monitoring started promptly, said Kazuhisa Komura, professor of nuclear chemistry at Kanazawa University and a leader of the study.
Radiation levels close to the area of the plant where the uncontrolled nuclear reaction occurred reached a maximum 100 times the annual amount judged safe for humans, Komura said.
All--except for three workers, two of whom later died and one who was hospitalized--were evacuated before they had been exposed to lethal doses of radiation, he said.
Komura said the research team is evaluating blood samples from about 50 people who were exposed to radiation in order to determine any future health risks.
The Education Ministry-funded study also said higher-than-expected uranium concentrations at the site suggest that there might have been other radioactive leaks before the Sept. 30 accident.
A total of 439 people were believed to have been exposed to radiation at the JCO Co. uranium-processing facility after workers triggered an uncontrolled atomic reaction by using too much uranium to make fuel.
An earlier investigation found that workers at the plant routinely violated safety procedures, including mixing uranium in buckets to get work done quickly.
Hisashi Ouchi, 35, died of multiple organ failure on Dec. 21 after having been exposed to a massive amount of radiation. He was the first person in Japan to die as a result of a nuclear plant accident.
Last month, Masato Shinohara, 40, also died of multiple organ failure.
A third worker, Yutaka Yokokawa, was hospitalized for exposure to a lesser amount of radiation and was discharged in December.
----
Japanese response to nuke accident hit
Chicago Sun-Times
May 10, 2000
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/far10.html
TOKYO--Japanese authorities were slow to react to a nuclear accident last year that killed two workers and exposed hundreds of others to radiation, a study concluded.
The study, to be published May 19 in the Britain-based Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, found that officials waited more than six hours before monitoring radiation levels at the plant in Tokaimura, 70 miles northeast of Tokyo.
"They could have done something to stop the accident sooner" had monitoring started promptly, said Kazuhisa Komura, professor of nuclear chemistry at Kanazawa University and a leader of the study.
Radiation levels close to the area of the plant where the uncontrolled nuclear reaction occurred reached a maximum 100 times the annual amount judged safe for humans, Komura said.
All--except for three workers, two of whom later died and one who was hospitalized--were evacuated before they had been exposed to lethal doses of radiation, he said.
Komura said the research team is evaluating blood samples from about 50 people who were exposed to radiation in order to determine any future health risks.
The Education Ministry-funded study also said higher-than-expected uranium concentrations at the site suggest that there might have been other radioactive leaks before the Sept. 30 accident.
A total of 439 people were believed to have been exposed to radiation at the JCO Co. uranium-processing facility after workers triggered an uncontrolled atomic reaction by using too much uranium to make fuel.
An earlier investigation found that workers at the plant routinely violated safety procedures, including mixing uranium in buckets to get work done quickly.
Hisashi Ouchi, 35, died of multiple organ failure on Dec. 21 after having been exposed to a massive amount of radiation. He was the first person in Japan to die as a result of a nuclear plant accident.
Last month, Masato Shinohara, 40, also died of multiple organ failure.
A third worker, Yutaka Yokokawa, was hospitalized for exposure to a lesser amount of radiation and was discharged in December.
-------- russia
Moscow Arms Pact Seems Difficult
Associated Press
May 10, 2000 Filed at 1:14 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-US-Russia-Politics.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- American election politics and Vladimir Putin's uncertain agenda make progress this year on arms control doubtful, even though the subject likely will dominate President Clinton's June summit with the new Russian president.
In his final months in office, Clinton is looking for an arms deal to add to his legacy; the incoming Putin is seeking to establish his credentials on the world stage as the leader of a nuclear power.
Trying to keep Clinton from grabbing the spotlight, Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., pledged last month to single-handedly block any late-term arms-control pact that Clinton and Putin might negotiate.
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said any such treaty would be ``dead on arrival.''
But even before Helms' attention-grabbing statement on the Senate floor, there seemed little likelihood senators would be in a position to deal with any major new treaties this year.
There is a strong feeling among both congressional Democrats and Republicans that such weighty issues best be left to the next president. And time is running short, anyway.
``Helms was stating the obvious,'' said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, a group that supports arms-control measures. There is not enough time for such a treaty to be concluded and sent to the Senate in 2000, he said.
Isaacs contends ``the odds are very slim'' that Clinton and Putin will reach such an agreement -- or even the framework for one -- at their Moscow meeting.
Still, both Clinton and Putin appear eager for a possible breakthrough on arms control.
Particularly, Clinton would like to win Russian blessings for an amendment to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to authorize the building of a limited missile defense shield against attacks from hostile states such as North Korea.
But Russia continues to oppose ABM changes and Putin has echoed that opposition, so far at least, suggesting any changes could undermine all arms control measures now in place.
But the one-time KGB agent remains something of a mystery to U.S. policy-makers, at least in terms of his negotiating skills.
Russian leaders ``usually don't show what they're going to do until they get the power to do it,'' said Jack Matlock, a U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union under both Presidents Reagan and Bush.
Putin, inaugurated last Sunday, is almost ``an accidental president,'' suggested Thomas Graham, a former U.S. diplomat now with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ``He's a man of limited horizons (and) ... there are real limits to what Putin or any other president of Russia can do.''
The Russian parliament recently ratified the START II arms control treaty -- which would reduce each side's arsenal from 6,000 warheads to between 3,000 and 3,500 -- after seven years of delay. And it also ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the U.S. Senate rejected last fall.
And Russia has expressed an eagerness to move on to even deeper cuts in nuclear arms -- a START III treaty. Its nuclear arsenal is rusting, increasingly expensive to maintain.
Both votes put pressure on the United States to move forward on arms reduction.
On the presidential campaign trail, the summit will be closely watched.
Texas Gov. George W. Bush favors rewriting the ABM Treaty and development of a national anti-missile system as ``part of redefining a post-Cold War era.''
But even as Bush and other Republicans seek to portray Democrats as weak on defense, Vice President Al Gore has sought to link Bush with Helms and other right-wingers.
``If Governor Bush were to inherit from us an arms control agreement so clearly in the best interests of the American people, is Senator Helms the last word?'' Gore asked recently.
Gore has pledged to make the rejected Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty the first measure he submits to the Senate if elected.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said his advice to Clinton is to ignore Helms and other naysayers and to press ahead in his meeting with Putin.
``I think it is appropriate, I think it is useful and I think he should attempt to deal with arms control issues,'' Biden said. ``I do not believe, axiomatically, that there is not time to deal with any arms control agreement.
``At the minimum, what he does, if he comes back with a serious arms control agreement, it puts the next president in a better position to continue to pursue arms control,'' Biden said.
EDITOR'S NOTE -- Tom Raum covers national and international affairs for The Associated Press.
---
Andrei Sakharov and the Nuclear Danger
A decade after Sakharov's death, his guidance remains relevant to the nuclear perils we face in today's post-cold war world. --
Sidney D. Drell, American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/pt/sakharov.htm
For over forty years, nuclear weapons were a major concern of Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov. A brilliant physicist whose work was instrumental in the creation of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, Sakharov was led by his concern about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war to become a courageous activist for peace and disarmament, as well as for human rights (A 1989 talk by Sakharov is reprinted in Physics Today, July 1999, page 22; for more on Sakharov, see Physics Today, August 1990, which was a special issue devoted to him; also see the American Institute of Physics's Center for the History of Physics on-line exhibit on Sakharov). In his lifetime he saw the problems and dangers associated with creating such massively destructive weapons through the highly refracting lens of the cold war. That war is over. The Soviet Union no longer exists. But great dangers remain, albeit mutated into new forms. We still face grave perils.
As I see it, there are four basic principles that Sakharov held constant as his thinking evolved apace with the changing political and strategic circumstances of the cold war. My purpose in this article is to see how these principles apply in today's post-cold war world, with a new strategic and political landscape and with rapidly advancing and more widely accessible technologies. More than a decade after Sakharov's death in 1989, his thinking remains relevant to the most pressing contemporary issues in peace and disarmament.
The four principles that I derive from Sakharov's writings and my discussions with him are, briefly stated: 1) deterrence is inescapable; 2) strategic parity is essential; 3) negotiations are of primary importance; and 4) trust, developing from cooperation and openness, is a prerequisite for progress.
Sakharov's four principles Sakharov's first general principle, the inevitability of deterrence, is based on his concern that any use of nuclear weapons would amount to "collective suicide." Indeed, he frequently emphasized that "a large nuclear war would be a calamity of indescribable proportions and absolutely unpredictable consequences, with the uncertainties tending toward the worst." The principle of deterrence is stated clearly in his open letter to me of February 2, 1983, entitled "The Danger of Thermonuclear War."1 In this letter, which he considered his most detailed public statement on the consequences of nuclear conflict, he asserts, "Nuclear weapons only make sense as a means of deterring nuclear aggression by a potential enemy, i.e., a nuclear war cannot be planned with the aim of winning it. Nuclear weapons cannot be viewed as a means of restraining aggression carried out by means of conventional weapons."
Sakharov pointed out that NATO's strategy during the cold war years contradicted the principle of deterrence. At that time, the Soviets were credited with possessing an overwhelming superiority in massed conventional forces in Europe, and NATO's doctrine called for early reliance on nuclear weapons to blunt an assault from the east by those forces. Today, with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact a grim memory of the past, the imbalance of conventional military strength has shifted in the opposite direction and raises new issues to which I will return shortly.
A second principle embraced by Sakharov is that of strategic parity, that a balance in both nuclear and conventional forces should be a precondition for making progress toward nuclear weapons reductions. Sakharov's commitment to the principle of parity goes all the way back to 1948, when he joined a research group developing thermonuclear weapons. As he wrote in his Memoirs2 in 1989, "I had no doubts as to the vital importance of creating a Soviet superweapon-for our country and for the balance of power throughout the world." There, and on a number of other occasions, Sakharov wrote of the importance of balancing the capitalist bomb with a socialist bomb. Later, Sakharov was led by his growing concern about the harmful effects of atmospheric nuclear testing and by his passionate opposition to Soviet abuses of human rights to become a courageous and outspoken dissident. Through it all, he continued to insist on the necessity of strategic parity for progress in controlling nuclear weapons and the arms race, and for eventually achieving the long-term goal of disarmament. Sakharov's position is well summarized in a letter he wrote to me in 1981 from Gorky3:
I consider disarmament necessary and possible only on the basis of strategic parity. Additional agreements covering all kinds of weapons of mass destruction are needed. After strategic parity in conventional arms has been achieved, a parity which takes account of all the political, psychological and geographical factors involved, and if totalitarian expansion is brought to an end, then agreements should be reached prohibiting the first use of nuclear weapons, and, later, banning such weapons.
Sakharov's third principle was the importance of diplomatic negotiations, to avoid a direct nuclear conflict, reduce the size of nuclear arsenals, and reduce the dangers associated with nuclear weapons. He stressed this theme repeatedly. For example, in his book My Country and The World4 he emphasized the importance of "disarmament talks, which offer a ray of hope in the dark world of suicidal nuclear madness." The strength of his commitment is nowhere more evident than in his statement during the first year of his exile to Gorky: "Despite all that has happened, I feel that the questions of war and peace and disarmament are so crucial that they must be given absolute priority even in the most difficult circumstances. It is imperative that all possible means be used to solve these questions and to lay the groundwork for further progress. Most urgent of all are steps to avert a nuclear war, which is the greatest peril confronting the modern world. The goals of all responsible people in the world coincide in this regard, including, I hope and believe, the Soviet leaders..."
Whereas Sakharov insisted on giving "absolute priority" to questions of peace and disarmament, he also emphasized the importance of fighting for human rights and freedom. Both campaigns must be fought with equal vigor, he insisted, just as one fights with both fists and walks with both legs. He himself did so with total disregard of the consequences to himself.
Sakharov's fourth principle, building trust, was cast in the context of the cold war confrontation between the West and the Soviet Union. In an interview with Time magazine that appeared in March 1987, he asserted that international security and real disarmament are impossible without greater trust, built on cooperation and openness between nations of the West and the Soviet Union. He also emphasized the critical importance of human rights and democracy, saying, "Without a resolution of political and humanitarian problems, progress in disarmament and international security will be extremely difficult, if not impossible."5
A changed world The post-cold war world is very different from the one that Sakharov was concerned with when he developed and applied the four basic principles of deterrence, parity, negotiations, and trust. No longer is the dominant concern the prospect of a nuclear holocaust, triggered by mistake, misunderstanding, or miscalculation in a confrontation between the two superpowers. Instead, there are growing concerns about terrorism in a world with one superpower and a growing number of emerging powers-some unstable, some poor, and many with access to advancing technologies of biological and chemical weapons of indiscriminate destruction. Notwithstanding these changes, I believe that the four basic principles of Sakharov remain just as cogent for addressing issues of war and peace in today's world as they were when he relied on them over a decade ago. In the words of a physicist, they are invariant over time. Let us now look at several contemporary issues to see how Sakharov's thinking applies today.
The 1975 Nobel Peace Prize, commemorated in this 1991 Swedish postage stamp, was awarded to Sakharov for his "fearless personal commitment to upholding the fundamental principles for peace between men."
Throughout the cold war, the mutual hostage relationship implied by the principle of deterrence was generally but reluctantly accepted by the nuclear powers and their allies. Accepting that there was ultimately no defense from nuclear attack involved considerable discomfort, because it ran counter to the fundamental human instinct to defend our families, ourselves, our friends, and our society. Serious efforts were made to escape the mutual hostage relation through new formulations of strategic policy or technological fixes. Nevertheless, it was broadly-if not unanimously-agreed that such a quest was futile: It was beyond scientific and technical reality to build an effective nationwide defense against a massive attack by one of the two superpowers, each possessing many thousands of nuclear weapons.
Sakharov fully recognized the futility of antimissile defense in the context of the cold war and argued strongly against deployment of an antiballistic missile (ABM) system. He repeatedly said that an effort to construct a protective shield against massive nuclear attack would be both illusory and provocative. In his Memoirs he summarizes a study he did with colleagues at "the Installation"-the secret city where he was a leader of Soviet nuclear weapons development-during 1965-67, just prior to his formal break with the Soviet government:
1. An effective ABM defense is not possible if the potential adversary can mobilize comparable technical and economic resources for military purposes. A way can always be found to neutralize an ABM defense system-and at considerably less expense than the cost of deploying it.
2. Over and above the burdensome cost, deployment of an ABM system is dangerous since it can upset the strategic balance. If both sides were to possess powerful ABM defenses, the main result would be to raise the threshold of strategic stability, or in somewhat simplified terms, increase the minimum number of nuclear weapons needed for mutual assured destruction.
Sakharov spoke out on the "practical impossibility of preventing a massive rocket attack" in his first public essay,6 in 1968: "The experience of past wars shows that the first use of a new technical or tactical method of attack is usually highly effective even if a simple antidote can soon be developed. But in a thermonuclear war the first blow may be the decisive one and render null and void years of work and billions spent on creation of an antimissile system." He also emphasized what he called "the instability introduced by such a system if started by one side." These two arguments were the basis of many of the writings on this subject in the West during the cold war, and I, with many other scientists, found them decisive. I heard him argue them persuasively in his Moscow apartment in March 1988 to five leaders from the US Senate, including the current Secretary of Defense, then Senator William Cohen, who had challenged him on this question.
Today, of course, the situation is very different and some of Sakharov's arguments against antimissile defenses are no longer compelling. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and Russia currently lacks the resources necessary to develop and deploy powerful nationwide ABM defenses. Fear of the danger of a massive nuclear attack on the US homeland has been replaced by concerns about very limited attacks. These concerns are spurred by the rapid development and proliferation of missile technology in many areas of the globe, together with emerging threats from nations seeking nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Whereas deterrence between advanced nuclear powers remains broadly accepted as unavoidable, the new problem is to find a way to protect against threats of very limited attacks by new members of the nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons club. Can't we do better against a very limited threat, both to deter or discourage attack, and to provide some defense? And can we accomplish this without simultaneously stimulating a new arms buildup, or foreclosing prospects for further reductions in existing arsenals of many thousands of nuclear warheads? This is a tall order, a terrific challenge.
My guess is that Sakharov today would support efforts to develop some protection against very limited threats, based on a realistic assessment of what technology can and cannot do. This would be consistent with his views back in 1967, as Elena Bonner pointed out in a letter to The New York Times on 27 October 1999. But before modifying the 1972 ABM Treaty, I think Sakharov would insist that there be an understanding between the US and Russia that honored all four of his principles. This means recognizing that mutual deterrence between the two countries remains inescapable so long as both nations possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. It means there should be no initiatives on either side to seek a military dominance that could disrupt stability in their current relationship, which now mixes cooperation with competition. It means that primary importance should remain with ongoing diplomatic efforts, rather than taking unilateral steps to abrogate the ABM Treaty. Unilateral action would almost certainly shatter the structure of the arms control dialogue in which the nations are now engaged, a dialogue that provides the political basis for the continuing efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals and to develop an effective nonproliferation regime. Finally, there is no substitute for cooperation and openness as a prerequisite for progress.
The two newest members of the nuclear club, India and Pakistan, probably view nuclear deterrence differently from the US and Russia in defining their security interests. However, there is one simple fact they cannot escape: As neighbors with a long common border, both would suffer an almost unimaginable disaster if either were to use nuclear weapons. In their search to avoid nuclear conflict and improve stability in their confrontational relationship, their diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts and maintain peace have become more important than ever.
Drell and Sakharov at the Lepton Photon Symposium at Stanford University in 1989
Efforts to limit and then reduce US and Russian nuclear weapons at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks were a centerpiece of diplomacy during the cold war, but have since ground to a halt. The talks looked promising at the time of Sakharov's death, when the reductions of the first round, START I, had just been negotiated, but a decade later we are still at START I levels. The further reductions of START II have not been achieved because of continuing reluctance on the part of the Russian Duma to ratify that treaty. The US has not been very helpful in this effort: Although it has been evident since the demise of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Russian economy that Russia is unable to sustain even the force levels and mix of START II, we have rigidly insisted that they must ratify that treaty before we will sit down and work out the still lower limits for START III. [Note added in proof: The lower house of the Duma finally ratified START II on 14 April 2000, with the condition that the US does not renounce or unilaterally violate restrictions of the ABM Treaty.] Sakharov would certainly be very pleased by one provision that is at the heart of START II, namely the deMIRVing of land-based missiles, that is, limiting them to one warhead per missile. He called for removing vulnerable silo-based missiles,1 as a threat to stability, as long ago as 1983. I have no doubt that Sakharov would be profoundly disappointed by the lack of progress in the START process, and would be urging renewed efforts to move the process forward.
Just as Sakharov castigated NATO for its policy of early first use of nuclear weapons against overwhelming Soviet nonnuclear forces during the confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, he surely would be saddened to find that, today, the policy has not disappeared but rather has been reversed. It is now Russia that has adopted a doctrine of early first use of nuclear weapons in critical situations against large-scale aggression involving conventional forces. This reflects Russia's lack of confidence in its own current conventional forces. Surely NATO is not about to invade Russia, but the situation will be more stable when strategic parity removes excuses, or a perceived need, for Russia to rely on nuclear first use for its homeland defense.
Building trust and cooperation Sakharov would surely support, and urge expanding, modern initiatives to build trust and cooperation between the US and Russia. I have no doubt that he would encourage and support US cooperation in helping Russia safeguard its nuclear weapons and material, as well as the ongoing US-Russian government-to-government discussions for sharing information to help provide early warning of a nuclear missile attack. This information sharing is a very good idea to pursue more broadly with all interested countries. Confidence in access to early warning information is a purely defensive measure that will enhance stability by reducing fear of a preemptive first strike.
There was a steady spread of nuclear weapons capability, at the rate of one new nuclear weapons state every five years, throughout the cold war. During the past decade, South Africa and the three newly independent states Belarus, Kazakstan, and Ukraine have abandoned their nuclear weapons capabilities, but concern remains about the future course of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. The Non-Proliferation and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaties provide the diplomatic framework for current efforts to cap further proliferation.
Sakharov would almost certainly also support the Chemical Weapons Convention that has now been brought into force with carefully crafted safeguard provisions, and the ongoing efforts to complete protocols for effective compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention. Nuclear proliferation was a major concern of Sakharov. I am confident that he would strongly endorse the 1995 extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for the indefinite future by 187 of the nations of the world, plus the effort to give it a more effective verification system. The extended treaty is a major success of negotiations, and shows the broadening of the principle of parity in a multilateral world through its offering of positive and negative security assurances by and for all signatories. The positive assurances are a guarantee by the nuclear weapons states of "nuclear umbrella" protection to nonnuclear weapons states, and the negative assurances are a pledge not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear weapons states. The NPT provisions for sharing the benefits of nuclear energy, while putting any activities capable of producing fuel for nuclear weapons under international inspection, constitute a critical step in the effort to increase cooperation and trust among nations.7
A commitment by the nuclear powers to cease all nuclear test explosions became an essential part of the NPT bargain in 1995, when worldwide support was obtained for the indefinite extension of that treaty at its fifth and final scheduled five-year review. Such a commitment to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) is written in the preambles to both the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and to the NPT of 1970.7
The issue of nuclear testing was one of longtime concern to Sakharov. In his lifetime, he spoke passionately and repeatedly against atmospheric nuclear testing because of the potential impact of its radioactive fallout on the health of people-particularly children-by means of accumulation through the food chain. The futility of his strong opposition to such atmospheric testing in the Soviet Union, following the USSR's abrogation of the moratorium in 1961, was a major factor in his disaffection with and public opposition to the Soviet government. However, Sakharov's support for a comprehensive test ban was muted in a January 1987 interview in the Literaturnaya Gazeta,8 where he said, "The problem of banning underground nuclear testing seems to be secondary compared to other problems of nuclear disarmament." We cannot know for sure whether or how strongly he would be supporting a CTBT today. However, in view of Sakharov's stated concerns about proliferation and the fact that a ban on testing has now become central to achieving widely shared nonproliferation goals, I think it likely that he would favor CTBT ratification today.
I regret the recent failure by the US to ratify the CTBT, and comments by Sakharov in the last interview before his death9 strongly suggest he would too:
I think that our country may run political risks for the sake of a very significant goal. It may declare a permanent halt of nuclear tests, which would only be resumed if there is a drastic change in the world's political situation. . . . We can be firmly convinced that our action will make it politically necessary for the Western countries to take reciprocal steps. And the consequences will be of tremendous character. . . . We can [make] all the systems function excepting . . . the last step of the nuclear blast, if we replace the nuclear fuel by any passive substance. . . . The nuclear explosion will occur inevitably if we replace the passive substance by plutonium and [highly enriched uranium]. This control is absolutely reliable. And we can accomplish it under conditions maximally approaching the combat ones. And we can be absolutely sure that in case of need, everything will operate trouble-free.
I fully share that technical judgment, and draw the further conclusion that the United States needs no additional explosive testing to maintain confidence in our deterrent. The necessary data-which is the coin of the realm-is being obtained from the comprehensive stockpile stewardship program now being pursued.10
In order for the CTBT to be ratified by the nuclear weapons states (as France and the United Kingdom already have done), these states will have to satisfy themselves that they can maintain their deterrent under such a ban. They will also need to be convinced that the treaty is effectively verifiable; that is, no significant new military threats to their security can be developed clandestinely or under the guise of stockpile stewardship. To achieve this level of confidence, treaty negotiators will inevitably have to extend the boundaries of cooperation and openness (or transparency) in their respective stewardship activities.11 The increased need for openness should present no genuine barriers to progress, given the advanced level of cooperation already developed during the past decade between the US and Russian nuclear weapons communities in their joint efforts for safer material protection and better control and accountability in Russia. It would also be consistent with Sakharov's fourth principle, increased trust.
A new approach is necessary At the dawn of the nuclear age 55 years ago Einstein warned: "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking; we thus drift toward an unparalleled catastrophe." I will close with Sakharov's updated version of that warning as expressed12 on his first visit to the US, in December 1988. In referring to his work on the hydrogen bomb in 1948, he noted:
I and the people who worked with me at the time were completely convinced that this work was essential, that it was vitally important. At that time our country had just come out of a very devastating war in which I personally had not had a chance to take direct part, but the work in which I became involved was also a kind of war. In the United States, independently, the same kind of work was being carried out. The American scientists in their work were guided by the same feelings of this work being vital for the interests of the country. But, while both sides felt that this kind of work was vital to maintain balance, I think that what we were doing at that time was a great tragedy. It was a tragedy that reflected the tragic state of the world that made it necessary, in order to maintain peace, to do such terrible things. We will never know whether it was really true that our work contributed at some period of time toward maintaining peace in the world, but at least at the time we were doing it, we were convinced this was the case. The world has now entered a new era, and I am convinced that a new approach has now become necessary.
That is Andrei Sakharov's challenge to us as we enter the 21st century.
References 1. A. Sakharov, Foreign Affairs 61, 1001 (1983). 2. A. Sakharov, Memoirs, Knopf, New York (1990). 3. A. Sakharov, letter dated January 10, 1981. In the samizdat journal A Chronicle of Current Events 61, 219, Amnesty International, London. 4. A. Sakharov, My Country and The World, Knopf, New York (1975). 5. Time magazine, March 16, 1987, p. 40. 6. A. Sakharov, Progress, Peaceful Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom, 2nd ed., Norton, New York (1970). First appeared in English in The New York Times, July 22, 1968. 7. See Arms Control and Disarmament Agreements: Texts and Histories of Negotiations, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Washington, DC (1980). 8. Quoted by Yu. B. Khariton in Andrei Sakharov: Facets of a Life, Editions Frontieres, France (1991), p. 413. 9. In Voter, newspaper of the popular anti-nuclear movement "Nevada-Semipalatinsk," no. 8 (1990). I thank F. Von Hippel for this reference. 10. For further technical discussion, see S. Drell, R. Jeanloz, B. Peurifoy, Science 283, 1119 (1999); S. D. Drell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S460 (1999). 11. Cf. S. D. Drell, Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on stockpile stewardship and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, October 7, 1999. 12. A. Sakharov, Remarks at a jubilee honoring Edward Teller, Washington, DC, November 1988.
Sidney D. Drell is a professor and deputy director emeritus at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. This article is adapted from a talk presented on 10 December 1999 at a symposium at Stanford University reviewing Sakharov's legacy on the tenth anniversary of his death.
----
When Clinton faces Putin
Washington Times
May 10, 2000
Donald Devine
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-200051016720.htm
as Russian President and preparing to bargain with slick Bill Clinton on June 4, hold your wallets. The Coalition to Protect Americans Now is right to fear Mr. Clinton's obsession with weapons agreements and that Mr. Putin could exploit this liberal mania. But the greater danger is that America's whole future foreign policy will be built upon this fuzzy wishful thinking and tie the hands of any future president.
While they may be split on the merits of a missile defense, most of the foreign policy elite fervently believe Russia is the major threat. That is why President Clinton is so anxious for a weapons agreement with Russia. "National greatness" conservatism is even more frantic. As Robert Kagan put it: "Even the optimists don't deny that the election of Vladimir Putin could be an ominous development." His other danger areas are Iraq, the Balkans, China-Taiwan, weapons proliferation in India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, and instability in Haiti and Colombia. The answer to all of these for both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kagan is for the United States to talk and act tough with these adversaries, especially decrying their lack of democracy and their denial of human rights.
Mr. Kagan favors the Clinton administration's "indefinite" deployment in Bosnia and Kosovo. That is why he supported John McCain and recently warned Gov. George W. Bush he would be smart "if he stopped talking about pulling U.S. troops out of the Balkans and elsewhere," and why he complained that the Republican Congress has been "singing that [same] neo-isolationist tone for years." Although Mr. Kagan says President Clinton has not been aggressive enough, he accepts his priorities, correctly sees that these differ from the GOP's, and demands a national debate. One is to be welcomed since traditional conservative principles suggest these are the wrong priorities and that pursuing them endangers true American interests.
The Republicans were right to oppose getting mired in Bosnia and Kosovo, and Mr. Bush is correct that we should get out. From George Washington on, getting entangled in Europe's local squabbles has not been in America's interest. There were no U.S. interests in Haiti either, and Colombia and Iraq were secondary at best. Traditional conservatism has one touchstone: defending America's just interests. The Clinton-national greatness priorities are set ideologically - the Woodrow Wilson dream that the world must be made safe for democracy by an active policeman role played by the United States. In fact, it was not brutality in Russia but misguided Wilsonianism that led to Mr. Putin. Within 11 days of expanding NATO to Russia's borders, America led its troops into its first war against a nation that did not threaten it or its allies - indeed, against a traditional Russian ally, Serbia. Kosovo humiliated Russia and created a consensus for a strong leader like Mr. Putin to do what was necessary to restore Russia's standing in the world.
The real threats to American interests are not how well democracy spreads around the world but Islamic fundamentalism and, potentially, China. In fact, realistic analysis suggests the more democracy there is in an Islamic nation, the more it opposes the U.S. and its allies like Israel. Likewise, it is not nuclear "proliferation" that is the problem but possession by unstable regimes like North Korea or fundamentalist ones like Iran and Afghanistan, or even, someday, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.
How can this possible threat be contained without Russia and India? It is insane to tongue-lash these essentially inward-looking nations, which do have some interest in protecting their borders from madmen.
This is not anti-Islam. The Islamic Supreme Council of America organized a recent conference where the prime concern of the attending Muslims from around the world was the danger from Islamic fundamentalism.
While it can be avoided, China does has the potential to threaten world peace. But the present U.S. alliance system relying upon Japan and Taiwan is inadequate. Neither, nor the two together, are strong enough to balance an aggressive China, even allied with U.S. forces. In a Sino-American war, the two are likely to stay neutral if China allows them to. Only Russia and India are located strategically and are big enough to balance China. What was the reaction of national greatness' John McCain when President Clinton recently wooed India? He said the trip was too "extensive," an excuse for "photo ops." Mr. Clinton was right to go and should do more.
None of this means giving Russia all it wants. It is in our interest (and, incidently, theirs) to confront them on missile defense. Both need a way to protect against missiles from rouge nations. Russian agreement is possible if friendship with them becomes a top priority. In fact, we need them for both of our true major concerns. Europe is too supine to be reliable. Who thinks it would fight with us for Taiwan? Under the right conditions, Russia might.
Gov. Bush and the GOP are on the right course pushing American interests and should relish the debate.
Donald Devine, former director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is a columnist and a Washington-based policy consultant.
---
A Case Shows Russia's Quandary in Preventing Leaks of Arms Lore
New York Times
May 10, 2000
By PATRICK E. TYLER
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/051000russia-missile.html
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, May 4 -- One of Russia's leading missile scientists, Yuri P. Savelyev, was always more than willing to teach advanced rocket-building to Iranian engineers, who are said to be working on missiles that could reach most Middle Eastern capitals, and even Alaska.
When Russian government officials tried to stop him four years ago because Russia had signed an international agreement to control the spread of ballistic missile technology, Mr. Savelyev persisted.
As the rector of the famous Baltic State Technical University, he developed a program to teach students from a leading Iranian university courses in advanced physics, metallurgy and the behavior of gases and fluids under high pressure and temperature -- all disciplines essential to building rockets.
That was done, he said, with the full knowledge of the Russian Defense Ministry and the national intelligence agency, known as the Federal Security Service, of which Mr. Savelyev's deputy is a member.
Then last February, after complaints from the Clinton administration, Mr. Savelyev was ordered to shut down the program. He was summoned to Moscow by the Ministry of Education, where he was reprimanded and threatened with dismissal for concealing the educational program that was under way both here and in Iran.
"I really have big problems," he said, seated near a display cabinet where he keeps a portrait of Iran's late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. "I now have as my antagonists the Russian government and the American government and I think one way or the other, they will find a way to fire me from the post of rector."
As concerns mount in the United States and Israel that Iran's secretive missile and nuclear weapons programs could pose new threats in the region, the case of Mr. Savelyev illustrates the behind-the-scenes cooperation between the Russian and American governments to stem the flow of missile technologies to Iran. But at the same time, it also reveals the deep-seated resistance within the Russian military and security establishment against abandoning Russia's "strategic" role in cultivating clients and lucrative contracts for transferring military science and technology.
"I would tell you honestly that I wanted to work with them," Mr. Savelyev said of his Iranian contacts, "and I would be teaching Iranians rocket technology today if I could because otherwise I would have my professors going to the market to sell fruits and vegetables to earn a living."
In a lengthy interview, Mr. Savelyev defended his activities, saying he was unfairly disciplined because of his hard-line nationalistic views and because he has become a vocal critic of President Vladimir V. Putin's cooperation with the United States on arms control initiatives. Mr. Savelyev contends that such cooperation will weaken Russia's own rocket forces and will alienate Iran.
"I believe there is nothing more important than having Iran as our ally," he said, "because if we fell into a state of animosity with Iran, the whole of Central Asia could be lost to the influence of the Islamic world." He also argues that if Russia does not help Iran build medium range ballistic missiles, "North Korea and China are ready to offer Iran help with new rocket programs."
Last month in Washington, the State Department spokesman, James P. Rubin, singled out Mr. Savelyev as a threat to United States security interests.
In announcing that the United States was lifting sanctions on several Russian organizations suspected of providing assistance to Iran's ballistic missile program, including Baltic State, Mr. Rubin said a ban on all contact or educational exchanges with Mr. Savelyev "personally" would remain in force.
"The rector is believed to have violated Russian export controls and attempted to export goods or services that could contribute to missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Rubin said.
Mr. Savelyev denied that characterization, saying he never transferred more than a good education in basic science. "Can Newton's law of gravity be taught to Iranian students?" he asked with a defiant tone. "Because if you don't know the laws of gravity, you cannot build rockets."
Today, Mr. Savelyev, 62, is still rector at Baltic State, one of Russia's most prestigious scientific centers. "I have been a rocket builder all my life," he said, "and many of the leading Russian rocket builders have graduated from this university," whose laboratories were shrouded in secrecy until 1991 and, even today, remain off limits to foreigners.
One of the most famous graduates of Baltic State was the late Vladimir F. Utkin, who designed Russia's most fearsome land-based strategic rocket, the SS-18 "Satan," whose payload of 10 independently targetable warheads spawned fears in the West that Moscow would mount a pre-emptive nuclear strike to wipe out American missile fields and then try to force an American surrender or ride out a nuclear war.
Mr. Savelyev's relationship with Iran began in mid-1996, when he received a telephone call from an Iranian diplomat in Moscow to discuss an educational proposal. "I can say that at that time, they were more concerned with preparing specialists in rocket construction" than any general education, he said.
Days later Mr. Savelyev greeted an Iranian delegation here that included two rocket experts from Iran's Ministry of Defense, as well as an Iranian intelligence officer.
The meeting resulted in a handwritten agreement to train Iranian scientists in rocketry, but when Mr. Savelyev forwarded the document to the Education Ministry in Moscow, the program was rejected because only a year before Russia had signed the Missile Technology Control Regime, an agreement by more than two dozen nations to control the spread of missile technology.
"Nevertheless, the Iranians still wanted to have their students study here," he said. And by the fall of 1996, Mr. Savelyev said, "we welcomed 26 Iranian students" to study for undergraduate degrees in mechanical engineering and general science courses.
In early 1997, Israeli officials warned the Clinton administration that a number of Russian organizations were assisting Iran's missile program and American intelligence agencies confirmed that as many as 20 such firms and institutes, including Baltic State, were involved.
Mr. Savelyev denies the charge, but adds that he believes that the original handwritten agreement he signed with Iran in 1996, though never carried out, fell into the hands of Western intelligence.
Shortly after the initial group of Iranian students graduated from Baltic State in April 1998, new concerns arose in the United States. A special panel headed by a former defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, estimated that Iran's missile program had made significant strides and might be able to develop an ICBM capable of reaching the United States.
Then, in late July of that year, Iran created a sensation in the Middle East by test-firing a medium range ballistic missile prototype, the Shahab-3, that can carry a 1,500 pound warhead 800 miles.
Russia, under pressure from the United States, announced that it was investigating Baltic State and eight other organizations for exporting technologies that could have military uses. Throughout the spring of 1998, Mr. Savelyev said, Baltic State's undergraduate program for Iranian students was thoroughly investigated by a commission that included representatives of the Ministries of Defense and Education and the general staff of the armed forces, military prosecutors and the Federal Security Service.
"They reached the conclusion that Baltic State was not teaching anything related to rocket construction," Mr. Savelyev said. But he was told that if he wanted to continue teaching Iranian students he would have to draw up a detailed course list and submit it to Moscow for approval.
That summer, he and his staff drew up a course list of 111 specialized subjects that Baltic State wanted to offer to foreign students as a means to earn income for the university. Each course outline ran more than 40 pages, and the government commission spent nine months reviewing it before approving all but 12 subjects that could have military applications, Mr. Savelyev said. Among the rejected courses were the study of "fuse technology," the design of "antitank rockets" and "ignition and explosives."
Armed with this approval, Mr. Savelyev sent out advertisements to universities in Iran, China, Syria, India and Vietnam offering to train graduate students in advanced sciences of metallurgy, gas and fluid dynamics in conditions of high-temperature and pressure and other disciplines that could be considered the basics of rocket science.
Three Iranian universities responded, but Mr. Savelyev said two of them were on a secret list of 305 organizations in Iran with which Russian universities are forbidden to have contact. "The government sent this list to our university, but I had the feeling that this list was prepared by the C.I.A.," he said.
What was not on the list was K. N. Toosi University of Technology in Tehran, Iran, whose dean, S. N. Mousavi, was anxious to have his graduate students in mechanical engineering study under Russian professors.
Without informing the Russian government, Mr. Savelyev flew to Tehran in September 1999 and signed an agreement with Mr. Mousavi to begin training the first 17 Iranian students immediately. Throughout last fall and up until February of this year, about two dozen Russian professors shuttled to Iran to teach courses in three-week segments, for which they were paid $1,000 each trip.
But a month into the program, the United States again intervened.
In an October 1999 letter from Vice President Al Gore to Mr. Putin, who was then the prime minister, the Clinton administration complained that Russia was failing to take action against Russian institutions that were still assisting Iran's missile program. Mr. Savelyev said the letter was read to him by a member of Mr. Putin's staff.
On Dec. 20, Russia's Federal Service for Currency and Export Control opened an investigation that concluded two months later that Baltic State was indeed transferring expertise that could be useful to Iran's missile program and, therefore, was acting contrary to Russian national interests.
The deputy director of the export control agency, Sergei F. Yakimov, issued an order to Baltic State on Feb. 11 to shut down the program. Now, three months later, the professors who worked on the Iran program are back teaching Russians.
Last month, Russia's education minister, Vladimir M. Filippov, publicly rebuked Mr. Savelyev, saying he "was given a severe reprimand and a warning" for violating a "whole series" of secret orders from the ministry pertaining to educational services to Iran.
But even as Mr. Savelyev was being disciplined, Russia's Ministry of Defense was defending the program for Iranian students. A top Russian defense official argued that the investigation of Mr. Savelyev did "not contain evidence of violation of Russian legislation on military-technical cooperation and export control."
First Deputy Minister of Defense Nikolai V. Mikhailov stated, in a letter to the export control ministry, "The Ministry of Defense does not see danger to the security of the Russian Federation in education of foreign citizens including the citizens of Iran."
The university's program of courses for Iranian students was carefully screened by the Ministry of Defense and other experts, he said, and added, "On the whole, the higher education of foreign citizens in Russian language and Russian technical standards is extremely useful for Russia in strategic terms."
-------- spying
Sharp Eye in the Sky Lets Nations Spy--for a Price
Taiwan Appears to Monitor China's Military by Satellite
Washington Post
Wednesday, May 10, 2000; Page A03
By Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/2000-05/10/100l-051000-idx.html
As he browsed Space Imaging Inc.'s Web site hoping to find satellite photographs of Chinese military installations, John Pike realized he wasn't the only one with such esoteric tastes. There, in the firm's archive, were multiple views of China's Datong nuclear bomber base.
To Pike, an intelligence and space policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, this clearly suggested that the government of Taiwan, lacking reconnaissance satellites of its own, had been buying photos of mainland China from Space Imaging's new Ikonos satellite.
Space Imaging, a $700 million joint venture led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co., launched Ikonos last September to provide paying customers with something once enjoyed only by U.S. and Russian intelligence agencies--the ability to spy from space.
"I've been of the opinion that Ikonos is going to be of considerable interest to military intelligence agencies around the world--and this is an example of that," said Pike. "Someone has invested a lot of money in Ikonos imagery of Chinese military facilities--I'm talking a lot of money, as in hundreds of thousands of dollars."
Space Imaging won't reveal the names of its customers or how much they spend. But Taiwan's de facto embassy in Washington, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative's Office, didn't deny Pike's hypothesis.
Taiwan's military "has been using satellite imagery technology for over a decade," the representative's office said in a statement. "It continues to be a routine part of our ongoing analytical efforts. News of deployments on the Chinese mainland has not produced on our part special demands for, or procurement of, satellite images."
Ikonos's electro-optical camera is able to photograph objects as small as one meter in diameter from a vantage point 423 miles in space--not as good as the approximately 10-centimeter resolution of supersecret U.S. government satellites, but more than twice as good as commercially available Russian, French and Indian imagery.
Without revealing who commissioned them, the company places all photos produced by Ikonos in an archive and makes them available for others to purchase. Commissioning the satellite to take specific pictures costs far more than buying imagery from the archive.
Pike is among the first nongovernment analysts to use satellite imagery as a tool in the global debate over nuclear nonproliferation through a Federation of American Scientists' initiative called Public Eye, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Indeed, Pike is scheduled to announce his assessment on Friday, based on satellite imagery analysis, of China's potential for launching an air assault against Taiwan--an assessment that could not realistically have been attempted by those outside the U.S. intelligence community before satellite imagery of the world was for sale.
In January, Pike paid for and made public an Ikonos image of North Korea's primary missile test site, concluding that the infrastructure was far less sophisticated than many nonproliferation experts thought.
In March, Pike released Ikonos photos of Pakistan's nuclear and missile facilities, concluding that the infrastructure was actually larger and more developed than anticipated.
But those two Public Eye projects pale in comparison to Pike's China initiative. Using declassified U.S. spy satellite imagery shot in the late 1960s, commercially available Russian imagery and the latest Ikonos photography, Pike is attempting to calculate the runway, maintenance and aircraft parking capacities of dozens of Chinese air bases along the Taiwan Strait.
"In the past, on an unclassified basis, these airfields were just dots on a map," said Pike. "And not all runways are created equal. It's entirely possible, having looked at all these airfields, that China could get a lot of airplanes up quickly."
The virtue of using declassified U.S. imagery from the 1960s spy satellite program known as Corona, Pike said, is that it's free to those who know how to find what they're looking for at the National Archives in thousands of canisters containing film originally dropped from space in tiny capsules with parachutes. The Russian imagery, marketed in the United States by Microsoft Corp.'s Terraserver Web site, is relatively inexpensive.
But the resolution of the declassified Corona and Russian imagery is two meters. Space Imaging's Ikonos imagery, commercially available since January, is twice as good--but far more expensive.
Pike said he spent $7,000 from foundation grants for Public Eye on two images of Pakistan's nuclear and missile facilities in March. When he started working on his China project shortly thereafter, he began browsing Space Imaging's Web site and found, to his delight, vast quantities of imagery of China along the Taiwan Strait.
Space Imaging's chief executive officer, John Copple, said the presence of that imagery in the firm's archive does not necessarily mean a paying customer commissioned it. Space Imaging, Copple said, is collecting some imagery on its own and making it available. Pike "doesn't know whether there's an order behind [the imagery of China] or not," Copple said.
Pike conceded Copple's point but wondered why Space Imaging would make available, on mere speculation, three separate images of the Datong nuclear bomber base and four images of China's Lanzhou plutonium plant, all of which were taken just weeks apart.
"It looks to me like it's the government of Taiwan," Pike said, "to monitor the status of deployments at airfields, develop target folders and do all the things people do with military intelligence."
---
Satellite offers spy photos for sale
Ikonos provides any paying customer detailed space images
MSNBC
05/10/00
By Vernon Loeb THE WASHINGTON POST
http://www.msnbc.com/news/405563.asp?cp1=1
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37345-2000May9.html
May 10 - As he browsed Space Imaging Inc.'s Web site hoping to find satellite photographs of Chinese military installations, John Pike realized he wasn't the only one with such esoteric tastes. There, in the firm's archive, were multiple views of China's Datong nuclear bomber base.
'Someone has invested a lot of money in Ikonos imagery of Chinese military facilities - I'm talking a lot of money, as in hundreds of thousands of dollars.' - JOHN PIKE Federation of American Scientists
TO PIKE, an intelligence and space policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, this clearly suggested that the government of Taiwan, lacking reconnaissance satellites of its own, had been buying photos of mainland China from Space Imaging's new Ikonos satellite.
Space Imaging, a $700 million joint venture led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co., launched Ikonos last September to provide paying customers with something once enjoyed only by U.S. and Russian intelligence agencies - the ability to spy from space.
"I've been of the opinion that Ikonos is going to be of considerable interest to military intelligence agencies around the world - and this is an example of that," said Pike. "Someone has invested a lot of money in Ikonos imagery of Chinese military facilities - I'm talking a lot of money, as in hundreds of thousands of dollars."
PHOTOS FOR SALE
Space Imaging won't reveal the names of its customers or how much they spend. But Taiwan's de facto embassy in Washington, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative's Office, didn't deny Pike's hypothesis.
Taiwan's military "has been using satellite imagery technology for over a decade," the representative's office said in a statement. "It continues to be a routine part of our ongoing analytical efforts. News of deployments on the Chinese mainland has not produced on our part special demands for, or procurement of, satellite images."
Ikonos's electro-optical camera is able to photograph objects as small as one meter in diameter from a vantage point 423 miles in space - not as good as the approximately 10-centimeter resolution of supersecret U.S. government satellites, but more than twice as good as commercially available Russian, French and Indian imagery.
Without revealing who commissioned them, the company places all photos produced by Ikonos in an archive and makes them available for others to purchase. Commissioning the satellite to take specific pictures costs far more than buying imagery from the archive.
FACTOR IN NUCLEAR DEBATE
Pike is among the first nongovernment analysts to use satellite imagery as a tool in the global debate over nuclear nonproliferation through a Federation of American Scientists' initiative called Public Eye, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Indeed, Pike is scheduled to announce his assessment on Friday, based on satellite imagery analysis, of China's potential for launching an air assault against Taiwan - an assessment that could not realistically have been attempted by those outside the U.S. intelligence community before satellite imagery of the world was for sale.
In January, Pike paid for and made public an Ikonos image of North Korea's primary missile test site, concluding that the infrastructure was far less sophisticated than many nonproliferation experts thought.
In March, Pike released Ikonos photos of Pakistan's nuclear and missile facilities, concluding that the infrastructure was actually larger and more developed than anticipated.
But those two Public Eye projects pale in comparison to Pike's China initiative. Using declassified U.S. spy satellite imagery shot in the late 1960s, commercially available Russian imagery and the latest Ikonos photography, Pike is attempting to calculate the runway, maintenance and aircraft parking capacities of dozens of Chinese air bases along the Taiwan Strait.
"In the past, on an unclassified basis, these airfields were just dots on a map," said Pike. "And not all runways are created equal. It's entirely possible, having looked at all these airfields, that China could get a lot of airplanes up quickly."
QUALITY - AT A STEEP PRICE
The virtue of using declassified U.S. imagery from the 1960s spy satellite program known as Corona, Pike said, is that it's free to those who know how to find what they're looking for at the National Archives in thousands of canisters containing film originally dropped from space in tiny capsules with parachutes. The Russian imagery, marketed in the United States by Microsoft Corp.'s Terraserver Web site, is relatively inexpensive.
But the resolution of the declassified Corona and Russian imagery is two meters. Space Imaging's Ikonos imagery, commercially available since January, is twice as good - but far more expensive.
Pike said he spent $7,000 from foundation grants for Public Eye on two images of Pakistan's nuclear and missile facilities in March. When he started working on his China project shortly thereafter, he began browsing Space Imaging's Web site and found, to his delight, vast quantities of imagery of China along the Taiwan Strait.
Space Imaging's chief executive officer, John Copple, said the presence of that imagery in the firm's archive does not necessarily mean a paying customer commissioned it. Space Imaging, Copple said, is collecting some imagery on its own and making it available. Pike "doesn't know whether there's an order behind [the imagery of China] or not," Copple said.
Pike conceded Copple's point but wondered why Space Imaging would make available, on mere speculation, three separate images of the Datong nuclear bomber base and four images of China's Lanzhou plutonium plant, all of which were taken just weeks apart.
"It looks to me like it's the government of Taiwan," Pike said, "to monitor the status of deployments at airfields, develop target folders and do all the things people do with military intelligence."
---
To Secure C.I.A. Files
May 10, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l10cia.html
To the Editor:
Although the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation to determine if John M. Deutch, the former C.I.A. director, mishandled classified material by placing it on unsecured computers in his home may be in the right direction, those agencies may be missing some aspects of security (front page, May 6).
For example, the same energies that are being used in the investigation should also be used in evaluating the C.I.A. security systems. A prudent security system would never allow the storage of classified material to be retained in someone's home either as hard copy, computer files or on a removable disk. From my past experience working for a government contractor, I know that our government would never allow a contractor doing classified work to do what Mr. Deutch did: retain classified information in one's home. Why are there different standards?
IRWIN MORTMAN Cincinnati, May 6, 2000
---
John Deutch and the Law
New York Times
May 10, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/editorial/051000wed2.html
If the director of central intelligence transfers highly classified materials to insecure computers at his home, he may well be violating the law, and his conduct requires an immediate and full investigation. But when faced with just such actions by John Deutch in late 1996, the C.I.A. and the Justice Department badly fumbled the case. They are now scrambling to make amends, with Justice belatedly initiating a criminal investigation. But the affair once again demonstrates that the agency cannot adequately investigate itself and that Attorney General Janet Reno has consistently failed to enforce the law against top Clinton administration officials.
Mr. Deutch was a demanding and effective leader of the C.I.A. who did much in his short tenure to address the agency's past abuses and reform its practices. But enlightened leadership does not provide immunity from the law, and Mr. Deutch's carelessness cried out for a rigorous investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the direction of a seasoned prosecutor.
Instead, it received cursory examination by the C.I.A. and no investigation by the F.B.I. Historically, the C.I.A. has put more energy into covering up mistakes and misconduct than investigating them. Ironically, Mr. Deutch worked hard to change that culture. But when his own behavior became an issue in December 1996 as he was preparing to return to private life, some of the very aides he had recruited to help reform the C.I.A. may have tried to protect him. Nora Slatkin, who served as executive director, and Michael O'Neil, who was the agency's general counsel, failed to insist on a thorough investigation and may have tried to impede examination of the case. Both deny doing so, but their conduct was sharply criticized by the agency's inspector general and a White House intelligence board.
The C.I.A. security staff, which never bothered to interview Mr. Deutch, wrote an anemic report in 1997. By the time the agency got around to notifying the Justice Department, the one-year time limit for appointing an independent counsel had expired. In April 1999 Ms. Reno inexplicably decided not to pursue the matter, without ordering an F.B.I. investigation. George Tenet, Mr. Deutch's deputy and successor, removed his security clearances in 1999.
It seems clear that Mr. Deutch received special treatment because he was a top official, and that Ms. Reno gave him the benefit of the doubt, just as she has done for others in the administration. For an experienced prosecutor, she has an uncanny instinct for ignoring or misreading the evidence and the law when top officials are credibly accused of misconduct. Before the books are closed on this case, the actions of Mr. Deutch and his former colleagues must be carefully examined. If the evidence warrants prosecution, the high positions they held should be no barrier.
---
Defendant in Trial of Iranian Jews Denies Spying for Israel
New York Times
May 10, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/10iran-trial.html
SHIRAZ, Iran -- A teacher of religion denied spying for Israel on Wednesday, the first defendant among 13 Jews on trial for espionage here to reject the charges in court.
But the teacher's elder brother, another of the 13, confessed to the charges Wednesday, a lawyer said. He became the sixth defendant to plead guilty in a trial that has unnerved the country's Jewish minority.
The trial has generated concern in the West, where U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has warned the outcome could have international repercussions. Defense lawyers question the fairness of the no-jury revolutionary court, where the judge is also the prosecutor.
On Wednesday, Nasser Levihaim and religion teachers Faramarz and Farzad Kashi were the only defendants in court.
"Faramarz Kashi accepted all of the charges of spying for Israel," lawyer Esmail Naseri, a spokesman for the defense team, told reporters in the southern city of Shiraz, where the trial is being held. "But his younger brother, Farzad, denied all the charges, and his lawyer called for his release."
Levihaim confessed to espionage charges at a previous hearing, and his lawyers presented their final arguments Wednesday.
At the end of the session, court was adjourned until Monday. Provincial judiciary chief Hossein Ali Amiri said the trial likely would convene only three more times.
Kashi's court confession was the latest in a series of guilty pleas.
Iranian television has broadcast confessions of two of the accused -- Dani Tefilin, a shoe salesman, and Shahrokh Paknahad, a religion teacher -- since the trial began a month ago. They said separately they were trained and paid by Israel to gather secrets in Iran. Three other defendants have confessed before journalists or inside the court.
Israel has denied that any of the defendants were its spies.
The 25,000 Jews in Iran -- the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside Israel -- have faced some government restrictions since the 1979 Islamic revolution, but they have been free to practice their religion and they face little overt discrimination.
Before the revolution, some 80,000 Jews lived in Iran, holding positions of power and influence as businessmen, lawyers and senior civil servants. But since the arrests of the 13 began over a year ago, Iranian Jews have lived in fear of being branded traitors in a land they have lived in for more than 2,000 years.
Naseri, a Muslim, said judiciary officials were trying to convince the nation and the world of the defendants' guilt with the broadcast confessions, without understanding the impact the broadcasts would have on Jews and their place in society. He has said some Jews have even stopped going to work for fear of finger-pointing.
Most worshippers at the Rabizadeh synagogue in the heart of the Jewish quarter in Shiraz were reluctant to speak to reporters Wednesday. One young worshipper, who did not want to give his name, said the case has been "a big blow to the Jewish community."
"I think anyone who looks at us Jews now sees us as spies. ... As a small minority, we are terrified," he said.
"This trial will certainly encourage some Iranian Jews to emigrate," he said. "You don't even see Jews wearing their skullcaps in the streets of Shiraz anymore because they don't want to stand out."
---
Jewish teacher denies spying for Israel
USA Today
05/10/00- Updated 05:01 PM ET
SHIRAZ, Iran - A Jewish religion teacher denied spying for Israel Wednesday, the first defendant in the espionage trial of 13 Iranian Jews to reject the charges in court. Farzad Kashi ''denied all the charges, and his lawyer called for his release,'' said a spokesman for the defense team. Kashi's brother, Faramarz, admitted to spying for the Jewish state in the closed-door trial Wednesday, becoming the sixth defendant to confess. Six defendants have yet to appear in court.
-------- ukraine
Chernobyl's effects linger on
May 10, 2000
EnviroNews Service - newsdesk@envirolink.org
http://www.envirolink.org/environews/
Levels of radioactivity from the Chernobyl explosion in 1986 remain unexpectedly high in some parts of northern Europe, researchers have found. They say restrictions on some foods in both the United Kingdom and the former Soviet Union will have to remain in place for up to 50 years. (BBC)
----
Chernobyl Legacy Still Lingering - Scientists
May 10, 2000
Reuters
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000510/sc/health_chernobyl_1.html
LONDON - The legacy of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster is lingering with unexpectedly high levels of radioactivity which will last for 50 more years -- 100 times longer than expected, scientists warned Wednesday.
They have shown that radioactive cesium from the fallout of the 1986 accident can remain in the environment much longer than scientists had previously anticipated.
``By looking at the levels of radioactivity of fish in lakes in Cumbria (northern England) and Norway, we have found that levels of one particular element, radioactive cesium, are still unexpectedly high,'' Dr Jim Smith, of the Center for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorchester, southwestern England, said in a statement.
Smith and his colleagues on the international research project, whose work is reported in the science journal Nature, said restrictions on foodstuffs in Britain and in the former Soviet Union may need to be retained for a further 10-15 years.
``During the first five years after Chernobyl, concentration of radioactive cesium in most foodstuffs and water decreased by a factor of 10, but in the last few years they have changed very little. The environment is not cleaning itself of the pollution at a rate we previously thought,'' he explained.
The researchers measured concentrations of the radioactive element in vegetation, lakes and species of fish. They emphasized that the risk to consumers is small but said precautions must still be taken.
In Britain, 389 farms have restrictions on the sale and slaughter of sheep which the researchers say will have to continue for a total of 30 years after the accident.
``In some areas of the former Soviet Union, consumption of forest berries, fungi and fish, which contribute significantly to people's radiation exposure, will need to be restricted for at least a further 50 years,'' Smith said.
The disaster at Chernobyl in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine killed 31 people and sent a radioactive cloud across parts of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Western Europe.
Last month Ukraine said some 3.5 million people, over a third of them children, had suffered illness as a result of the contamination and the incidence of some cancers was 10 times the national average.
-------- us military
Pilot's Rapid Descent Cited in Osprey Crash Fatal to 19
New York Times
May 10, 2000
By MATTHEW L. WALD
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/osprey-crash.html
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- A V-22 Osprey crashed on a training mission in Arizona last month because the pilot was bringing the aircraft down for a landing so fast that its helicopter rotors encountered the turbulence they created beneath themselves, and one of the two rotors lost lift as a result, the Marine Corps said today.
Discussing the finding at a news conference, Lt.
Gen. Fred McCorkle, assistant chief of staff for Marine aviation, said investigators "have found no mechanical or software failures" that might have caused the crash, which killed all 19 people aboard the Osprey, a tilt-rotor craft that takes off and lands like a helicopter but cruises like a fixed-wing plane.
Although he said an analysis of the crash showed that the Osprey had been descending too quickly, General McCorkle declined to attribute it to pilot error, noting that the investigation was still under way.
The crash occurred little more than four weeks ago, far less than the months it typically takes the Defense Department to make information about crash inquiries public. But in the case of the Osprey, which has been in development for 20 years, the Pentagon is eager to resume flights in order to prepare for full-scale production of the craft this fall. General McCorkle said the Marines were "rock solid" on plans to resume Osprey flights soon, probably on Wednesday.
Although the $44-million-apiece Osprey has a long and troubled history, Pentagon officials defended it emphatically today. They said the crash was not related to the aircraft's hybrid nature and could have happened to any helicopter.
The crash was the third for the Osprey.
The first, in June 1991, injured two people and was traced to incorrect wiring. The second, a year later, killed all seven aboard and was caused by an engine fire that in turn resulted from a leak of gear-box oil.
The most recent crash, on April 7 at a small airport in Marana, Ariz., near Tucson, occurred on a mission in which marines were training for evacuations.
The Osprey's builders -- Boeing, Bell Textron and Allison Engine -- have described it as particularly well suited to evacuation missions, since it has a range that is characteristic of a fixed-wing plane but does not need a runway. It can carry 18 to 24 troops.
The craft that crashed was the second of a pair of Ospreys that were to land at Marana, and investigators are still looking at an alternative to their belief that the accident was caused by a descent that was too rapid. This other possibility is that turbulence from the first Osprey interfered with the second.
As a result of the crash, the Marines have ordered that for the time being, Ospreys stay at least 200 feet from each other horizontally and that one not descend within 50 feet in front of another.
But General McCorkle said the investigators thought that the pilot had simply been flying the craft "outside the flight envelope." The Osprey was descending at a rate of more than 1,000 feet a minute, and is not supposed to exceed 800 feet a minute when the forward speed is less than 40 knots.
According to the investigators, the Osprey that crashed was moving forward at a speed of less than 40 knots in the five-second period before the crash. (At higher forward speeds, a helicopter can avoid the downdraft created by its rotors.)
General McCorkle said the doomed Osprey had entered a "vortex ring state," in which the rotor blades were circulating disturbed air and failing to generate lift.
At higher altitudes, a pilot can cut power to move forward faster and escape a vortex. But data from on-board recorders indicate that when the Osprey dropped below 40 knots of forward speed, it was less than 350 feet above the ground. The pilot banked the craft slightly to the right to refine his course, and then the right rotor lost lift and the Osprey flipped over.
General McCorkle said the pilot, Maj. John A. Brow, 39, was "highly experienced," although he had logged only 85 hours in the Osprey, plus 100 hours in an Osprey simulator.
In response to a question, General McCorkle said he did not know whether the Osprey simulator used for training had been programmed to reproduce the vortex ring effect. But investigators found that the programming was insufficient to recreate the accident on the simulator, he said.
When flights resume, he said, one task will be to take the Osprey to high altitudes, from which recovery is possible, and force it into the vortex ring state to see how it performs.
He said that in a demonstration of the Pentagon's confidence in the Osprey, Gen. Jim Jones, the commandant of the Marine Corps, and Gen. Mike Ryan, the chief of staff of the Air Force, which also uses the craft, had volunteered to be first when the Ospreys resume carrying passengers.
---
Chaplain cleared in remark on blacks
Washington Times
May 10, 2000
By Rowan Scarborough
http://208.246.212.80/national/default-2000510222939.htm
An Air Force report has found that the service's deputy chief of chaplains, Brig. Gen. Lorraine K. Potter, made a remark about the abilities of black chaplains but it concludes the words were not "wrongfully" discriminatory.
The Air Force inspector's general report quotes two chaplains as saying Gen. Potter, the service's first female chaplain to achieve the rank of general, stated she did not want a black as an executive officer. Three chaplains quote her as questioning the ability of blacks to perform staff work.
But Maj. Gen. William J. Dendinger, the chief of chaplains, differed with those chaplains, saying he did not hear any offensive remarks.
"I think I would have caught on . . . if there were any sense of prejudice or she harbored any ill feelings toward any particular group," Gen. Dendinger testified, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Washington Times.
Gen. Potter told the inspector general's investigator she only said she wanted to make sure blacks had proper training before leaving the pulpit for staff jobs.
Based on the conflicting testimony, the investigator, Col. Maureen Vaccaro, did not substantiate a complaint that Gen. Potter "wrongfully made discriminatory remarks about African-American chaplains."
The investigator wrote that the chaplains were not sure of Gen. Potter's exact words or their context that day.
"Analysis of that testimony using the preponderance of the evidence standard shows that [Gen. Potter] did not make an unlawful discriminatory remark," the report states. "Recall of specific words and context varied greatly between witnesses."
The Air Force had no comment yesterday.
The investigation started in December after a black chaplain complained that Gen. Potter, an ordained minister in the American Baptist Churches, made a racially offensive statement in discussing duty assignments. The meeting occurred at Bolling Air Force Base one day after Gen. Potter pinned on her general's stars at a ceremony attended by Gen. Michael Ryan, the Air Force chief of staff.
The Times obtained a copy of a heavily blacked-out inspector general's report. Only the name of the chaplain who filed the complaint, Col. Walter Beamon, was not marked out.
Gen. Potter "made a remark about the abilities of the individual African-American chaplains" after another chaplain brought up the subject during a discuss on assignments, the 29-page report states. It says that one of those in attendance "interpreted [the] remark as offensive." Another participant "did not interpret the remark as offensive at the time of the meeting but concluded that it was 'ill made' after receiving input from" another chaplain.
Col. Beamon, the Air Force's senior black chaplain, did not attend the meeting at Bolling. He based his charge on conversations with those in attendance.
Col. Beamon quoted Gen. Potter as saying, "African-American chaplains are good pastors and preachers but cannot do staff work."
The report said Col. Vaccaro followed Military Equal Opportunity standards that required her to "determine both the substance and context of what was said by [Gen. Potter]."
One present testified that the topic of black chaplains arose when the discussion turned to finding an African-American suitable for a senior staff job. He recalled Gen. Potter saying, "African-American chaplains make good pastors but not good staff officers." He added, "Whatever I write down would probably be my spin on it but I think the best of my knowledge that's as close as I can remember her saying." No minutes were taken at the meeting.
The witness added, "Now whether she meant that she thought all African-Americans are good pastors and they don't make good staff officers, you know, is that her intent? I don't know . . . what I took from that is that she really didn't want an African-American as her exec officer up there."
The chaplain said he was "shocked" by the remark, but said nothing in protest at the meeting.
A second chaplain at the meeting said, "She said she did not want an African-American in that job, in the staff job. She said she needed someone in there you know but she didn't want an African-American in that job. She said the African-Americans make great speakers, make good pastors, but they do not make good staff officers."
He testified that no one challenged Gen. Potter's remark at the meeting.
"I didn't want to go to social actions, IG or anything like that because I just didn't want to bring discredit or ill repute to the chaplain corps . . . I knew what I heard was right, but I felt that if I tried to do something about it as being a racist statement, that I could probably be a civilian out on the street, so to speak."
A third chaplain recalled Gen. Potter as saying "our African-American chaplains are excellent pastors but not necessarily good staff officers." He termed the remark "ill made," but added the general always had spoken fairly about minorities and said they needed mentoring before taking on staff jobs outside the pulpit.
The Air Force investigator said this witness agreed with the characterization that her remark "could have been an attempt to emphasize the importance of giving minority chaplains a fair chance to succeed while not setting them up to fail by prematurely moving a minority into a staff position."
-------- us nuc facilities
Victims Fund Added to Bill
Albuquerque Journal
Wednesday, May 10, 2000
By Patrick Armijo Journal Washington Bureau
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/26688news05-10-00.htm
WASHINGTON - More than $7 million to compensate victims of radiation exposure was included in a bill passed Tuesday by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The emergency money, approved in the 2001 agriculture appropriations bill, would replenish this year's funding for the federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The legislation is used to cover health costs for cancers and other health problems people suffered due to radiation exposure during the Cold War.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a member of the Appropriations Committee, sought the funding. It came just hours after the Senate was notified by the Justice Department that the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act had been completely drained of funding for 2000.
"I'm pleased that these funds have been restored and that everyone eligible for compensation will receive it," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. "These workers served their country and rightfully deserve to be compensated for the illnesses they contracted while performing their duties."
The money compensates uranium miners and people who lived downwind from above-ground nuclear tests in the 1950s for health problems caused by radiation exposure.
Domenici said the program was drained of money because the Clinton administration has expanded coverage but not sought additional funding in Congress to cover added liability.
"It's a terrible shame we find ourselves with a depleted trust fund," Domenici said. "Despite the fact the administration fumbled by expanding the RECA program without congressional consent, we must ensure that approved claims are not neglected."
The White House did not return calls seeking comment.
If passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, the $7.25 million that would be added to RECA would go to pay valid claims through the remainder of the current fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.
The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was authored by Domenici in 1990 and payments began being made under it in 1992. Since 1992, payments of $232 million have gone to victims of radiation exposure under 3,135 claims.
-------- colorado
Rocky Flats Rad Studies?
From: Doug Rokke - drokke@jsucc.jsu.edu
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:47:55 -0500
The differential in background which is basically cosmic based on Denver's altitude is a different concept than exposures that would have adverse health effects. Denver's background may be 500 mrem / year in contrast to other communities at 350 mrem / year. At these levels it is so low to be indistinguishable. What is a concern is any possible inhaltion, ingetion, or injection (open wound ) of various radioactive isotopes. What I would be particularily concerned with is any internalized particulates especially with Alpha particle emissions because of their inherent tremendous ionizing capabilites. Then again it all depends on total dose, particulate size, and other current health status of any exposed person or population.
May I suggest that you could read the stuff on bio effects at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/EDUCATE/REACTOR/06-BIO/index.html
but then again read this with grain of salt. an ongoing discussion is occurring in letters section of "Physics Today" for last few issues. Physics Today should be in your local library. If you any more questions just shout.
doug rokke Jacksonville State Univ.
-------- idaho
USA Today
05/10/00
http://usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm
Idaho Idaho Falls - The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory filled every seat for the federal site's diversity training this week, despite some employees' objections to a gay man addressing one session. Former Major League umpire Dave Pallone got a standing ovation of support from 650 workers after telling how he was fired when people learned he was gay.
-------- kentucky
Cleanup, health funds grow at Paducah site
By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 May 10, 2000 http://www.paducahsun.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/200005/10+00tJ_news.html+200 00510+news
Sen. Mitch McConnell says he has secured another $26 million in Senate appropriations to hasten cleanup at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and expand worker health testing. The money includes $16 million from the Senate Agriculture Appropriations bill to accelerate cleanup at the Paducah plant and its sister plant near Portsmouth, Ohio. Paducah's share is $8 million to remove contaminated materials from the site, he said. "We have seen in recent weeks the lack of commitment by the Department of Energy to clean up its environmental nightmare at (the plant)," McConnell said. "Today (Tuesday) I persuaded the Senate Appropriations Committee to provide the necessary funds to get DOE back on track and accelerate cleanup at the Paducah site." McConnell said he also secured $10 million for expanded worker health testing. The money, which comes from the Senate Military Construction Appropriations bill, allows DOE to expand health testing for current and former workers at the plant, and screen workers for lung cancer, he said. "The health and safety of the workers at the Paducah plant should be our first priority," McConnell said. "I worked hard to get this funding, and now it's up to the DOE to address the medical, health and safety concerns of the workers who have worked under hazardous conditions as a result of DOE's inadequate safety protections." The $26 million was part of supplemental appropriations for this fiscal year. Of that amount, $16 million was included as an amendment to the agriculture bill and $10 million as an amendment to the military construction bill. Both bills are expected to be considered by the full Senate before the end of May. Assuming the bills pass, funding will be available when President Clinton signs them into law, McConnell said.
----
Whitfield bill to boost aid for sickened DOE workers
By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 May 10, 2000
http://www.paducahsun.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/200005/10+00tI_news.html+200 00510+news
New legislation co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, would expand provisions and double the benefits of a proposed program to compensate Department of Energy plant employees who got sick from exposure to harmful workplace substances.
Introduced in Congress Tuesday by Whitfield and Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, the bill is endorsed by the nationwide atomic workers union. It covers all workers or survivors, or both, for a variety of job-related illnesses at all 26 DOE sites nationwide and treats everyone the same, regardless of the disease, Whitfield said.
The bill also establishes the Department of Labor's Office of Work Compensation Programs to oversee benefits. Narrower legislation that Energy Secretary Bill Richardson announced last month has DOE overseeing claims.
"I feel very strongly that since the DOE ran the program that caused the problem, it should not be administering the program," Whitfield said.
Eligible claims would be paid at levels already set under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) plus provisions for health care and medical diagnostic tests or a $200,000 single payment plus health care. The compensation act pays as much as 66 percent of wages for fully disabled workers, Whitfield said.
Richardson's proposal provides FECA-level benefits plus health care for workers sick from exposure to beryllium or radiation, or a lump sum of $100,000 with no health care provisions.
Both the DOE and Whitfield proposals say employees who receive awards must not sue the federal government or their employers, except for intentional tort and third-party actions under state law.
Under DOE legislation, help for workers exposed to hazardous materials other than beryllium and radiation would come through state workers' compensation programs that usually pay little and take years to process. Richardson said the department will serve as advocate for those workers and not contest claims.
Whitfield's bill shifts the burden of proof to the government for radiation-related diseases at all DOE sites, rather than just Paducah; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tenn. Paducah and Portsmouth have uranium enrichment plants, and Oak Ridge has a closed enrichment plant.
For illnesses related to exposures to heavy metals and toxins other than beryllium and radiation, the Whitfield bill establishes a panel of doctors through the Department of Health and Human Services. The panel would determine if exposure contributed to a claimant's disease. Another advisory panel within the health department would develop a list of other diseases leading to workplace illnesses.
Another component of the new bill is to make communities with DOE defense nuclear facilities eligible for grants from the Economic Development Administration to help offset plant closings or job reductions. The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant will lose another 271 workers starting July 14, and USEC Inc. is considering closing either the Paducah or Portsmouth plant.
A statement issued on behalf of Richardson said he will continue cooperating with lawmakers who "share his goal of helping sick workers get the compensation they have long deserved." He said the Whitfield-Strickland bill uses the "same framework" as the DOE proposal.
"The administration continues to work with members of the House and Senate to encourage passage of legislation before Congress leaves this fall," the statement continued. "It's important that (lawmakers) have taken action to help sick workers and their families."
Richard Miller, Washington-based policy analyst for the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE), criticized Richardson, contending he is backing legislation that fell short of workers' needs. The Whitfield bill fills the gaps, Miller said.
"This bill sets the high water mark against which all proposals should be judged," Miller said. "PACE fully endorses this legislation to right the wrongs that Secretary Richardson has properly admitted."
Because it is more limited in scope, the Richardson proposal is expected to cost $525 million over five years.
"Ours is clearly going to be more than that because we cover more workers and more illnesses at a higher level of compensation," Whitfield said. "I've asked the Congressional Budget Office to come up with an estimated cost, and that has not been completed yet."
The bill has "strong" bipartisan support in the House and Senate, largely because it expands compensation to include all states that have DOE plants, Whitfield said. "If you realistically are going to pass legislation to provide these benefits, you need to provide this for every DOE site."
Sen. Mitch McConnell issued a statement supporting Whitfield's efforts and saying he is co-sponsoring similar legislation.
Passing the bill will be challenging because it is complex, about 100 pages long and much different from previous bills to compensate sick workers, Whitfield said, adding that he hopes for passage this year.
"This is a significant, new compensation plan, so I'm not going to say it's going to be easy to pass it," he said. "But I firmly believe that this legislation will be passed at some point in time."
-------- nevada
Lawmakers look for a quick path to a vote
May 10, 2000 By Katherine Rizzo ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2000/may/10/510237223.html
WASHINGTON - Lawmakers from states with weapons plants introduced a proposal Tuesday to offer at least $200,000 apiece to cancer-stricken bomb factory workers, double the Clinton administration's request.
"People's health has been compromised and lives have been lost," said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, lead sponsor of the legislation. "It is not only a responsibility of this government to provide for these individuals, it is a moral obligation."
A companion bill was introduced in the House by Reps. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., and Ted Strickland, D-Ohio.
Another strategy to ensure compensation - putting it into a high-priority defense bill - faltered Tuesday. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., withdrew his proposal after Senate Armed Service Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., expressed opposition. Warner was concerned about the bill's failure to specify where the estimated $100 million a year for payouts would be found.
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., offered a variation of the same proposal during a meeting of a House Armed Services subcommittee. But he withdrew it, saying he didn't want the issue to bog down a vital military authorization bill.
"This amendment would force the bill into an automatic referral to four separate committees," he explained, adding that he intends to work with committee leaders to craft the proposal in a way that has a chance of passage on the House floor.
"We want to take care of the Cold Warriors," agreed Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the Military Procurement Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over some Energy Department programs. "Why don't we sit down to see what we can do to put together a responsible package."
Both Gibbons and a spokesman for Bingaman said the military bill - considered a must-pass piece of legislation in a year with an election-shortened work schedule - is still their desired vehicle for moving the sick worker payments toward a vote.
"We're going to offer it on the floor," said Bingaman spokesman Jim Bonham.
"A lot of people are starting to work on what we do next," said Richard Miller of the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union. "We have to come up with a funding mechanism."
He said the union preferred the Voinovich-Whitfield bill anyway, since it "took (Energy Secretary) Bill Richardson's rhetoric and put it into legislation," specifying clearly that the burden of proof on worker exposure would be on the government any time there is a problem finding adequate data.
Compensating people sickened by their work on the radioactive components of nuclear bombs is an idea with broad support in both parties. The hitch, however, is money, and a general unwillingness to create more mandatory federal spending.
"I would argue that there are some things that are appropriately made entitlements," Strickland said. "We're talking about people who have lost their lives or are in life-threatening situations due to the actions of this government."
As long as the Energy Department and its contractors continue to pay attention to safety and take strong steps to avoid exposing workers to life-threatening levels of contamination, the number of people qualifying for payments will be limited, he said. "This is not like an open-ended national entitlement program," Strickland said.
----
REID AND BRYAN CO-SPONSOR BILL TO COMPENSATE NTS WORKERS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATE: May 10, 2000
CONTACT: David Lemmon Tom Foulkes 202/224-6244
http://bryan.senate.gov/~bryan/press/00/05/2000510522.html
Washington, D.C. - Nevada Senators Harry Reid and Richard Bryan co-sponsored legislation Tuesday to provide employees at the Nevada Test Site and others with compensation for health care claims related to their work on America's nuclear weapons programs.
"For more than 40 years Nevadans played a key role in helping America win the Cold War and today we have taken a giant step forward in repaying their sacrifice and dedication," said Reid, the Assistant Minority Leader. "This legislation recognizes that many workers at the Nevada Test Site, were exposed to radiation and other toxic substances which had an adverse impact on their health. These individuals and their families deserve to be compensated for health care costs, loss of income and in some tragic instances for the death of a loved one, and this bill will finally do that. Now Congress must begin the work of determining levels of compensation and how we can most effectively provide those payments to those who qualify under this bill."
"Fortunately, we are starting to move forward in our efforts to include workers at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) in a national compensation package for workers who were injured by radioactive materials," Senator Bryan stated. "Now that the President and the Secretary of Energy have agreed that DOE workers who were harmed during the development and testing of our nation's nuclear arsenal should be compensated, it is up to Congress to figure out the details. Unlike other alternatives, the approach being championed by Senators Voinovich, Reid and myself specifically includes Nevada Test Site (NTS) workers who were harmed by the effects of radiation exposure during the performance of their jobs. For over forty years, the NTS employed thousands of workers who helped us win the Cold War but were sometimes exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. It is now time for this country to face the fact that these workers were harmed in this patriotic pursuit and should be compensated for their sacrifice. Unfortunately, too many Americans paid too high of a price and sacrificed their own good health in the process. It would be nothing short of a national disgrace if we turned our backs on them now," Senator Bryan concluded.
Entitled the Energy Employees Compensation Act, Senate Bill S.2519 was introduced Tuesday by Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) and co-sponsored by Reid and Bryan. Earlier this year, the Senators successfully lobbied President Clinton and Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson to have NTS workers included for the first time in compensation legislation. Prior to their efforts, legislation designed to compensate employees at nuclear weapons facilities had not specifically included any Nevadans.
Under S.2519, nuclear weapons program workers who were exposed to toxic substances such as beryllium or radiation would be eligible for financial compensation due to illness, impairment, disease or death, including payments for lost wages. In certain instances, workers could opt instead for a lump sum payment of $200,000 plus healthcare benefits in lieu of wage replacement payments. Worker's claims would be filed with the Department of Labor's Office of Worker Compensation.
-------- new mexico
UPDATE - Wildfire keeps Los Alamos nuclear lab closed
USA: May 10, 2000
Story by Zelie Pollon
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=6610
LOS ALAMOS - Firefighters used bulldozers to clear swaths of forest on Tuesday in a major push to seal off a forest fire that kept a major U.S. nuclear weapons laboratory closed and threatened a nearby town.
Los Alamos National Laboratory, where the world's first atomic bomb was created in 1945, was closed for a second straight day as the Cerro Grande fire raged just across a highway from one section of the sprawling facility. Officials said the laboratory would be closed again on Wednesday.
The fire, which has raged for five days after being sparked inadvertently by the U.S. Forest Service, also posed a danger to the neighbouring town of Los Alamos.
More than 600 firefighters burned brush ahead of the blaze and cleared swaths of forest with bulldozers to deprive the fire of new fuel in an effort to ring the wildfire with a burn-free zone before weather conditions worsen, as they are forecast to do on Wednesday.
"We're calling today the big push," said Fire Information Officer Jim Paxon.
"Tomorrow (Wednesday) we're expecting bigger winds, higher temperatures and lower humidity so the time to get this fire is now," Paxon added.
Only a skeleton staff of 500 people out of a work force of close to 12,000 remained at the Los Alamos laboratory, which covers 43 square miles (112 square km) in the sparsely settled Juarez Mountains of northern New Mexico.
HIGH EXPLOSIVES SAID TO BE SAFE
Officials said the laboratory's high explosives and plutonium were safely sealed in fireproof steel and concrete bunkers. The plutonium facility is "miles away" from the wildfire and the area around it has been cleared of trees and other combustible material, laboratory director John Browne said.
Firefighters were holding the blaze at a standstill along Highway 501, which borders the laboratory's western edge.
Some of the U.S. government's most-secret nuclear weapons research has been conducted at Los Alamos. But its role of developing nuclear weapons changed in the 1990s when the United States stopped nuclear testing, and now the facility's main charge is to ensure that the nuclear weapons stockpile stays in working order.
Browne said this was the first time the laboratory had been closed due to a forest fire.
With 3,365 acres (1,362 hectares) already consumed, Paxon said he expected several more thousand acres (hectares) would be gone by the end of the day due to preventive burning.
"We have to seal this fire off and keep it from crossing Los Alamos canyon. Otherwise, it'll burn right into the city site," he said.
The town of Los Alamos, which borders the lab, has evacuated 500 homes on the west side of town and closed schools due to heavy smoke.
The fire began last Thursday when fires deliberately set to clear scrub bush in Bandelier National Monument, the site of ancient Pueblo Indian cliff dwellings, burned out of control as winds picked up to 40 mph (64 kph).
U.S. Forest Service officials have defended their decision to burn underbrush, saying it was carefully planned and a necessary tool for forest management.
Gov. Gary Johnson on Monday declared a state of emergency for Los Alamos and counties in southern New Mexico where another wildfire has scorched 5,400 acres (2,160 hectares) and destroyed three homes. No serious injuries have been reported in either fire.
-----
Forest fire rages near nuclear lab
Detroit News
05/10/00
By Los Angeles Times
http://detnews.com/2000/nation/0005/10/a05-53303.htm
DENVER -- A fire near the Los Alamos National Laboratory raged out of control Tuesday, as nearly 1,000 firefighters from around the West converged on the Santa Fe National Forest in northern New Mexico.
Gov. Gary Johnson surveyed the wind-driven fires from a helicopter and declared a state of emergency, calling the heavily forested area a "tinder box."
The top-secret laboratory run by the University of California stores explosives as well as 2.7 metric tons of plutonium and plutonium waste.
Winds subsided somewhat Tuesday and allowed fire crews to begin setting backfires on the northern flank of the Cerro Grande blaze.
"The wind is in our favor. We want to keep (the fire) out of Los Alamos Canyon. It'll just rip if it gets in there -- the steep canyon walls allow the fire to move quickly," said Dolores Maese, a spokeswoman for the Santa Fe National Forest.
By burning trees and scrub behind the fire, firefighters can direct the blaze and remove fuel should the wind shift and drive the fire back toward Los Alamos.
Los Alamos' five schools were closed as were county offices. Smoke was heavy at times in the town, which nestles against the Jemez Mountains.
The lab's 10,000 workers were told to stay away, largely to decrease traffic.
---
Los Alamos Residents Flee
Associated Press
May 10, 2000 Filed at 6:51 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Los-Alamos-Scene.html
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) -- Fires have forced Jaret McDonald to evacuate his home because of fires three times before. But this time it was different.
``This is the first time I felt fear,'' the 28-year-old lifelong resident of Los Alamos said. ``When you're against Mother Nature, you can't contain it. You'll lose every time.''
He was one of the 11,000 residents who had to pack and up and flee Wednesday as a fire raged out of control toward Los Alamos. A thick shroud of smoke swept over the city while law enforcement officials went door to door telling people they had to get out as soon as possible.
``It's black and white and brown and it's all trailing toward the town site,'' said Anna Casperson, owner of the Castillo del Alba bed and breakfast in nearby White Rock.
Casperson said she was opening up her bed and breakfast free of charge to anyone who was displaced.
``This is the least we could do,'' she said. ``I have all this food left over from Y2K.''
The Cities of Gold Casino in nearby Pojoaque Pueblo was opened to accept evacuees. The parking lot was full Wednesday afternoon.
``We've got two labs and two hamsters and two kids and two of us. ... The fish are at home,'' said Renne Randolph, who was standing near her blue-and-white pickup giving water to her two dogs.
``We had the truck all loaded, waiting for this to happen,'' said her husband, Blaine Randolph.
Jeffrey and Nan Sauer were taking the two black labs.
``We're getting things together that we want to take. Tax records and pictures -- things that we can't replace,'' Sauer said.
The fire went out of control after the National Park Service set it last week to clear brush at the nearby Bandelier National Monument. The Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, Los Alamos schools and county offices have been closed for three days.
Two neighbors stood in the front yards of their bungalow homes commiserating, angry that it all started with a controlled burn.
``I think it stinks,'' said Jim Keane, 33.
``I don't believe in controlled burns,'' added neighbor Nancy Welborne, who has lived in Los Alamos for 10 years. ``This really makes me mad. I've got four dogs and I've got to go down to my daughter's in Albuquerque.''
In spite of the mass evacuation, people were leaving in an orderly fashion and there were no traffic accidents.
``We are down to our last 20 rooms,'' said Janine Shelton, general manager of the Hotel Loretto in Santa Fe, 20 miles southeast of Los Alamos. ``We're prepared to do whatever we have to do. We want to be good neighbors.''
---
UPDATE 2-Fire forces 11,000 people out of Los Alamos
Excite News
Updated 11:28 PM ET May 10, 2000
By Zelie Pollon
http://news.excite.com/news/r/000510/23/environment-losalamos2
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (Reuters) - A raging wildfire drove all 11,000 residents from the town of Los Alamos Wednesday and briefly set fire to a building inside the biggest U.S. nuclear weapons laboratory, where high explosives and plutonium are bunkered in disaster-proof shelters.
A pillar of yellowish-gray smoke rose more than 17,000 feet into the sky over the mountains of northern New Mexico as a slow convoy of evacuees drove their cars bumper to bumper down the main road from the town, which borders the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The fire, which started when a fire deliberately set by the U.S. National Park Service ran out of control, was sending embers into the grounds of the laboratory, where the world's first atomic bomb was built in 1945, but officials said they were being extinguished quickly. A weapons research building briefly caught fire, sustaining minor damage, a spokesman for the laboratory said.
With gusty winds fanning the flames, the town was ordered evacuated. The fire began consuming scattered homes on the town's western edge, where 500 homes were evacuated Sunday as a precaution, and spread down a canyon that leads to the heart of town.
"People in Los Alamos are terrified," said resident Sarah Meyer, who came to a fire information center in nearby White Rock in search of information about her house.
Fire department spokesman Jim Paxon said the encroaching flames and embers had damaged 150 to 200 buildings on the western edge of town and destroyed several. A more precise tally was impossible because of the thick smoke, officials said.
"It's still on the perimeter but we're getting very close (to the rest of town)," Paxon said.
Emergency personnel remained in the town as did several patients in the local hospital, with ambulances ready to drive them away if the flames get too close, Paxon said.
The forest fire has ripped through more than 4,000 acres since last Thursday.
Paxon said flames were shooting up two to three times as high as burning ponderosa pines towering 80 feet.
WEATHER CONDITIONS THWART FIREFIGHTERS
About 800 firefighters had hoped to contain the Cerro Grande fire when winds subsided and temperatures dropped Tuesday, bulldozing swaths of forest to create a burn-free zone and dumping water and fire retardant from the air.
But the winds kicked up again Wednesday, with gusts up to 35 mph fanning the fire and tossing embers. Gusts were forecast up to 50 mph Thursday.
The blaze was sparked by deliberate fires intended to burn underbrush in nearby Bandelier National Monument that spread out of control.
Some evacuees spoke angrily about the National Park Service for starting what was supposed to be a controlled burn in Bandelier National Monument, site of ancient Pueblo Indian cliff dwellings.
"This is a complete disaster. ... What were they thinking? They knew there strong winds and dry conditions," said Fabrizio Petrini, a laboratory employee.
The Park Service has defended its actions, saying that controlled burns are an accepted tool in forest management.
DANGER TO LABORATORY MINIMIZED
The nuclear lab keeps plutonium and high explosives on its 43 square miles, but officials said they were safely stored in steel and concrete bunkers and the nuclear material was far away from the fire.
"Of all the things that could threaten the nuclear material, a forest fire is very low on the list of threats," said Chris Judson of the National Park Service, part of a joint fire information center.
The plutonium site is in the facility's northeast corner, miles away from the fire in the west, officials have said.
Some of the U.S. government's most-secret nuclear weapons research has been conducted at Los Alamos. But its role of developing nuclear weapons changed in the 1990s when the United States stopped nuclear testing, and now the facility's main charge is to ensure that the nuclear weapons stockpile stays in working order.
The laboratory has been closed since Monday, when the fire reached a highway on the facility's western edge. Each day of closure costs the laboratory, owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and managed by the University of California, $3.5 million in lost operations and salaries.
Another fire raged in southern New Mexico around Ruidoso, where 700 firefighters were battling a blaze that has burned 7,000 acres and destroyed three homes.
---
Fire forces Los Alamos, N.M to evacuate
USA Today
05/10/00- Updated 05:47 PM ET
http://www.usatoday.com/news/ndswed04.htm
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - High wind drove a week-old fire into a canyon Wednesday, forcing the evacuation of the entire town of Los Alamos and its 11,000 residents.
Fire spokesman Jim Paxon said there was time for a calm, orderly evacuation of the town. He said police, sheriff's and fire department officials were going door to door urging people to pack up and get out as quickly as possible.
''The fire is not coming into town right now, but with spot fires in Los Alamos Canyon, it's fairly imminent that the fire will enter Los Alamos,'' Paxon said.
The fire has raged out of control after the National Park Service set it last week to clear brush at the nearby Bandelier National Monument. The Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, Los Alamos schools and county offices have been closed for three days.
Five hundred homes in western Los Alamos were evacuated Sunday night, and 3,700 acres had burned by this morning. Nobody has been injured and no homes have burned.
Wednesday's wind was clocked at 30 to 35 mph, presenting the worst-case scenario envisioned by firefighters. The fire was too dangerous to put firefighters in front of it, Paxon said.
''The fire blew up, basically,'' Paxon said. ''In fighting a fire like this, you don't get in front of it. You get on the sides and work the flanks and chase it. We try to work both flanks and pinch it off.''
Firefighters have quickly extinguished any spot fires that have popped up on Los Alamos National Laboratory property, lab spokesman Jim Danneskiold said. He said the property around the lab closest to the fire was cleared of underbrush after a 1996 blaze.
''The fire is miles from any buildings containing any nuclear materials and those buildings are rated to survive severe fires, 747 crashes, those kinds of things. They're bunkers, basically,'' he said.
Conditions were expected to worsen Wednesday and grow particularly bad by Thursday. The National Weather Service forecast gusts of 50 mph.
The Los Alamos Inn was among homes and businesses getting ready to evacuate Wednesday afternoon. Spokeswoman Brenda Lucero noted that some of the 40 guests were already fire evacuees.
''It's black smoke - smoke everywhere,'' she said.
Many customers at Katherine's Restaurant in Los Alamos' White Rock area were alerted to the evacuation by calls on their cell phones at lunch.
''They're just jumping out of their seats and leaving,'' said waitress Chris Vaughn.
High wind also kicked up Wednesday near the southern resort town of Ruidoso, where a blaze started by a campfire had burned more than 5,700 acres. Evacuee Anthony Scruggs, 52, said he feared for his home in the Homestead subdivision.
''It's probably in one of the worst areas,'' he said. ''It seems to be the focal point of the fire, and I know they're doing all they can, but they can't control Mother Nature.'' Authorities are investigating who set the campfire.
The cost of fighting the Los Alamos fire was estimated Tuesday night at $1.1 million, while the Ruidoso firefighting cost was placed at $650,000.
-------- ohio
Lawmakers propose compensation bill
Portsmouth Daily Times Wednesday May 10, 2000
By Brian J. Overman; From: "Vina Colley" vcolley@earthlink.net
Ohio lawmakers in both the House and Senate introduced bills Tuesday that would Compensate uranium enrichments workers for medical problems caused by exposure to hazardous materials. Congressman Ted Strickland, Lucasville, and Sen George V.Voinovich, R-Ohio initiated the separate bills with strong support from the workers the proposals would compensate. A previous proposal sponsored by the Clinton administration offered $ 100,000 to workers with beryllium-related illnesses or radiation-related cancers. Workers could choose the $100,000 lump sum option instead of a compensation package that included medical coverage, payment of lost wages and job retraining. The original White House proposal covered the Paducah, Ky and Oak Ridge, Tenn., enrichments but was later amended to include any nuclear facility where workers may have been exposed. The new proposals double the lump sum payment to $200,000 and included medical coverage in addition to the money. The new legislation will also include illnesses that may have been caused by exposure to dangerous materials other than beryllium and radiation. The proposals, issued simultaneously to the House and Senate are quite similar and do not plan to compete against each other to replace the White House proposal. "It really depends on who acts first. It mat even end up as an amendment to other bill." said Mike Dawson. press secretary for Sen. Voinovich. In a letter to President Clinton, Voinovich stated: "Here we have a clear instance where our federal government is responsible for the actions it has taken and the negligence it has shown against its own people. This is an issue where peoples' health has been compromised and lives have been lost. In many instances,these worker didn't even know that their health and safety was in jeopardy. It is not only responsibility of this government to provide for these individuals, it is a moral obligation." Voinovich's bill, called the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000, is co-sponsored by eight other senators-five Republicans and four Democrats. Strickland's proposal, also called the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act, is being co-sponsored by Congressman Ed Whitfield of Kentucky.Strickland represents the area the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant is located in Piketon, while Whitfield represents those in Paducah, Ky., home of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. My test is simple, if a workers was made ill by dangerous materials at any DOE facility, they deserve full and fair compensation from the United States government. It is time for the government to stop offering half measures. It is time to do the right for these Cold War warriors," Strickland said. Dan Minter, of the Portsmouth local Paper, Allied-Industrial. Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE), .supports the proposed compensation package. " The bill sets the standard against which all proposals should be judged. PACE fully endorses this legislation to right the wrongs that Secretary (of Energy Bill Richardson) has properly admitted, "Minter said. In a press release, Strickland praised Voinovich for sponsoring his companion bill. ".Sen.Voinovich has been a true advocate for the injured workers in Portsmouth and elsewhere. I look forward to continuing to work with him as we attempt to win passage of our legislation through each chamber of Congress.
----
Bill would compensate victims of beryllium, other hazards
May 10, 2000 Toledo Blade
http://www.toledoblade.com/editorial/beryllium/0e10bery.htm
Ohio Sen. George Voinovich yesterday introduced legislation to compensate beryllium workers and others who have been harmed while building and maintaining America's nuclear arsenal.
"It is not only a responsibility of this government to provide for these individuals, it is a moral obligation,'' he said in a statement.
Workers would receive health-care benefits and their choice of lost wages or a one-time payment of $200,000.
The bill would cover workers at the Brush Wellman beryllium plant near Elmore, where at least 75 people have contracted a chronic lung disease from the metal's toxic dust.
Also covered are construction workers who developed beryllium disease after doing contract work at Brush Wellman plants.
Richard Miller, a policy analyst for the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, whose membership includes workers at beryllium plants, said the Voinovich plan provides far more benefits than previous compensation proposals.
"This sets the high-water mark for what legislation should look like,'' he said.
In announcing his bill, Senator Voinovich cited a series of articles in The Blade last year about the hazards of beryllium. The series documented how the U.S. government and beryllium industry knowingly allowed thousands of workers to be exposed to unsafe levels of beryllium dust.
The series was instrumental in a historic admission by the federal government, which acknowledged for the first time that it had harmed Cold War weapons workers. President Clinton asked Congress to compensate these victims, a request that resulted in three bills being introduced in Congress.
In April, the Clinton administration announced plans to expand its beryllium compensation proposal to include weapons workers harmed by exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals. The Voinovich plan also covers illnesses related to radiation and hazardous substances.
Voinovich spokesman Mike Dawson said it is unclear how much the senator's plan would cost. In his statement, Mr. Voinovich said Congress spends billions of dollars a year "on things that are not the responsibility of the federal government. And here we have a clear instance where our federal government is responsible for the actions it has taken and the negligence it has shown against its own people."
Mr. Dawson said Mr. Voinovich's bill has support from both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate.
Similar legislation was introduced in the House yesterday by U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Republican from Kentucky, and Ted Strickland, a Democrat from Ohio.
Said Mr. Whitfield: "While no amount of money can compensate a person or loved one for a protracted illness or death, our bill at least attempts to cover long-term health care costs, which is clearly the most important benefit we can provide."
Mr. Miller, the union analyst, said he is hopeful a compensation plan can be passed soon. "There's a lot of momentum on this issue," he said.
Brush Wellman is America's leading beryllium producer, with headquarters in Cleveland and facilities in several states. Brush attorney Thomas Clare said that the company supports the Voinovich plan. "We believe it will benefit our employees and contractors and subcontractors."
----
Bills aim to expand Piketon payouts
The measures go well beyond a compensation package offered by the Clinton administration.
Wednesday, May 10, 2000
Jonathan Riskind Dispatch Washington Bureau
http://www.dispatch.com/news/newsfea00/
WASHINGTON -- Nuclear-plant workers in southern Ohio and throughout the nation sickened by exposures to hazardous materials would get compensation of up to $200,000 and lifetime health-care benefits under bipartisan bills introduced yesterday.
The $1 billion-plus legislation unveiled in the House and Senate covers potentially thousands of U.S. Department of Energy workers at more than two dozen sites, including the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, that house the nation's nuclear- weapons-production program.
Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Lucasville, and Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, wrote the measures, which go well beyond a compensation package offered last month by the Clinton administration.
The administration's plan contains federal payments of $100,000 or health-care benefits for cancers caused by radiation exposure. And it requires workers made ill by toxic-chemical exposure to seek state workers' compensation benefits, excluding them from the federal compensation p ackage.
The Clinton administration bill would cost an estimated $500 million during the first five years to aid an estimated 3,000 workers. The Strickland and Voinovich bills, which likely would assist more people, could double or even triple that cost, but no official cost projections were available yesterday.
Voinovich already has lined up an array of bipartisan co-sponsors, including Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
"There is a lot of activity in this area . . . which is moving the ball forward,'' said Richard Miller, an attorney for the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, which represents many Energy Department workers. A spokeswoman for Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said yesterday that Voinovich's and Strickland's nearly identical proposals share a similar "framework'' with the Clinton administration's plan. Richardson is urging Congress to take action this year. "Secretary Richardson looks forward to continued cooperation with those members who share his goal of helping sick workers get the compensation they have long deserved,'' spokeswoman April Kaufman said.
Strickland and Voinovich said it is clear that workers at the Piketon plant and elsewhere were exposed for decades to a variety of radioactive and chemical materials without adequate protection or knowledge.
The Energy Department is expected to release a report detailing decades of problems at the Piketon plant soon. The Piketon plant produced weapons-grade uranium but now manufactures less-enriched material for commercial nuclear- power plants.
Voinovich said the government has a "moral obligation'' to compensate workers at the Piketon plant and around the country who are as much Cold War veterans as their counterparts in the armed services.
"Congress appropriates billions of dollars annually on things that are not the responsibility of the federal government,'' he said. "And here we have a clear instance where our federal government is responsible for the actions it has taken and the negligence it has shown against its own people.''
Strickland said it is "crucial that we offer compensation and care to workers that were exposed to every kind of dangerous material. My test is simple: If a worker was made ill by dangerous materials at any facility, they deserve full and fair compensation from the United States government.''
Sen. Mike DeWine, a co-sponsor of Voinovich's bill, is holding a Senate hearing at 9:30 a.m. Monday in the lobby hearing room of the Rhodes Tower in Columbus to examine the compensation proposals, his office said yesterday.
The session of the subcommittee on employment, safety and training of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will feature federal officials and Ohio nuclear-plant workers.
Other Ohio workers that might be affected by the proposals include those at the former Fernald nuclear plant near Cincinnati and the Mound facility near Dayton.
----
Bills aim to expand Piketon payouts
The measures go well beyond a compensation package offered by the Clinton administration.
Columbus Dispatch
Wednesday, May 10, 2000
Jonathan Riskind Dispatch Washington Bureau
http://www.dispatch.com/news/newsfea00/may00/272686.html
WASHINGTON -- Nuclear-plant workers in southern Ohio and throughout the nation sickened by exposures to hazardous materials would get compensation of up to $200,000 and lifetime health-care benefits under bipartisan bills introduced yesterday.
The $1 billion-plus legislation unveiled in the House and Senate covers potentially thousands of U.S. Department of Energy workers at more than two dozen sites, including the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, that house the nation's nuclear- weapons-production program.
Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Lucasville, and Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, wrote the measures, which go well beyond a compensation package offered last month by the Clinton administration.
The administration's plan contains federal payments of $100,000 or health-care benefits for cancers caused by radiation exposure. And it requires workers made ill by toxic-chemical exposure to seek state workers' compensation benefits, excluding them from the federal compensation package.
The Clinton administration bill would cost an estimated $500 million during the first five years to aid an estimated 3,000 workers. The Strickland and Voinovich bills, which likely would assist more people, could double or even triple that cost, but no official cost projections were available yesterday.
Voinovich already has lined up an array of bipartisan co-sponsors, including Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
"There is a lot of activity in this area . . . which is moving the ball forward,'' said Richard Miller, an attorney for the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, which represents many Energy Department workers.
A spokeswoman for Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said yesterday that Voinovich's and Strickland's nearly identical proposals share a similar "framework'' with the Clinton administration's plan. Richardson is urging Congress to take action this year.
"Secretary Richardson looks forward to continued cooperation with those members who share his goal of helping sick workers get the compensation they have long deserved,'' spokeswoman April Kaufman said.
Strickland and Voinovich said it is clear that workers at the Piketon plant and elsewhere were exposed for decades to a variety of radioactive and chemical materials without adequate protection or knowledge.
The Energy Department is expected to release a report detailing decades of problems at the Piketon plant soon. The Piketon plant produced weapons-grade uranium but now manufactures less-enriched material for commercial nuclear- power plants.
Voinovich said the government has a "moral obligation'' to compensate workers at the Piketon plant and around the country who are as much Cold War veterans as their counterparts in the armed services.
"Congress appropriates billions of dollars annually on things that are not the responsibility of the federal government,'' he said. "And here we have a clear instance where our federal government is responsible for the actions it has taken and the negligence it has shown against its own people.''
Strickland said it is "crucial that we offer compensation and care to workers that were exposed to every kind of dangerous material. My test is simple: If a worker was made ill by dangerous materials at any facility, they deserve full and fair compensation from the United States government.''
Sen. Mike DeWine, a co-sponsor of Voinovich's bill, is holding a Senate hearing at 9:30 a.m. Monday in the lobby hearing room of the Rhodes Tower in Columbus to examine the compensation proposals, his office said yesterday.
The session of the subcommittee on employment, safety and training of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will feature federal officials and Ohio nuclear-plant workers.
Other Ohio workers that might be affected by the proposals include those at the former Fernald nuclear plant near Cincinnati and the Mound facility near Dayton.
-------- tennessee
Sick workers anxious on compensation bill
May 10, 2000 By Frank Munger, Knoxville News-Sentinel staff writer
http://www.knoxnews.com/editorsview/munger/fm05102000.shtml
While there appears to be much momentum in Washington to compensate sick workers at the Department of Energy's nuclear sites, including Oak Ridge, there remains a concern that the legislative result will be shortsighted and unsatisfactory to the "Cold Warriors" most in need of help. Glenn Bell, who was diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease seven years ago, expressed those worries in a letter earlier this week to U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.
"A watering down of the DOE Compensation Proposal is being reported," Bell wrote. "This must not happen if the justice that the DOE and Congress have promised the last year is to become reality."
Bell, a 52-year-old machinist at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, suffers from a lung disease whose links to the weapons workplace can be documented with blood tests and other examinations related directly to beryllium -- a lightweight metal used in warhead production.
He reminded Thompson, however, of promises made to ease the burden of proof on sick workers, noting there is plenty of proof regarding contamination and health problems at the federal facilities.
"On behalf of myself and the thousands of Cold War victims, I beg of you to put yourself in our situation and think about what an insufficient bill will mean," Bell wrote to the senator. "We have suffered horribly, now we face the potential of another defeat. Please do not allow this to happen."
ESSENTIALITY: That's the word that's suddenly become popular to describe the importance of the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant as officials seek billions of dollars to modernize the Oak Ridge manufacturing operation.
I thought my ears were plugged when I first heard a speaker at a public meeting offer his thoughts on "the essentiality of Y-12." After a few more times, I went looking for my dictionary.
DODGEM: Some business and community leaders in Oak Ridge were privately critical of their pal, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., saying he didn't work on their behalf in urging DOE to include economic-development requirements in the new contract to manage Y-12.
They had to look elsewhere for an ally. Indeed, they applauded U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. (a sometimes adversary to Oak Ridge interests), for his belated efforts to get Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to come around on the issue.
Wamp, however, insisted that he did try to get officials at DOE headquarters in Washington to require would-be contractors at Y-12 to include economic commitments in their proposals. He said he strongly supported Domenici's efforts as well.
"Absolutely," he said.
Some folks maintain that, if Wamp was pushing DOE on the matter, he must have done so quietly -- very quietly.
A START: The refurbishment of Oak Ridge National Laboratory may be a bigger chore than imagined.
When UT-Battelle took over lab management, the new contractor was somewhat surprised at the overall age of the research facilities and the massive deterioration.
Unfortunately, the problems aren't confined to the World War II-era structures.
Even the High Temperature Materials Laboratory, one of the few modern buildings on the laboratory campus and a frequent site for ORNL's photo opportunities, needs repairs.
Bids were sought recently for a new roof on the HTML, which opened in 1987. The low bid was $782,000 from Premier Roofing Co. Inc. of Connecticut.
The roofing job is complicated because of the number of skylights, an attractive feature of the concrete-and-glass facility used for advanced materials research.
Jeff Smith, the lab's deputy director for operations, said UT-Battelle is still negotiating the roof contract because the low bid came in over estimates.
To quote the Carpenters: "We've only just begun."
YIKES: Herman Postma, former director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, got to deliver a load of funny lines recently at Alvin Weinberg's 85th birthday party.
Weinberg, of course, was Postma's predecessor as ORNL director and had a lot to do with Postma's ascent in lab administration.
Postma recalled the days when Weinberg's hairdo was a high-level flat top. In doing so, he answered the age-old question: What do Alvin Weinberg and Albert Einstein have in common?
According to Postma, "Two great people who had bad hair days!"
Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the News-Sentinel. He can be reached at 423-482-9213 or at twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. This column is also available on the Web at www.knoxnews.com/editorsview/munger/
----
Oak Ridge beryllium sufferers could benefit from new bill
Tennessean News Services and Staff Reports, Oak Ridger May 10, 2000
http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/05/10/oaker10.shtml"http:// www.tennessean.com/sii/00/05/10/oaker10.shtml
OAK RIDGE -- Evidence of beryllium disease among Department of Energy workers is growing as more workers come forward, health officials say.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon co-sponsored legislation introduced yesterday that expands a DOE plan to compensate nuclear weapons workers sick with beryllium disease, certain cancers and other ailments linked to their workplace.
The legislation would offer a $200,000 payment to certain sick workers, up from $100,000 proposed by DOE. It also would offer health care to sick workers.
"It would also cover workers whose illnesses were caused by a multitude of dangerous substances, not just radiation and beryllium," Gordon said.
"Past policy had been to ignore or dismiss workers' claims that they were made sick from exposure to the hazardous materials used in nuclear weapons production. Although the DOE proposal seeks to remedy the wrongs of the past, it does not go far enough.
"This newest proposal would provide full and fair compensation to workers made ill by dangerous materials at any DOE facility," Gordon said.
In Oak Ridge, officials said there are now 35 confirmed cases of chronic beryllium disease, a respiratory ailment, among present and former workers at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, and 54 others have tested positive for beryllium sensitivity and likely will develop the lung disease. Beryllium is a lightweight metal used in weapon production.
The totals are up significantly from last year and continue to grow as more workers are tested for beryllium exposures at Y-12 and other federal facilities in Oak Ridge.
"They're coming out of the woodwork," said Glenn Bell, a Y-12 machinist who was diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease seven years ago.
Dr. Donna Cragle, director of epidemiology for Oak Ridge Associated Universities, is heading a beryllium-testing program at Department of Energy facilities nationwide, and she sees a trend that's more of the same.
So far, nearly 2,500 current and former workers at Y-12 have undergone a blood test to determine if their bodies have become sensitized to the metal, a precursor to chronic beryllium disease. If sensitized, they are asked to take additional tests -- including a lung wash -- to determine if they already have CBD, an incurable respiratory ailment that can be fatal.
----
USA Today
05/10/00
http://usatoday.com/news/states/all50.htm
Tennessee Oak Ridge - There are now 35 confirmed cases of chronic beryllium disease among current and former workers at the government's Y-12 nuclear weapons plant. Officials said an additional 54 workers have tested positive for beryllium sensitivity and will probably develop the lung ailment caused by exposure to the light metal. So far, nearly 2,500 workers have taken the blood test.
-------- washington
Canceled Hanford cleanup contract raises fear of delays
May 10, 2000 EnviroNews Service - newsdesk@envirolink.org
http://www.envirolink.org/environews/
The cancellation of a contract for cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation's most dangerous nuclear wastes is raising fears that the job will be delayed again. (AP)
-------- us nuc victims
Victims Fund Added to Bill
By Patrick Armijo Albuquerque Journal Washington Bureau May 10, 2000
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/26688news05-10-00.htm
WASHINGTON - More than $7 million to compensate victims of radiation exposure was included in a bill passed Tuesday by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The emergency money, approved in the 2001 agriculture appropriations bill, would replenish this year's funding for the federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The legislation is used to cover health costs for cancers and other health problems people suffered due to radiation exposure during the Cold War.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a member of the Appropriations Committee, sought the funding. It came just hours after the Senate was notified by the Justice Department that the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act had been completely drained of funding for 2000.
"I'm pleased that these funds have been restored and that everyone eligible for compensation will receive it," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. "These workers served their country and rightfully deserve to be compensated for the illnesses they contracted while performing their duties."
The money compensates uranium miners and people who lived downwind from above-ground nuclear tests in the 1950s for health problems caused by radiation exposure.
Domenici said the program was drained of money because the Clinton administration has expanded coverage but not sought additional funding in Congress to cover added liability.
"It's a terrible shame we find ourselves with a depleted trust fund," Domenici said. "Despite the fact the administration fumbled by expanding the RECA program without congressional consent, we must ensure that approved claims are not neglected."
The White House did not return calls seeking comment.
If passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, the $7.25 million that would be added to RECA would go to pay valid claims through the remainder of the current fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.
The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was authored by Domenici in 1990 and payments began being made under it in 1992. Since 1992, payments of $232 million have gone to victims of radiation exposure under 3,135 claims.
----
Settlement approved in Cold War tests on state prisoners' genitals
Wednesday, March 15, 2000
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.seattlep-i.com:80/local/setl15.shtml
SPOKANE -- Scores of Washington state prison inmates whose genitals were bombarded with radiation in Cold War experiments will receive portions of a $2.4 million settlement.
U.S. District Judge Robert Whaley approved the mediated settlement Tuesday to end a 1996 lawsuit by four of 64 inmates who participated in the X-ray experiments. After attorney fees are subtracted, the inmate volunteers will split $1.1 million.
"This is a very, very good settlement," Whaley said. "The manner in which we treated our incarcerated citizens should have been brought to the fore."
The Atomic Energy Commission -- forerunner to today's federal Department of Energy -- wanted to know how radiation would affect male fertility in nuclear war, outer space and nuclear plant work. Prisoners in Washington and Oregon were used in the experiments that ran from 1963 until they were halted in 1971 for being "Nazi-like."
In the experiments, prisoners' gonads were bombarded by radiation equivalent to thousands of chest X-rays. Most then underwent vasectomies.
Robert White of Spokane and the three other original plaintiffs each will receive $43,750 from the settlement.
White, 59, who left prison in 1968, said he lives with daily pain from scarring the experiments caused.
"It wasn't about money," he said. "I'm happy with the settlement because it says we have rights as human beings."
White was 22 and serving a sentence for assault when he agreed to participate in the experiments. Documents show he received a dose of radiation equivalent to 50,000 chest X-rays.
Another lead plaintiff, Donald Byers, died of heart failure in January, only a few weeks after his release from the Airway Heights Corrections Center, where he served a term for armed robbery.
Of the original 64 men who participated in the experiments, 40 have died.
As many as 32 inmates, their survivors or estates will receive payments averaging $30,000. The 15 who agreed to be named plaintiffs will receive an additional $5,000. The remainder either were unable to be found, or declined to join the lawsuit.
Attorneys who brought the case will receive $1.3 million in legal fees and costs. The money will come from a $2.4 million settlement fund deposited by the defendants, who include Dr. Alvin Paulsen, a University of Washington medical professor who conducted the experiments; former state Penitentiary Superintendent Robert Rhay; and Dr. William Conte, former director of the state Department of Institutions, who authorized the experiments.
The federal government, which paid for the experiments, and the Hanford nuclear reservation contractor that supplied the radiation machines, were dropped from the lawsuit.
As part of the settlement, the defendants deny liability, but say they regret any harm that may have been done to the prisoners.
In a 1994 interview, Paulsen defended the experiments for advancing knowledge of radiation's impact on fertility, but conceded they could not have been done today.
The prisoners were represented by the Berger and Montague law firm of Philadelphia, which also represents Oregon inmates in a nearly identical set of experiments at Salem, conducted on 67 men in the 1960s and 1970s.
The Washington experiments were discontinued in 1971. Audrey Holliday, then head of the Corrections Department's research division, called them "Nazi-like."
The AEC originally planned follow-up health checkups, but the idea was rejected because of liability concerns.
Former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary testified on behalf of the prisoners in a 1998 deposition, which was opposed by the Justice Department.
She said crucial facts about the prison experiments were not available to the plaintiffs until she condemned the experiments in 1993. A review of the experiments wasn't completed until 1995. That undercut the government's claims that the statute of limitations expired years ago.
To end a series of appeals pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, both sides agreed last spring to mediation.
-------- us nuc waste
Associated Press
05/10/00
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Editorial-Rdp.html
South Bend (Ind.) Tribune, on nuclear waste:
The stalemate between the administration and Congress over location of a nuclear waste repository in Nevada makes it clear that nothing will be done to solve this problem while Bill Clinton is president -- just as nothing was done while Ronald Reagan and George Bush were president.
But something needs to be done and done soon to provide a safe place to store the 40,000-ton and growing stockpile of nuclear waste now held at 72 power plant sites in 31 states.
The issue is of sufficient importance to be part of the presidential debate between the de facto nominees, George W. Bush and Al Gore, and ought to be addressed by them as they appeal for support from the American public.
The public, after all, has a vested interest in this project. A 1982 federal law assessed utility companies for the cost of creating a nuclear waste repository, and the companies passed the cost on to consumers. Since 1982, American electric utility customers have paid $15 billion in surcharges to cover the cost of a nuclear waste repository that, so far, doesn't exist. ...
-------- us nuc weapons
Albright links China trade, missile defense
Denver Post
05/10/00
By Bruce Finley Denver Post International Affairs Writer
http://www.denverpost.com/news/news0510a.htm
May 10 - U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright pressed the case Tuesday for granting China top trade status - and also took on another matter that deeply involves Colorado: a national missile-defense system the Pentagon is developing to knock enemy warheads out of the sky.
The system is designed to block attacks from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran. But Russian and Chinese officials are concerned, and current discussions about missile defense are "very difficult," Albright said in an interview at The Denver Post.
"We are trying to make clear both to (the Chinese) and to the Russians that it is not against them," Albright said. "It is not an easy discussion with either. And we are in the process of having those discussions. But I think here, again, we have to do what is in the U.S. national interest. . . . There are serious new threats that our intelligence people have told us are coming as a result of technology transfer to North Korea and Iran." A third test is slated for June 26 on an emerging $30 billion-plus missile-defense system to be operated from Colorado Springs. A Battle Management command and control center would be set up inside Cheyenne Mountain, the site of an existing facility built in the 1950s to withstand nuclear blasts. From there, Pentagon officials say, signals would be sent to fire Alaska-based interceptor missiles tipped with non-nuclear "kill vehicles" that would destroy enemy missiles before they hit U.S. targets.
In two tests over the Pacific Ocean, the system worked once and failed once. Deploying the system as planned by 2005 depends on approval from President Clinton, who is to consider Pentagon estimates for cost, threats from rogue nations, feasibility, and geopolitical treaty implications later this summer.
Before that, in June, Clinton heads to Russia to try to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a cornerstone of arms control, with Russia's new president, Vladimir Putin, who has threatened to scrap arms-control treaties if the United States proceeds with missile defense.
The missile-defense issue and others loom in the background as Congress considers the China trade decision, which Albright says will affect national security broadly.
Last fall, U.S. officials agreed to grant China permanent normal trade relations as part of China's joining the World Trade Organization, the governing body of global commerce. The deal would give U.S. business greater access to China. Currently, U.S. officials review China's trade status every year.
Albright says permanent normal trade status will open and change China. Clinton is meeting "practically every night" in the White House with members of Congress, lobbying for support in a House vote set for the week of May 22.
But labor leaders and social conservatives are lobbying, too; they point to China's controversial labor and human-rights record as grounds for opposing the deal.
Albright's two-day visit to Denver is part of an all-out blitz by the Clinton administration with officials fanned out across the country. U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Denver Democrat, is one of several undecided members of Congress.
On Tuesday, Albright began her visit at the University of Denver, meeting with a dozen Colorado business people, some of whom have deals pending in China, and environmentalists.
Then she addressed an invitation-only crowd of 490 at a World Trade Day banquet Downtown. Albright warned: "China might well interpret rejection of PNTR (permanent normal trade relations) as a strategic decision on our part to treat it as an enemy. This would make it easier for hard-liners to move China in the direction of confrontation instead of cooperation, heightening tensions across the Taiwan Strait and the risk of disruptive incidents in the South China Sea." Today, she is scheduled to answer questions from United Airlines workers at a facility near Denver International Airport, then head to California.
Overall, working with China in a rule-based international system - rather than confronting it - will serve U.S. interests best, Albright told The Post.
And if Americans allow a congressional defeat of this deal, then develop missile defense, Albright said the rest of the world won't take it kindly.
Congressional failure to approve the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that U.S. officials helped negotiate already has critics at United Nations headquarters in New York looking at U.S. officials "as if we were crazy," Albright said.
"We are already accused of unilateral acts," she said. Refusing to support China's entry into the WTO, then pursuing other national interests such as missile defense aggressively "hurts us . . . makes us look very back of the hand in terms of the rest of the world."
---
EUREKA JOURNAL
Reagan's Beloved College Offers a Living Memorial
New York Times
May 10, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/00/05/10/news/national/reagan-college.html
EUREKA, Ill., May 9 -- Before "The Gipper" and the Oval Office, Ronald Reagan washed dishes in a women's dormitory at the small college here.
In 1928, from his childhood home in Dixon, Ill., the 17-year-old future president followed the pastor's daughter, on whom he had had a crush, and made his way to Eureka College, situated amid the cornfields of central Illinois.
Despite the Depression, Mr. Reagan spent four of the best years of his life at Eureka, according to both local legend and his daughter Maureen Reagan.
Today, thousands gathered on this campus of 500 students to dedicate a new garden commemorating a visit Mr. Reagan made here in 1982, when he proposed that the United States and the Soviet Union begin reducing their nuclear warheads.
The Ronald Reagan Peace Garden, which commemorates the end of the cold war, contains a bronze bust of the former president and a 5-by-4-foot piece of the Berlin Wall. The garden is planted with tall white tulips called Maureen tulips, specially chosen to honor the former president's daughter, who has become her father's representative here in the six years since he was found to have Alzheimer's disease. "This school was the first love of his life," Ms. Reagan said recently as she walked across the campus.
In the years after his graduation in 1932, Mr. Reagan, first as a movie star, then as California governor, and finally as president, visited the campus 14 times, attracting thousands of people for events as ordinary as library dedications and the annual Pumpkin Festival Parade.
By making the disarmament proposal as part of a commencement speech here in 1982, "he gave them a presidential legacy," Ms. Reagan said. "He knew that's what he was doing. It was a gift only a president could give."
Mr. Reagan is said to have modeled the speech, which many say marked the beginning of the end of the cold war, after the "Iron Curtain" speech Winston Churchill gave in 1946 at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo.
But critics like Frances FitzGerald, author of the recent book "Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars, and the End of the Cold War," discount the importance of the Eureka speech, saying that Mr. Reagan's goals were far from noble, and that he was basically forced into the strategic arms reduction talks by antinuclear activists.
"But it was a wonderful speech," Ms. FitzGerald said.
Still, it would seem almost impossible to tarnish Mr. Reagan's image at Eureka College, 16 miles east of Peoria, where his presence is felt not just in the Ronald Reagan Museum, replete with mementos like his college diploma or in the imposing Ronald and Neil Reagan Physical Education Center (named for Mr. Reagan and his older brother, who also attended the college).
Indeed, one senses Mr. Reagan's stamp on the student body, from the buzzing chapter of the Young Republicans club to the well-groomed students in button-down shirts and ties. The former president finds his way into the curriculum, as well; recently, students on a college-sponsored trip to Ireland visited Mr. Reagan's ancestral home in County Tipperary.
Mr. Reagan's name also brings in healthy endowments; 20 students here are Ronald Reagan Fellows, who attend Eureka on full four-year scholarships and participate in all-expenses-paid internships all over the world.
One of the Ronald Reagan fellows is Jared Hansen, a 20-year-old junior who first learned of Eureka College in the eighth grade while writing a history paper about Mr. Reagan. This summer Mr. Hansen will intern for a Reagan nominee to the Supreme Court, Robert H. Bork, a former federal judge who is now a legal scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, a public policy research think tank.
"He was so fond of this school, he came back so many times, and that weighs so much on people's minds," Mr. Hansen said.
Other students mentioned Mr. Reagan's reputation as a campus rebel; in his freshman year, he gave a rousing speech on curriculum in the college chapel that eventually led to the resignation of Eureka's president.
"A lot of people feel that it was here he first discovered his political voice," said Dr. Junius Rodriguez, an associate professor of history at the college.
The former president's presence in the town is felt in subtler ways. Reagan Drive cuts through a neighborhood near the college, and the public library has nearly a dozen biographies of him and his wife, Nancy.
Dr. Rodriguez likes to joke that the telephone prefix in heavily Republican Eureka -- 467 -- spells out "G.O.P." on the phone pad.
On her way across campus, Ms. Reagan said she could understand her father's affinity for the college.
"I feel just like dear old Dad," she said. "I don't ever want to leave."
---
Chief Speaks on Anti-Missile Defense
Associated Press
May 9, 2000 Filed at 5:03 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Missile-Defense.html
http://www.sltrib.com/05102000/nation_w/47954.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton may decide as early as this summer whether to give a green light to constructing a national missile defense, but the Air Force general leading the project said Tuesday it would take four more years of testing before he would feel confident it will work.
Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish said the development of a national missile defense -- designed to shoot down a small number of missiles fired from North Korea or the Middle East -- is on the right track. He expressed confidence that the next flight test of an interceptor rocket, scheduled for June, will be a success.
But Kadish, who directs the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, said there are so many technological milestones yet to be met that he would not be confident about its effectiveness until production-model rocket boosters and other advanced equipment are tested in 2004. Not until that stage will the testing involve people who would actually be operating a deployed system.
The rocket booster to be used in the June test is a prototype. The production model will not be ready until 2003.
``We're walking before we run,'' Kadish said.
The June test is considered critical -- at much from a political as a technological standpoint -- because it probably will be the last attempted intercept before Clinton decides whether to push forward with building the missile defense system. If Clinton leaves the decision to his successor, the Pentagon would be unable to meet its self-imposed deadline of having a missile defense operating by 2005.
That date coincides with the Pentagon's estimate of when North Korea may have an initial capability to strike U.S. territory with a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile.
The timetable is severely constrained because, in order to meet the 2005 target, construction on a new radar in the Aleutian Islands would have to begin next April, Kadish said in an interview with Pentagon reporters. Contracts for constructing the radar could not be awarded until Clinton gives his go-ahead.
Kadish said he visited Shemya Island in the Aleutians, where the X-band radar is to be built, last week.
``We're going to have a challenge to build that radar on this island,'' he said, not because of technology but because of the wind-swept island's exceptionally short construction season.
Kadish said experts had solved the problem that caused the last missile intercept test to fail in January -- a plumbing problem that caused a malfunction in sensitive devices aboard the missile interceptor that enable it to ``see'' its target against the cold background of space.
``That particular problem, I think -- barring a real stupid mistake -- is under control,'' Kadish said. ``If we don't have one of those glitches, we think the design we have will be successful on the next flight test.''
Still, the three-star general said he worried that another seemingly minor problem could crop up at any time.
``One of the things I worry about a lot ... is that it's that one wire that shakes loose in the system that prevents the test from being successful, or it's that plug or the water molecule in the plumbing system that gets you. It doesn't have to do with the fundamental design so much as the complexity of the stuff we're building.''
Most experts believe that if the June test fails to intercept its target, Clinton will put off a deployment decision. Defense Secretary William Cohen is scheduled to make his recommendation to Clinton this summer.
The anti-missile system is designed to provide protection for all 50 states against a ballistic missile attack from a ``rogue'' nation. A base with 20 interceptor rockets would be built in Alaska -- most likely at Fort Greely near Fairbanks -- along with the X-band radar on Shemya Island. By 2007, under the current schedule, the system would be expanded to 100 interceptor rockets. The Pentagon estimates the cost at $30 billion.
On the Net:
The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization: http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html
------
Key test won't settle future of national missile defense
Interceptor: Solving problems could take four more years.
San Jose Mercury News
Published Wednesday, May 10, 2000, in the San Jose Mercury News
By Robert Burns Associated Press
http://www7.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/missiles10.htm
WASHINGTON -- President Clinton may decide as early as this summer whether to give a green light to constructing a national missile defense, but the Air Force general leading the project said Tuesday that it would take four more years of testing before he would feel confident it will work.
Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish said the development of a national missile defense -- designed to shoot down a small number of missiles fired from North Korea or the Middle East -- is on the right track. He expressed confidence that the next flight test of an interceptor rocket, scheduled for June, would be a success.
But Kadish, who directs the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, said there are so many technological milestones yet to be met that he would not be confident about its effectiveness until production-model rocket boosters and other advanced equipment are tested in 2004. Not until that stage will the testing involve people who would actually be operating a deployed system.
The rocket booster to be used in the June test is a prototype. The production model will not be ready until 2003.
``We're walking before we run,'' the three-star general said.
The June test is considered critical -- as much from a political as a technological standpoint -- because it probably will be the last attempted intercept before Clinton decides whether to push forward with building the missile defense system. If Clinton leaves the decision to his successor, the Pentagon would be unable to meet its self-imposed deadline of having a missile defense operating by 2005.
That date coincides with the Pentagon's estimate of when North Korea may have an initial capability to strike U.S. territory with a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile.
The timetable is severely constrained because, in order to meet the 2005 target, construction on a new radar in the Aleutian Islands would have to begin next April, Kadish said in an interview with Pentagon reporters. Contracts for constructing the radar base could not be awarded until Clinton gave his go-ahead.
Kadish said he visited Shemya Island in the Aleutians, where the ``X-band'' radar is to be built, last week.
``We're going to have a challenge to build that radar on this island,'' he said, not because of technology but because of the windswept island's exceptionally short construction season.
Kadish said experts had solved the problem that caused the last missile-intercept test to fail in January -- a plumbing that caused a malfunction in sensitive devices aboard the missile interceptor that enable it to ``see'' its target against the cold background of space.
``That particular problem, I think -- barring a real stupid mistake -- is under control,'' Kadish said. ``If we don't have one of those glitches, we think the design we have will be successful on the next flight test.''
Still, Kadish said he worried that another seemingly minor problem could crop up at any time.
Most experts believe that if the June test fails to intercept its target, Clinton will put off a deployment decision. Defense Secretary William Cohen is scheduled to make his recommendation to Clinton this summer.
The anti-missile system is designed to provide protection for all 50 states against a ballistic missile attack from a ``rogue'' nation.
Russian officials have sharply criticized plans for the U.S. anti-missile system, claiming it leaves them vulnerable by neutralizing their nuclear deterrent. Moscow and some U.S. allies in Europe have warned that a new arms race could be ignited if the Clinton administration ordered the system to be deployed.
U.S. officials have responded that the system is meant to shoot down only 20 to 30 missiles and, therefore, could never defeat the thousands of warheads in the Russian arsenal.
Hearst Newspapers contributed to this report.
---
Boeing-built missile defense awaits a critical test
Albuquerque Journal
Wednesday, May 10, 2000
By ERIC ROSENBERG SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU
http://www.seattlep-i.com/national/miss10.shtml
WASHINGTON -- The Air Force general in charge of the controversial U.S. missile defense project expressed confidence yesterday that a critical test next month will be a success, setting the stage for President Clinton to approve the weapon's deployment.
Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish said he was "increasingly confident that we'll be able to do this (score a direct hit) on our next flight test" scheduled for June 26 over the Pacific Ocean.
The Pentagon has set its own goal of achieving two successful intercepts of a mock warhead before concluding that the system is technically feasible. If that goal is met, the Pentagon then is expected to recommend to Clinton that he give the go-ahead for the Pentagon to deploy the system, beginning in 2005.
The system -- a complex network of sensors, radars and missiles -- scored a direct hit last October but missed in a January test. Defense Department officials blamed malfunctioning plumbing on the interceptor rocket for the failure of the interceptor to hit the mock warhead.
Kadish, who heads the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, said the problems dogging the weapon have been fixed.
"That particular problem, I think -- barring a real stupid mistake -- is under control," Kadish told reporters. "If we don't have one of those glitches, we think the design we have will be successful on the next flight test."
If the June test is a failure, the Pentagon has scheduled another for October, Kadish said.
Boeing is the prime contractor for the missile defense program, and is responsible for demonstrating that even a rudimentary missile defense shield will work, before the United States commits to going ahead with the project. The initial development phase is being run by Boeing's space and communications group in Southern California.
Russian officials have sharply criticized plans for a U.S. anti-missile system, claiming it leaves them vulnerable by neutralizing their nuclear deterrent. Moscow and some U.S. allies in Europe have warned that a new arms race could be ignited if the Clinton administration orders the system to be deployed.
U.S. officials have responded that the planned missile defense system is meant to shoot down only 20 to 30 missiles and, therefore, could never defeat the thousands of warheads in the Russian arsenal.
Clinton will travel to Moscow in June to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an effort to smooth over Moscow's concerns. While there, Clinton hopes to negotiate changes to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to allow for the deployment of the U.S. system.
That treaty prohibits the United States from building any system designed to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles.
In the weeks following the June test, the Pentagon is scheduled to make a recommendation to Clinton about whether the weapon is ready to move from the laboratory to the battlefield.
Clinton in turn is to decide in the fall whether to give approval for deploying the weapon in 2005.
Clinton must give his approval no later than November or December if the Pentagon is to meet the 2005 deployment goal, Kadish said.
The schedule is compounded by the need to build a new radar on a remote Alaskan island in the Aleutians.
Construction contracts must be signed in November so that the radar could be completed in time to meet the 2005 date.
---
Politics mars defense system decision
USA Today
5/09/00- Updated 07:40 PM ET
By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncstue07.htm
WASHINGTON - President Clinton is facing mounting criticism that election-year politics is dictating his timetable for deciding whether to deploy a national missile defense system .
Clinton wants to decide this summer whether to go forward with the controversial program, which would cost $60 billion over 15 years. Officials say construction on a radar station in Alaska must begin next spring if the system is to be ready in 2005. But critics say that more time is needed to test the technology and that the decision to deploy should be left to the president's successor. Some are calling the current timetable a "rush to failure."
"It is a workable system, but it's not clear it can be made workable on the schedule set out for it," says James Lindsay, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington . "There's a lot to be said for postponing a deployment decision to let the technology catch up with the politics."
The system uses interceptor missiles to destroy incoming warheads, the technological equivalent of hitting a bullet with a bullet. It is designed to protect the United States from biological, chemical or nuclear weapons launched by so-called rogue nations, such as North Korea.
The system faces a critical test in June . After that, the Pentagon will give Clinton its recommendation on whether to go forward with a plan that calls for 100 interceptors to be based in Alaska.
Defense officials initially said they needed two successful intercepts to give their support. The first test in October successfully intercepted a dummy warhead. But after a miss in January, planners did an about-face . They said a failed third test wouldn't necessarily delay an endorsement if it were due to a mechanical, rather than a design, failure.
A third flight test, originally scheduled for April, is set for June 26. Scientists will have a month, not the more typical 60 days, to analyze the test data. They will then report their findings to Defense Secretary William Cohen, who will advise the White House. Cohen's recommendation is expected to reach Clinton's desk in early August, just before the presidential campaigns enter the key, final stretch leading to Election Day, Nov. 7.
Many political observers say the White House is rushing a decision to immunize Vice President Gore from charges that he is weak on defense and would leave the USA unprotected from missile attack if he were elected president. Texas Gov. George W. Bush has hammered the Clinton administration for dragging its feet on missile defense and has vowed to speed deployment of a missile shield if elected.
Republicans support a system of sea-based and space-based interceptors; they want Clinton to leave the decision to the next president . But administration officials say such a system is too complex to build and would be destabilizing to relations with Russia.
"There will be a decision this year," a senior White House official said. "We're not going to punt to the next administration." Yet even some Democrats have urged the administration to defer a decision on deployment until a new president takes office.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee, has urged a delay. He questions the size of the North Korean missile threat and assails the high cost to field an unproven system.
The advice to slow down isn't coming just from political quarters. In November, an independent advisory committee commissioned by the Pentagon criticized the "compressed" testing timetable and warned against a "rush to failure."
Three months later, the Pentagon's top weapons tester reported that the program's "aggressive schedule" was forcing planners to compress the work of 10- 12 years into eight or less. Philip Coyle III said program delays over the past two years have set back testing by 20 months. Yet the "artificial" deadline for the Pentagon to submit its review to the White House has not been adjusted, Coyle said. The result, he said, has been "undue pressure" on the program.
Coyle also said the tests lack the realism of differing scenarios. The launch trajectories of the "rogue missiles" and the interceptors are identical for each test and the countermeasures intended to confuse the interceptors also have been the same. While such an approach is acceptable for early testing, Coyle said, it "does not suitably stress" the system to support a deployment decision.
Critics also note that the tests have used a surrogate booster to launch the interceptor, or "kill vehicle." The surrogate is much slower than the booster that will be used in the final system. Thus engineers might not know until at least next year whether the faster speed and more violent vibrations of the new booster would damage the kill vehicle. "Why make a decision to go ahead when you haven't demonstrated that the system works?" Lindsay asks. "They need to take some time to iron out the problems and make it work in something more like real-world conditions."
Last month, a panel of prominent scientists, including veterans of government missile programs, weighed in against the system. The scientists said it wouldn't work because adversaries who could build a missile also could design decoys and other countermeasures to foil the shield's interceptors.
Lt. Gen. John Costello, head of the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command, says developers are working to anticipate countermeasures. He noted, however, "We're not going to show our hand." He dismissed criticism of the program, but conceded , "This a highly politicized and highly charged system."
In addition to whether the system will work, Clinton must consider three other factors in making his decision:
Diplomacy. The biggest hurdle might not be technology but the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which forbids building a missile shield. Clinton is scheduled to travel to Moscow in early June to try to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to renegotiate the treaty, possibly in exchange for reducing nuclear warheads. Cost. It keeps going up. Last month, the Congressional Budget Office said the system would cost just under $60 billion over the next 15 years. That's three times the Pentagon's original estimate. The threat. Intelligence analysts agree that North Korea, Iran and Iraq could develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching American soil within the next decade. But they are divided on whether they will.
Robert Walpole, the CIA's expert on strategic and nuclear programs, says rogue nations view intercontinental ballistic missiles "more as strategic weapons of deterrence and coercive diplomacy than as weapons of war." He says the United States is more likely to be attacked with chemical or biological weapons carried in a suitcase or on a barge. So why the focus on missiles? Says Walpole: "There's something about a missile that captures people's attention."
-------- us politics
THE VICE PRESIDENT
After McCain-Bush Act, Gore Tries Catskill Routine
New York Times
May 10, 2000
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/051000wh-dem-gore.html
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- Al Gore goes Catskill.
On a day when the nation's political attention seemed focused on Senator John McCain's endorsement of Gov. George W. Bush of Texas for president, the notably unethnic, Southern Baptist vice president said the heck with it and tried out a Borscht Belt routine before a largely Jewish audience here.
Mr. Gore, whose family comes from Tennessee, told the Anti-Defamation League that a sub-genre of music was proliferating in Nashville -- the Jewish country-western song.
No. 4 on the hit list, he said, was this: "I Was One of the Chosen People -- Until She Chose Somebody Else." No. 3: "The Second Time She Said 'Shalom,' I Knew She Meant Goodbye." No. 2: "I've Got My Foot on the Glass, Now Where Are You?"
And No. 1, which the vice president sang with a soft lilt and a twang: "Mommas, Don't Let Your Ungrateful Sons Grow Up to Be Cowboys When They Could Very Easily Just Have Taken Over the Family Business That My Own Grandfather Broke His Back to Start and My Father Sweated Over for Years, Which Apparently Doesn't Mean Anything Now That You're Turning Your Back on Such a Gift."
The audience applauded and roared with laughter.
But Mr. Gore really wanted to get in on the McCain-Bush act.
He has been struggling for weeks against the attention paid to Senator McCain who, despite suspending his presidential campaign, remains enormously popular.
And Mr. Gore, who has been lagging in the polls behind Mr. Bush, is still overtly courting the independent-minded voters who were attracted to Mr. McCain's candidacy.
On April 30, Mr. Gore met privately with Mr. McCain at the Naval Observatory here, the vice president's official residence. And today, his little humor routine aside, Mr. Gore used his speech to about 450 members of the Anti-Defamation League to draw a contrast between Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush.
Without naming the two Republicans, Mr. Gore said it was wrong not to condemn South Carolina's flying the Confederate battle flag atop the Statehouse in Columbia. Mr. Bush has said repeatedly that it is up to the state to decide whether to bring it down.
Mr. McCain said the same thing in the Republican primaries, but last month he expressed regret for not having spoken out against the flag, saying he was afraid that such a stand would have cost him votes.
Mr. Gore said today of the flag issue: "We know it is wrong not only to support it, but to find it impossible to summon the moral courage to speak out about it. It is wrong to remain silent about it."
Mr. Gore's remarks allowed room for Mr. McCain's reversal but not for Mr. Bush's continued refusal to condemn the flying of the flag.
The speech was an official one as vice president, and the league is a tax-exempt organization that cannot endorse political candidates. But it was certainly a political speech, designed to paint Mr. Bush as an extremist and undermine any impression that Mr. McCain's endorsement might make Mr. Bush more acceptable to independents.
Independent voters are definitely on Mr. Gore's mind. Much of his campaign since March, when he won enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, has been geared toward swing voters in battleground states like Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And just as he has been wooing McCain supporters, Mr. Gore has also been going after the backers of Jesse Ventura, the independent governor of Minnesota.
As it happened, Mr. Ventura was at the White House this morning for a pep rally in support of permanent trade relations with China, and Mr. Gore singled him out for thanks, among others, as did President Clinton. Last month, Mr. Gore also had a private dinner with Governor Ventura and his wife at the vice-presidential residence.
The gateway topic for Mr. Gore to cozy up to both Mr. McCain and Mr. Ventura has been overhauling the campaign finance system, and aides said they expected the vice president to explore the topic publicly with both as the campaign progressed.
Even though Mr. Gore's speech to the Anti-Defamation League poked fun at his own obvious differences with his audience, he still hoped to convey his commitment to their causes. "I feel right at home here," he said.
Mr. Gore's commitments included support for a national law against hate crimes. This amounted to another dig at Mr. Bush, whom critics have said failed to shepherd through such a law in Texas. In a speech that extolled the virtues of tolerance, he sprinkled his comments with references to famous Jews.
"Freud once spoke about the narcissism of slight difference, just as Einstein taught that the most destructive power known on earth is within the smallest state we know -- the inside of the atom," Mr. Gore said. "The smallest differences sometimes unleash the most horrific violence."
He also won applause when he used the Hebrew phrase "refua shlayma," to wish a complete recovery to Abraham Foxman, the league's national director, who recently underwent heart surgery.
Still, Howard Berkowitz, national chairman of the league, said it was concerned that both candidates were injecting too much religion into the campaign. "We want to make sure that one candidate doesn't out-religion the other," he said, citing Mr. Bush's comment that Jesus was his favorite philosopher. "These things are better left in private," Mr. Berkowitz said.
---
Excerpts From News Conference With Bush and McCain
New York Times
May 10, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/051000wh-bush-text.html
Following are excerpts from a news conference yesterday by Gov. George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, announcing Mr. McCain's endorsement of Mr. Bush for president, as recorded by The New York Times.
Q. Senator, why do you have difficulty using the word "endorsement" in your support for Governor Bush?
MR. McCAIN. I endorse Governor Bush. I endorse -- I endorse Governor Bush. I endorse Governor Bush. I endorse Governor Bush. I endorse Governor Bush. I endorse Governor Bush. I endorse Governor ----
MR. BUSH. By the way, I enthusiastically accept.
Q. Does that have to do with the feelings you still have about the primary that you ran and the bitterness you had at the time about some of the tactics that Governor Bush used?
MR. McCAIN. Look, the only way you can approach American politics and seeking elective office is to move forward. For me to look back in anger or with any rancor would be a mistake. It would harm me; it would harm Governor Bush, and it would harm those who supported me in this campaign. I look forward and not back. I hold no rancor. Others will be the judge of this campaign, not me.
And my job is to further our efforts to bring about institutions -- reforming the institutions of government. I can't do that effectively if I look back rather than forward. . . .
Q. How important is that endorsement to you, A? And B, what do you say to that block out there, 23 percent, according to a recent poll, on this day that he's endorsing you?
MR. BUSH. Well, I think this endorsement's important because of that reason.
There's a lot of people who think John is not only a great American, but a person who's got a good solid agenda for the future. And as we just said, there's a lot of areas where we agree. And I intend to continue talking about reform and I'm -- and it's very helpful to have John embrace reform.
Now, I'll tell you a good area where we both agree and there was going to be a stark difference of opinion, and that's on Social Security.
There's a lot of Americans who understand it's time to have a different attitude when it comes to making sure there's pension plans available for younger workers. John and I both agree we must trust younger workers with some of their money in the private sector. We both agree. . . .
And it's going to be a big difference of opinion between what he and I believe and what Vice President Gore believes. Vice President Gore's willing to accept the status quo. He's willing to think the current system is going to work. And we don't. . . .
Q. Senator, can you tell us what, in your view, is the single most important reason why Al Gore should not be president?
MR. McCAIN. I think the single most important reason is that Governor Bush is the most qualified person to be president of the United States. He has the vision; he has the knowledge and the expertise to carry out the mission of maintaining United States supremacy, both militarily and economically in the world.
I think that it's clear that Governor Bush's philosophy, his ideals and his ability to articulate a vision for the future is the major reason why he should be president of the United States and not Al Gore.
And I want to emphasize one more time, and I made it very clear to Governor Bush, I will continue to pursue the issues of reform. That is the agenda that drove me in my campaign and will drive me as long as I am in public service. I believe we will have disagreements, but I also believe we will have a lot more agreements than disagreements. And I think our discussions and our debate will be healthy, and in the long run helpful to the party and the country.
---
THE REPUBLICANS
McCain Backs Former Rival, Uniting G.O.P.
New York Times
May 10, 2000
By FRANK BRUNI
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/051000wh-gop-bush.html
PITTSBURGH, May 9 -- Citing common goals and shared values that transcended any of the bitterness between them, Senator John McCain at last endorsed Gov. George W. Bush today and pledged to help him achieve what Mr. McCain had wanted so badly for himself: a seat behind the desk in the Oval Office.
"I look forward to enthusiastically campaigning for Governor Bush for the next six months," Mr. McCain said at a news conference here that was attended by more than 100 members of the news media, a reflection of just how unpredictable and closely watched the interactions between the Arizona senator and the Texas governor had become.
"I believe that it's very important that we restore integrity and honor to the White House," Mr. McCain said. "I'm convinced that Governor Bush can do that more than adequately." [Excerpts, Page A28.]
The announcement by Mr. McCain, which followed his private 90-minute meeting with Mr. Bush, heralded a new phase in a rocky political relationship that went from remarkable amity in December to extraordinary animosity in March and a tense, delicate dance of reconciliation over the last two months.
Even more important, Mr. McCain's formal endorsement allowed Mr. Bush to lay claim to a unified party, to put an important piece of unfinished business behind him and to reach out to independent and swing voters with the blessing of Mr. McCain, who had proved to be alluring to that group in the primaries.
But aides to Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain and political analysts said it remained unclear just how much work Mr. McCain would do on Mr. Bush's behalf -- and just how thoroughly the wounds of a lacerating primary season had healed. Mr. McCain's often tepid demeanor and restrained language today only heightened those questions.
He repeated several times that his support for Governor Bush did not alter or diminish his commitment to an overhaul of campaign funding laws that was more sweeping than the plan favored by Mr. Bush.
He did not actually use the words "endorse" or "endorsement" until reporters pressed him to make sure they understood correctly what was going on. At that point, Mr. McCain made something of a comedy routine, saying, "I endorse Governor Bush," six times in a row.
And when one journalist asked Mr. McCain if his actions today -- an almost inevitable obligation for any politician wishing to remain loyal to his party -- were like swallowing a dose of necessary medicine sooner rather than later, Mr. McCain answered, "I think 'take the medicine now' probably is a good description."
Mr. Bush's aides chose to interpret the ambiguous remark as an example of the senator's sometimes deadpan humor, and it did not diminish their conviction, shared by many Republican operatives, that the Texas governor had accomplished something important today.
Mr. McCain also made clear today that he had told Mr. Bush what he had been saying publicly for some time: that he had no interest in the vice presidency. He and Mr. Bush said they had discussed other strong candidates, including Governors Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, Tommy G. Thompson of Wisconsin and John Engler of Michigan.
In accepting Mr. McCain's endorsement, Mr. Bush heaped praise on him, providing a stark contrast to some of the dismissive remarks that he and his aides had made about Mr. McCain after Mr. Bush effectively secured the Republican presidential nomination in mid-March.
And he cast their acrimonious exchanges during the primaries as a beneficial experience that prepared him for the general election.
"I told him point blank he made me a better candidate," Mr. Bush said, referring to their meeting in a room of the Westin William Penn hotel here. "He waged a really good campaign and put me through my paces. And as a result of the campaign, I stand better prepared to become the president, which is exactly what I intend to do."
And Mr. McCain said it made no sense to revisit the past.
"For me to look back in anger or with any rancor would be a mistake," he said. "It would harm me. It would harm Governor Bush. And it would harm those who supported me in this campaign."
But the tone of his remarks suggested that his ire and that of his aides over the negative tactics used by Mr. Bush and his supporters in the primaries had not dissipated.
That anger was rekindled today when Mr. Bush dodged a question about whether he would repudiate a statement by the evangelist Pat Robertson two days ago that choosing Mr. McCain as a vice president would be dangerous.
Rick Davis, who had managed Mr. McCain's campaign, said of the Bush response: "I'm very disappointed.
I don't think there's a Republican around who doesn't think Pat Robertson's comments Sunday were outside the mainstream of our party. What's the harm of saying that?"
Political analysts said Mr. McCain's eventual endorsement of Mr. Bush was never really in much doubt, in part because the senator, seen as something of a maverick in his own party, needed to show his peers that he could follow the loyal, polite course. That would be critical if Mr. Bush loses and Mr. McCain seeks to become the party's nominee four years from now.
But the road leading to this point was bumpy, and it was not clear until Monday that this morning's meeting, scheduled a month ago, would bring the waiting to an end.
Mr. McCain's previous statements that he would support the party's nominee fell short of a formal seal of approval and fueled speculation, which Mr. Bush's aides were eager to quell, about what was taking so long.
The two men's aides said Mr. Bush did not offer Mr. McCain anything concrete in exchange for his support. And one McCain supporter said efforts by the aides to hammer out a document detailing joint policy goals had failed.
But Mr. McCain's aides have let Bush campaign officials know that the Arizona senator would like a prominent speaking role at the Republican National Convention, and the Bush campaign has indicated interest in making that happen.
Coming out of the meeting, both Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush acknowledged that they still had policy disagreements, although they declined to linger on them. During the primaries, for example, Mr. McCain repeatedly asserted that the size of Mr. Bush's proposed tax cut might jeopardize the health of Social Security.
And Mr. McCain's vision of campaign finance reform, for example, includes bans on unlimited donations to political parties from both corporations and individuals; Mr. Bush does not think individual contributions should be limited.
Aides to both politicians said there had not yet been any discussion about specific ways in which Mr. McCain could or would bolster Mr. Bush's campaign.
But several Republican strategists in Washington said that Mr. McCain would probably wind up doing a great deal and that his tone today simply reflected the difficulty of accepting that it was finally time to cede the stage to someone else.
"He went from huge media star and man-of-the-moment to having to fall back in line," said William Dal Col, who managed Steve Forbes's campaign for the Republican nomination.
"But it'll get better and better as time goes by, and if he wants to run in 2004, the smart thing for him to do is be as energetic and pro-Bush as possible."
Nelson Warfield, who was the press secretary for the 1996 presidential campaign of Bob Dole, acknowledged that Mr. McCain was "flippant and unconventional" in delivering his endorsement but that his manner did not change "how important it really is.
"Let's face it, in the immediate aftermath of McCain's defeat, there was furious speculation that he might run as a third-party candidate," Mr. Warfield said. "As recently as last week, there was a poll that showed McCain, in a hypothetical three-way race, with more than 20 percent. Any time you get endorsed by someone with that kind of star quality is a very good day."
---
My plans are fiscally sound
USA Today
05/10/00- Updated 08:08 AM ET
By Al Gore
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/ncoppf2.htm
If we want to keep our prosperity growing, it is essential for the next president to stick to conservative, consistent fiscal policies based on realistic economic projections.
These past seven years, we have turned the biggest budget deficits in history into the largest surpluses in history because we have made tough choices based on hard numbers. It is not only irresponsible to use "rosy scenarios" and overly optimistic assumptions, it also creates a serious risk of future budget deficits and higher interest rates, which would endanger our prosperity.
That is why all of the proposals I am making in this campaign are based on strict fiscal discipline and sound economic projections. The numbers I am using are more conservative than those used by my opponent, George W. Bush, and also more cautious than those used by leading economic forecasters.
Barring a national emergency, I believe we must balance the budget every year and pay down our national debt every year, putting us on the road to being debt-free by 2013.
Then I believe we should devote all of the money we save on interest payments on our debt to shore up Social Security. We should also devote $432 billion of the surplus to keep Medicare solvent and to add a prescription drug benefit for seniors.
We must also invest in the future. I am proposing revolutionary improvements in public education, steps to move to universal health coverage, and targeted, affordable tax cuts to help working families and promote economic growth. All of these investments fit within a balanced budget, and all of them are realistic and affordable.
By contrast, George W. Bush proposes a tax plan that would consume about $2 trillion. This would make it impossible to pay down our debt and impossible to pay for all of the new spending he is proposing. At the same time, he does not devote any money to strengthen Medicare, and he supports the privatization of Social Security, which would take money away from the Social Security trust fund, making it weaker, not stronger, for the baby boomers' retirement.
Today, we have an opportunity to lay the foundation for prosperity and progress for years to come. Without responsible fiscal and economic policies, that opportunity will slip right through our hands.
Al Gore is vice president of the United States and Democratic candidate for president.
To comment
If you would like to comment on editorials, columns or other topics in USA TODAY, or on any subjects important to you: Send e-mail for letters to the editor to editor@usatoday.com. Please include daytime phone numbers so letters may be verified. Letters and articles submitted to USA TODAY may be published or distributed in print, electronic or other forms. To submit articles for consideration in The Forum, click here for more details.
mailto:editor@usatoday.com
---
I offer a balanced approach
USA Today
05/10/00- Updated 08:08 AM ET
By George W. Bush
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/ncoppf3.htm
I'm running for president because America's prosperity must have a purpose. And I'm running with a plan that will ensure it does.
First, we have a responsibility to make sure that every child is educated and no child is left behind. I will insist on local control of schools, giving states and districts more authority and flexibility in spending federal dollars, and maximum freedom from regulation and paperwork from Washington. We must hold schools accountable for results, reward schools that improve and blow the whistle on those that don't.
Second, I will reform Social Security by allowing young workers to direct part of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts,while guaranteeing that seniors and all those nearing retirement age receive all of their promised benefits. My plan sets aside $2 trillion over the next decade to protect Social Security and makes sure Social Security payroll taxes are "lockboxed" so they cannot be spent on anything else. I oppose any tax increase for Social Security and oppose the Clinton-Gore plan that would allow the government, rather than individuals, to invest in private stocks or bonds.
Next, I will cut taxes to encourage growth and help those on the outskirts of poverty. My plan cuts taxes for every taxpayer, with the biggest percentage of reductions going to families striving to make it into the middle class. It doubles the child tax credit to $1,000 per child, slashes the marriage penalty, ends the death tax and lets people who don't itemize deduct their charitable gifts.
Finally, I have a plan to help those living between poverty and prosperity. I have proposed a Family Health Credit to help low-income Americans gain access to high-quality health care. And to increase housing opportunities, we will create the American Dream Down Payment Fund to help more than 650,000 families purchase homes.
Some will say it is risky to cut taxes. I say it is risky to leave too much money in Washington for the politicians to spend. My plan is a balanced approach to save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, fund priorities and return part of the surplus to the people who pay the bills: the taxpayers.
George W. Bush is governor of Texas and Republican candidate for president.
To comment
If you would like to comment on editorials, columns or other topics in USA TODAY, or on any subjects important to you: Send e-mail for letters to the editor to editor@usatoday.com. Please include daytime phone numbers so letters may be verified. Letters and articles submitted to USA TODAY may be published or distributed in print, electronic or other forms. To submit articles for consideration in The Forum, click here for more details.
mailto:editor@usatoday.com
---
Plans would plunge USA back into debt
USA Today
05/10/00- Updated 08:14 AM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/comment/nceditf2.htm
Last Tuesday, Vice President Gore, appearing before an audience of police officials in Atlanta, called for adding $1.3 billion to local anti-crime and anti-drug efforts.
On Friday, he was off to a Michigan teachers' convention where he proposed $16 billion for two new plans to subsidize local teachers' salaries and training.
Not one to be left behind, Texas Gov. George W. Bush gave an interview last Wednesday sketching out a plan to divert a slice of workers' Social Security taxes into private investment. No cost details were released, but a similar proposal in Congress is pegged at $85 billion a year in transition costs.
The next day, Bush appeared at schools in California to propose $3 billion for loan guarantees for new charter schools. Add that to a week that began with Bush aides pushing a hurry-up missile defense program Congress' Budget Office says will cost $49 billion.
Both candidates' plans total a huge hit on the Treasury. And both are promising to reduce taxes, and thus Uncle Sam's income, as well: Gore by at least $250 billion over 10 years; Bush, $1.3 trillion over the same span. Result: the specter of a return to deficit spending. And their solemn promises to keep the budget balanced after decades of red ink sound increasingly hollow.
This political campaign is being waged in a momentary gusher of surplus federal revenue from an unprecedented economic boom. But both Bush and Gore are relying on projections of big federal surpluses in coming years, forecasts that could prove woefully wrong if a major economic downturn occurs. And neither candidate talks of the painful decisions required to stay within their tax-cut-and-spend schemes, or what they'll do if and when the economy falls into the inevitable recession.
Each accuses the other of breaking the bank - and they're both likely to be right.
The Bush campaign's figures don't include the full cost of interest payments on the national debt and don't account for the likelihood of Congress enacting a new Medicare prescription-drug benefit or other programs.
Gore is counting on $130 billion in tax increases on tobacco and some corporate transactions - proposals Congress repeatedly has rejected. And he, too, would dip into Social Security's cash flow for improved benefits for widows and working women.
When Bush was challenged last week with his own figures showing that he had spent all of the surplus and more, his camp responded with even more optimistic projections based on the latest economic surge. Conveniently ignored by both sides: Growing signs of inflation already have the Federal Reserve raising interest rates to slow down the boom the candidates are counting on.
Because the campaigns use different figures, it's impossible to make a direct comparison. But both seem to be counting on two things:
continuation of today's exceptional economic growth forever, something that never has happened before and is unlikely now.
voters so dazzled by visions of tax cuts and new programs that they won't wise up.
After years of struggling to get out of massive deficit spending and its drag on everyone's prosperity, the nation deserves better. Considering Washington's past financial irresponsibility, voters have earned the right to be treated as intelligent adults, not easily distracted children who won't notice the risks of political pandering with their own money.
---
Poll: Bush leads presidential race
USA Today
05/10/00- Updated 09:12 AM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/e98/e1749.htm
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Republican George W. Bush leads Democrat Al Gore by 8 percentage points in the race for president, according to a nationwide Los Angeles Times poll published Tuesday.
Bush, the presumed GOP nominee, now leads the vice president, the presumed Democratic nominee, among registered voters by 51% to Gore's 43%, the poll showed. Five% of respondents said they didn't know who to vote for.
The Times poll surveyed 1,211 registered voters between May 4-7. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The figures changed little when participants were polled on Ralph Nader, the Green party nominee, and Patrick J. Buchanan, the likely Reform party nominee.
In the four-way matchup, Bush drew 47% to Gore's 39%, with 4% for Nader and 3% for Buchanan.
Several polls recently have shown Bush with a slight lead in the race, but polling evidence has been mixed.
Gore and Bush were tied in a poll released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Bush had 46% and Gore had 45% in the poll of 940 registered voters taken May 2-6. It had an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
In the Times poll, Bush, the Texas governor, drew 48% of female voters to Gore's 46%. Women have been a Democratic stronghold in recent years, with President Clinton leading by 16 percentage points among women in the 1996 election, exit polling found.
Among men, Bush leads Gore by 55% to 39%, and is even attracting about one-fifth of Democratic men.
Bush also has solidified a broad base of support among Republicans, while support for Gore among Democrats has weakened. Bush is winning about nine in 10 GOP partisans, while Gore is winning only five of every six Democrats, the poll said.
In addition, Bush is successfully courting centrist swing voter groups, who were crucial to Clinton's two victories.
Among Democrats who consider themselves moderates or conservatives, Bush is taking one in five voters, while Gore is winning only one in seven moderate Republicans.
Bush leads among self-described independents overall by 16 percentage points, the Times poll found.
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.