Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
-------- africa
African Nations Learn How to Refuse Entry to Dangerous Chemicals
By Naftali Mungai
June 14, 2000 (ENS)
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jun2000/2000L-06-14-02.html
NAIROBI, Kenya, Delegates from 20 African countries are attending a regional awareness raising workshop here to focus on hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade.
The workshop on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure mandated by the Rotterdam Convention began Tuesday in Nairobi. It is aimed at ensuring that African nations are aware that they have the legal right to be informed of any plans to ship hazardous substances that are subject to national bans or severe restrictions into their countries. They have the legal right to refuse these shipments.
International concern over the risks resulting from uncontrolled trade in extremely hazardous chemicals and pesticides led to the adoption of the Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade - the Rotterdam Convention.
The legally binding treaty, adopted at Rotterdam, the Netherlands in September 1998, has now been signed by 80 countries and ratified by three.
(Photo courtesy International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT))
The Rotterdam Convention helps protect farmers, workers and consumers in developing countries from exposure to highly toxic pesticides. The treaty controls the trade in hazardous chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) used by industry and in harmful pesticides, such as lindane, parathion, DDT and aldrin, used in agriculture.
The core of the treaty is the PIC provision which states that 29 listed chemicals must not be exported from any PIC member country unless the shipment is agreed to by the importing country.
The convention legally requires exporters to notify recipient countries of exports of hazardous substances subject to national bans or severe restrictions. It is expected that more industrial chemicals and pesticides will be added to the 29 currently included in the PIC procedure.
The global market for pesticides continues to grow, with the fastest growing markets in developing countries. African farmers are increasingly using pesticides on export crops.
Workers in Malawi pack dahl lentils for export (Photo courtesy ICRISAT)
"With some 70,000 different chemicals on the market and 1,500 new ones being introduced every year, many governments are unable to monitor and manage the many potentially dangerous substances crossing their borders every day," said Klaus Toepfer, excecutive directorof the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Many chemicals and pesticides are harmful to humans, domestic animals and ecosystems. They may cause cancer or birth defects, or enter the food chain and accumulate in the tissues of people or animals. Chemicals such as asbestos which is still exported around the world, are now known to be carcinogenic.
According to UNEP, the past use and trade of these chemicals has left a legacy of lasting problems. Several PIC substances whose use has been banned and phased out in industrialized countries are still widely used in developing countries and in countries with economies in transition.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization warns that many pesticides, such as DDT, chlordane and heptachlor, which have been banned or whose use has been severely restricted in Europe and North America, are still marketed and used in African countries. Also, many old, often highly toxic, organophosphorus pesticide formulations continue to be used in Africa because of their low price.
Pesticides are used to combat the tsetse fly. Flies like this one transmit a parasite that causes the fatal sleeping sickness, trypanosomiasis. Tsetse fly disease, or nagana, affects cattle, horses, and goats in southern and central Africa. (Photo courtesy )
The World Health Organization estimates that one million people woldwide are affected by pesticide poisoning yearly and that about 20,000 people die every year from using pesticides.
Inadequate control of imported pesticides often results in improperly labelled pesticide containers, pesticides of inferior quality, misuse and overuse of pesticides and poisoning of humans and animals.
Many countries in Africa have reported acute poisoning because highly toxic pesticide formulations cannot be handled safely.
Protective clothing is often too expensive and, in many cases, there is reluctance to use it because of the hot and humid climate in these countries.
The Rotterdam Convention aims to create a first line of defense against chemical risks by empowering governments with the information and procedures they need to monitor and control cross-border trade in these substances.
Pesticide sprayer at work (Photo courtesy Virginia Tech Pesticide Programs)
At the national level further measures are required to reduce the risks involved in the use and transport of pesticides. The challenge for global agriculture is to produce more food with less pesticides, in a sustainable way.
The PIC list includes the following hazardous pesticides: 2,4,5-T, aldrin, binapacryl, captafol, chlordane, chlordimeform, chlorobenzilate, DDT, dieldrin, dinoseb, 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB), fluoroacetamide, HCH, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, mercury compounds, pentachlorophenol, toxaphene, and certain formulations of monocrotophos, methamidophos, phosphamidon, methyl-parathion, and parathion.
The industrial chemicals are: crocidolite, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polychlorinated terphenyls (PCT), and tris (2,3 dibromopropyl) phosphate.
Twelve of these chemicals - the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) - are also the subject of negotiations to minimize emissions and releases into the environment.
The ongoing negotiations also address the accumulation of unwanted and obsolete stockpiles of pesticides and toxic chemicals, particularly in developing countries. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee is focusing on a list of 12 POPs grouped into three categories:
1.Pesticide POPs: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex and toxaphene 2.Industrial chemical POPs: hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 3.POPs that are unintended byproducts of industrial processes: dioxins and furans
More information about the Rotterdam Convention is available online at: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FaoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/Pesticid/PIC/pichome.htm
A detailed outline of international negotiations towards managment of hazardous chemicals is online at: http://www.iisd.ca/chemical/chemicalsintro.html
----
Nuclear Winter Study
I have had some positive feedback from the Federation of American Scientists in regard to organizing a new study on the environmental/biological effects of the current global nuclear arsenals. Dr. Helen Caldicott has given me permission to use her name in connection with this proposal.
I have enclosed a copy of the letter to the new president of the FAS, which I sent last week, at the suggestion of an FAS staff member, Dr. Charles Feguson. I wil let you know any positive news in regard to my efforts.
Best wishes, and feel free to ask me any questions you like.
Steven Starr
9030 County Rd. 389
New Bloomfield, MO 65063
573-491-3687 (home)
573-875-9189 (office, Mon.-Thur., noon to 10:30 pm, CST)
shadesahoy@socket.net
6/14/00
---
Dear Dr. Kelly,
Dr. Helen Caldicott and your colleague Dr. Charles Ferguson have both suggested that I contact you, to ask for your advice and assistance in creating an updated study on the threat to the biosphere posed by current global nuclear arsenals.
More than ten years have passed since the last extensive investigations on nuclear winter were conducted (during the period 1983 - 1989). The composition of American and Russian nuclear arsenals has changed significantly since the 1980's studies, with substantial reductions occurring both in the numbers and yields of strategic weapons. Yet no one has asked: Is nuclear winter still a likely outcome should existing or projected nuclear arsenals be detonated in a major nuclear war?
Major advances in computer modeling and in the atmospheric sciences have also taken place during the last decade. One of the scientists who participated in the original TTAPS study recently told me that more accurate predictions could now be made about the atmospheric effects of nuclear war on the Northern and the Southern Hemispheres.
Perhaps the most disquieting finding of the TTAPS study was that ³Relatively large climatic effects could result even from relatively small nuclear exchanges (100 to 1000 MT) if urban areas were heavily targeted, because as little as 100 MT is sufficient to devastate and burn several hundred of the world¹s major urban centers. Such a low threshold yield for massive smoke emissions, although scenario dependent, implies that even limited nuclear exchanges could trigger severe aftereffects.² (See enclosed references.)
For example, the TTAPS study (from ³Case 14²) examined the effects of one thousand 100 kiloton warheads exploded over 100 large cities, creating a ³Class III² nuclear winter. Consider that U.S. Trident subs carry 3,072 W76/Mk4 100 kiloton warheads, which are aimed at ³urban-industrial² targets in Russia (targeting and warhead information from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan./Feb. 2000, p, 53).
Here is Sagan¹s and Turco¹s description of a Class III "Nominal" nuclear winter: "It carries in its wake significant cooling and darkening, drought, massive quantities of pyrotoxins generated, widespread radioactive fallout, and other atmospheric perturbations. Average land temperature drops would be about 10 degrees C. At noon, the Sun would have about one-third its usual brightness. Months later, sunlight would return to more than its usual intensity, enhanced in the ultraviolet by depletion of the high-altitude ozone layer. Collapse of agriculture, and famine, could be widespread. Within the warring nations, these effects might generate casualties approaching those from the prompt effects of the war. Crop failure--from lowered temperatures, failure of the monsoons, and other causes--are expected in many noncombatant nations in the first growing season following the conflict. The most likely such failures would be in India, China, some African nations, and perhaps Japan. Worldwide, as many as 1 to 2 billion people could be placed in jeopardy of starvation." (See enclosed Chapter 14, ³Darkness at Noon².)
Even under the proposed START III treaty, the United States and Russia will indefinitely keep 3000 to 5000 nuclear warheads on launch-ready status. Should an updated study confirm that nuclear winter is still likely with these arsenals in place, it would have great value in undermining the legitimacy of maintaining this level of weaponry. Perhaps a vivid description of ³Darkness at Noon² might also serve to awaken the American public from the curious sense of complacency with which it now seemingly regards the threat of nuclear war.
Most of the high-yield weapons in the megaton range have been eliminated from the first-strike arsenals evaluated by the 1980¹s studies on nuclear winter. The fireballs from the earlier high-yield weapons would have risen almost completely into the stratosphere, whereas the sub-megaton yields from most of the weapons in the current first-strike arsenals would leave a substantial portion of the radioactive cloud in the troposphere. Thus, a large portion of the fallout from the newer weapons would fall quickly back to earth, greatly enhancing the effects of the shorter lived radioactive isotopes. Would this significantly change earlier predictions concerning the effects of fallout on the biosphere?
Other important points which a new study could address would include the danger posed by (1), an expanded nuclear arsenal in China (if the U.S. NMD triggers a new arms race), (2) dangers posed by Israel¹s nuclear arsenal should it be targeted at oil refineries in the Middle East, and (3), dangers posed by the arms race in Southeast Asia, as well as potential proliferation dangers should more nations choose to develop nuclear weapons.
Dr. Ferguson informed me that the NRDC is going to release a comprehensive report detailing the U.S. SIOP, which apparently will include fairly specific targeting and weapons information. This report could be used as the basis of a study evaluating the effects of the weapons it describes.
It would not be necessary to repeat much of the basic scientific work which has already been done concerning the biological and environmental effects of nuclear weapons. What is sorely needed is an evaluation of the potential for destruction posed by the current strategic arsenals.
I believe that some of the scientists and organizations which conducted the nuclear winter studies of the 1980¹s might be interested in pursuing new research on this issue (e.g., the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment of the International Council of Scientific Unions, the World Health Organization, the World Meteorological Organization, the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, etc.). Dr. Caldicott believes that the W. Alton Jones Foundation would also be likely to fund a new study (they provided the grant which funded the 1983 Conference on the Longterm Worldwide Biological Consequences of Nuclear War).
However, I am convinced that the likelihood of convincing these organizations to seriously consider such a proposition would be greatly increased if the proposal was made by the Federation of American Scientists, rather than by an individual such as myself.
I truly thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven Starr 6/14/00#
--
Nuclear Winter information
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:39:37 -0500
From: "Steven Starr" <shadesahoy@socket.net>
The first studies describing the phemonena came out in 1982 (in AMBIO 11:114, a publication of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) and 1983 (the TTAPS study, an acronym for Sagan, Turco, Toon, Ackerman and Pollack, in Science 222:1283-92). Further studies were done by the World Health Organization in 1983, ("The Effects of Nuclear War on Health and Health Services", publication No. A36.12), the World Meteorlogical Organization (1986, "Possible Climatic Consequences of a Major Nuclear War", World Climatic Program Report WCP-142; 1987, "Possible Climatic Consequences of a Major Nuclear War" WMO Technical Document 201); a huge study was done by SCOPE (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment of the International Council of Scientific Unions) Report 28, "Environmental Effects of Nuclear War", two volumes in 1985 and 1986, "Physical and Atmospheric Effects" and "Ecological and Agricultural Effects"; another by the National Research Council (NRC) of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, "Effects on the Atmosphere of a Major Nuclear Exchange" (Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1985), and finally a "Study on the Climatic and Other Effects of Nuclear War: Report of the Secretary General", United Nations General Assembly Document A/43/351, 5 May 1988. There were also other large studies done in Moscow and Canada, which I can give you references on.
In 1989, the authors of the original TTAPS study published a revised appraisal of their first 1983 study, entitled "Climate and Smoke: An Appraisal of Nuclear Winter" in Science 247, 166-176. After six years of international peer review and a multitude of studies, no significant changes were made to their original estimations on the nature and effects of "nuclear winter". Also, in 1990, Carl Sagan and Richard Turco (authors from the TTAPS studies), published a book entitled "A Path No Man Thought", (Random House), which more thoroughly reviewed and critiqued all the studies done on nuclear winter, and went into great detail about most aspects of the subject. This book, and the 1984 book "The Cold and The Dark" (by Paul Ehrlich, Carl Sagan, Donald kennedy and Walter Roberts, published by Norton & Co.) are probably the two most valuable books on the subject.
I sent photocopies of several chapters from "A Path No Man Thought" and "The Cold and The Dark" to Bill Smirnow. If you are unable to obtain copies of these books (they are out of print, but may be available at a good library), I would be glad to send you similar copies.
In particular, I focused on several points made by TTAPS. First and foremost, the severity of environmental effects is incredibly pronounced when large cities and petroleum refineries are targeted (see Chapter 14, "Darkness at Noon", pages 200-201, from "A Path No Man Thought"). Here is a quote, "The industrial, urban, and petroleum targets are characterized by combustible materials highly concentrated at relatively few sites; this is why global nuclear winter may be generated with only a few hundred detonations or less".
The1983 TTAPS study, in ³Case 14², examined the effects of 1000 100 kiloton warheads exploded over 100 large cities, creating a ³Class III² nuclear winter. This scenario could be caused by one-third of the 3,072 W76/Mk4 100 kiloton warheads now carried by U.S. Trident subs, which are aimed at ³urban-industrial² targets in Russia (this warhead and targeting information from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan/Feb 2000, "That Old Designing Fever,page 53).
Here is a quote from chapter 14 of Sagan and Turco's 1990 book, "A Path No Man Thought": "Class III. "Nominal" nuclear winter: "It carries in its wake significant cooling and darkening, drought, massive quantities of pyrotoxins generated, widespread radioactive fallout, and other atmospheric perturbations. Average land temperature drops would be about 10 degrees C. At noon, the Sun would have about one-third its usual brightness. Months later, sunlight would return to more than its usual intensity, enhanced in the ultraviolet by depletion of the high-altitude ozone layer. Collapse of agriculture, and famine, could be widespread. Within the warring nations, these effects might generate casualties approaching those from the prompt effects of the war. Crop failure--from lowered temperatures, failure of the monsoons, and other causes--are expected in many noncombatant nations in the first growing season following the conflict. The most likely such failures would be in India, China, some African nations, and perhaps Japan. Worldwide, as many as 1 to 2 billion people could be placed in jeopardy of starvation."
The ISCU¹s Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) study, involved hundreds of scientists from more than a dozen countries working over three years. Meetings were held in Australia, Canada, China, England, France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., and Venezuela.
This is a quote from the 1985 SCOPE document, ³Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War². . . "The total loss of human agricultural and societal support systems would result in the loss of almost all humans on Earth, essentially equally among combatant and non-combatant countries alike. . . .this vulnerability is an aspect not currently a part of the understanding of nuclear war; not only are the major combatant countries in danger, but virtually the entire human population is being held hostage to the large scale use of nuclear weapons . . ." (a review of the SCOPE assessment was done by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which confirmed these findings, and even stated that the SCOPE analysis had been too conservative.)
I have been dismayed by the fact that no significant studies on nuclear winter, or the biological and environmental effects of nuclear war, have been done since the late 1980's. The end of the Cold War and misleading statements by government officials has fostered a general feeling among many people (scientists included) that there is no longer any real danger of nuclear war. However, the START treaties will keep many thousands of nuclear warheads on launch-ready status for the indefinite future.
Thus, it is my strong belief that another updated study, similar to those done over ten years ago, is sorely needed, to help reconstitute an awareness of the danger we still face. Also, there are significant scientific reasons to do such a study.
The composition of the strategic arsenals has changed substantially since the 1980's studies, in that most of the high-yield weapons in the megaton range have been eliminated from the first-strike arsenals. The fireball from high-yield weapons reaches completely into the stratosphere, whereas the 100 to 300 kiloton weapons leave a substantial portion of the radioactive cloud in the troposphere. Thus, a large portion of the fallout falls quickly back to earth, greatly enhancing the effects of the shorter lived radioactive isotopes.
Furthermore, computer modeling has come a long way in the last ten years.
The NRDC is about to release an unclassified version of the U.S. Strategic Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), the nuclear war-fighting plans of America. With this information, it should be possible to do an extremely accurate study of the effects of a nuclear first-strike.
I think that the W. Alton Jones Foundation would make funds available for such a study. However, they only fund non-profit organizations, not individuals. Thus, I am in the process of contacting the organizations, and some of the scientists, who were involved in the 1980's studies on nuclear winter.
I can use all the help I can get. Are you interested?
Let me know if you need photocopies or any help evaluating the literature I listed.
Sincerely, Steven Starr
-------- china
Lockheed Martin Settles Fed Lawsuit
June 14, 2000
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-Lockheed-Fine.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Lockheed Martin Corp. is being fined $13 million and will give the federal government closer scrutiny of its overseas activities to settle a case involving the sale of satellite technology to China in 1994.
Lockheed will be required to pay $8 million over four years, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday. The remaining $5 million in penalties was suspended and will be used by the company to take remedial measures to improve security, including construction of a comprehensive computer control system, he said.
The agreement requires that the State Department and Pentagon be given access to the system over the next four years. The system will keep track of all the company's overseas activities involving missiles and space subject to regulation under the Arms Export Control Act.
``We certainly think that these remedial measures and better oversight measures are necessary to ensure that violations don't occur in the future,'' Boucher said.
The settlement is only $2 million short of the maximum penalty of $15 million for violation of the arms export laws.
It is also believed to be the largest penalty ever assessed under the Arms Export Control Act and could offset criticism of the administration's stand on technology deals with China.
James Fetig, spokesman for Lockheed, said Wednesday, ``We have reached a settlement agreement the resolves the AsiaSat matter.''
Fetig said Lockheed neither admitted nor denied it was guilty of violating the law. ``We stand on previous statements,'' he said.
In the past Lockheed denied any wrongdoing and suggested there was no evidence any information given to AsiaSat ever reached the Chinese government.
AsiaSat, a satellite company based in Hong Kong, was a client of Martin Marietta Aerospace, which was acquired later by Lockheed.
In April, the then-State Department spokesman James P. Rubin said ``any assistance to Chinese technical capability in space launch has the potential to be applied to missile development.''
The administration is generally considered friendly toward China's efforts to achieve top-level standing internationally in technology.
At issue were exchanges between rocket experts at Lockheed Martin and the Chinese about kick motors, which are used to lift a satellite into final orbit. Some administration officials were concerned that the same technology could help China launch military spy satellites.
An account of the settlement appeared in Wednesday's editions of the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times.
Related Information From Hoover's Inc. Lockheed Martin Corp
-------- depleted uranium
DU and alopecia universalis
From: "Daniel Ramírez" banderaroja@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:23:16 PDT
In Vieques, Puerto Rico we are dealing with people suffering from cancer or other illness. The US Navy has been forced to aknowledge that depleted uranium has been used in the firing zone in this island. Does anyone have information about alopecia universalis been diagnosed in communities, workers or veterans exposed to depleted uranium or other military toxics? Your help will be appreciated.
Pablo Soto Bandera Roja Puerto Rico
----
FORMER HEAD OF PENTAGON'S DEPLETED URANIUM PROJECT CONDEMNS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION OF VIEQUES, PUERTO RICO, AN ISLAND OF CLOSE TO 10,000 U.S. CITIZENS
(For more information, please access www.viequeslibre.org)
From: "Nancy A. Hey" cattynancy@hotmail.com
PRESS RELEASE- FORMER HEAD OF PENTAGON'S DEPLETED URANIUM PROJECT AND ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF PENTAGON'S PROGRAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION OF FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES CONDEMNS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION OF VIEQUES CAUSED BY U.S. NAVY OPERATIONS.
Jacksonville, Alabama- Professor Doug Rokke, Ph.D., former Director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project and one of the authors of Pentagon's program for environmental remediation of formerly used defense sites, denounced the U.S. Navy's use of Vieques for many years as a training and test ground for military munitions. Navy officers and enlisted personnel under orders and as part of Navy operations have fired conventional and depleted uranium munitions into the Vieques range resulting in serious adverse health and environmental effects. After a civilian guard was killed in April 1999, Navy officials acknowledged that they willfully violated "the requirements of the Navy's radioactive materials by firing depleted uranium munitions which specify that depleted uranium ammunition is to be used strictly during combat or approved tests and are prohibited from peacetime or training use", according to Luis Reyes in a letter he sent to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's Secretary of Health Carmen Melecio dated 1 February 2000.
Mr. Reyes added that Navy officers in Vieques failed to "follow written procedures for issuance and use of ammunition". Moreover, a report prepared by scientists from the University of Georgia revealed that they found barrels containing unknown and potentially hazardous chemicals on ships deliberately sunk off of the coast of Vieques in 15' - 20' of water. These ships were shot up.
"It is imperative that complete environmental remediation of all affected terrain and medical care be provided for all affected residents of Vieques.", Dr. Rokke stated.
Depleted uranium (DU) or uranium-238 is made from uranium hexaflouride which is the non-fissionable by-product of the uranium enrichment process used to obtain uranium-235 for reactor fuel and nuclear bombs. A surprising announcement by U.S. Department of Energy officials on January 29, 2000 acknowledged, after many years of denial, that employees of their facilities had significantly higher incident rates for leukemia; Hodgkin's lymphoma; and cancers of the prostrate, kidney, liver, salivary glands, and lungs. Previous announcements acknowledged respiratory problems at the Paducah, Kentucky facility. These revelations and acknowledgments reinforce the suspected health and environmental hazards of depleted uranium which is manufactured from the main byproduct, uranium hexaflouride, of each of these facilities. It is even more disturbing that in a memorandum dated October 30, 1943, senior scientists assigned to the Manhattan Project suggested that uranium could be used as an air and terrain contaminant. According to the letter sent by the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee on the "Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon" to General Groves (October 30, 1943) inhalation of uranium would result in "bronchial irritation coming on in a few hours to a few days". This is exactly what happened to individuals who inhaled DU dust during Operation Desert Storm.
The subcommittee went on further to state that "Beta emitting products could get into the gastrointestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. From the air, they would get on the mucus of the nose, throat, bronchi, etc. and be swallowed. The effects would be local irritation just as in the bronchi and exposures of the same amount would be required. The stomach, caecum and rectum, where contents remain for longer periods than elsewhere would be most likely affected. It is conceivable that ulcers and perforations of the gut followed by death could be produced, even without an general effects from radiation". Today many who inhaled or ingested DU have bouts of explosive diarrhea and other problems. Today, most of health effects predicted by the subcommittee in 1943 are observed in those exposed to DU during ODS.
According to the U.S. Army's official "RESPOND TO DEPLETED URANIUM/LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (DULLRAM) HAZARDS" task number "031-503-1017: Contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption." This direct quote verifies that the military still is aware as they always have been been since 1943 that serious hazards exist from uranium (DU) contamination.
Dr. Rokke stated that each day reveals more evidence that the United States' willful distribution of uranium in Puerto Rico and other locations around the world poses serious risks. Although it is difficult to verify that health effects were caused by DU exposure, accumulating evidence indicates that health effects include: reactive airway disease, neurological abnormalities, kidney stones, chronic kidney pain, rashes, vision degradation, night vision losses, gum tissue problems, lymphoma, leukemia, other cancers, neuro-psychological disorders, uranium in semen, sexual dysfunction, gastro-intestinal problems, and birth defects in offspring.
Responsibility for DU exposures will be elusive while U.S. officials deny or delay medical treatment to all individuals who inhaled, ingested, or have wound contamination. Exposures will continue until removal of all DU contamination is completed. Still, Dr. Rokke added that Department of Defense officials continue to deny any responsibility for this travesty of environmental justice. Dr. Rokke recommended that, the citizens of Vieques and the world must insist that:
1. All individuals who may have inhaled, ingested, or had wound contamination must receive medical assessment and treatment for adverse health effects.
2. All depleted uranium penetrator fragments, contaminated equipment, and oxide contamination must be removed and disposed of to prevent further adverse health and environmental effects.
3. The use of depleted uranium munitions must be banned.
The residue caused by the use of conventional munitions also poses serious health and environmental risks. Conventional munitions residue consists of unstable and unexploded ordnance, heavy metal shrapnel, organic compound residues, and inorganic chemical compound residues. The unanswered question is whether any chemical warfare or biological warfare agents have been used on Vieques. Conventional munitions residues may consist of phosphorous or other pyrophoric materials; napalm; triethalum metal incendiaries; lead styphnate; lead azide; nitroglycerin; mercury azide; mercury fulminate; PETN; Compositions A, B, C; Tetryl; TNT; RDX; HBX; black powder; ammonium nitrate; Favier explosives (reference U.S. Corps of Engineers Missouri River Division, February 10, 1993); HMX; TNB; DNB; NB; 2,4 DNT; 2,6 DNT; 2NT; 3 NT, 4NT; 4-Am-DNT; and 2-am-DNT (reference U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District December 12, 1996); picrates; nitrocellulose; AP; and nitroaromatics (reference SAIC May, 6, 1997).
In addition to these contaminants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (reference "Approaches for the Remediation of Federal Facility Sites Contaminated with Explosives or Radioactive Wastes", EPA/625/R-93/013, September 1993) identified similar and additional contaminants. The probable adverse health and environmental effects based on physical and chemical characteristics of these conventional munitions residues mandate a complete analysis followed by thorough environmental remediation of all affected areas on the island or in the surrounding waters of Vieques. Medical care also must be provided for these exposures.
Professor Rokke stated that the recent finding of ships sunk with potential hazardous materials in leaking barrels off the coast of Vieques in 15' to 20' is disturbing. Probable water and thus food chain contamination from these leaking barrels with unknown chemicals and decay of ship construction materials also mandates a thorough analysis of contamination, completion of environmental remediation, and health care for all affected individuals.
Dr. Rokke also denounced the fact that almost [a year] has passed since the Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on June 16, 1999 from all the US military branches, requesting any and all information about the use of DU on Vieques and the Committee has yet to receive substantive response. "The Navy was forced to admit that they fired DU on Vieques on February 1999. But the fact that it's taken so long for the Armed Forces to categorically admit or deny others uses of DU on Vieques raises suspicion that there have been other uses of DU on Vieques. This wouldn't surprise me, since the Armed Forces have treated Vieques and its citizens as guinea pigs." said Dr. Rokke.
Finally, Dr. Rokke added that environmental contamination caused by deliberate U.S. Navy actions resulting in air, water, and soil contamination with consequent adverse health effects is a crime gainst humanity and must be immediately corrected. He stated: "All citizens of Vieques, Puerto Rico, the United States, and all other nations of the world must unite to protect our fragile environment and the health of all living things. We also must demand the cessation of all Naval activities on Vieques to prevent further problems in the name of GOD and for the citizens of the world."
-------- environment
straight to the source
USA Today,
Debbie Howlitt,
06.14.00
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20000614/2360151s.htm
The Clean Air Network, a coalition of nearly 1,000 enviro groups, called on the U.S. EPA yesterday to require some 600 old, coal-burning power plants to reduce their mercury emissions by 90 percent. The aging plants, which were exempted from most pollution controls under the 1970 Clean Air Act, emit as much as 51 tons of mercury into the air each year, about one-third of all mercury emissions in the U.S. Mercury pollution is such a problem that 41 states have issued warnings about eating mercury-tainted fish, which can cause brain damage. The EPA is expected to decide in December whether it will close the loophole that lets coal-fired plants pollute excessively. Separately, enviros hope to push through a bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-Vt.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) that would clamp down on the dirty plants.
-------- europe
Eurotech Ltd. Shareholders Informed of Growing Acceptance for EKOR Technology At Annual Meeting
Management describes strategies for marketing Eurotech's cornerstone technology, EKOR
June 14, 2000
Company Press Release
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/000614/dc_eurotec.html
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 14, 2000-- Eurotech (OTC BB:EURO - news), the US based incubator of emerging international technologies, held its annual meeting yesterday where it reviewed its marketing plans for EKOR, a composite material utilized in the encapsulation and isolation of nuclear waste. EKOR, a leading technology within Eurotech's portfolio of industrial and environmental solutions, is poised to become the technology of choice in the immobilization, transport, disposal and storage of nuclear waste worldwide. In response to the market potential for EKOR, over 97% of the shares represented at the meeting were voted in favor of management's proposal to increase the number of authorized shares and thereby enhance management's flexibility in pursuing further development strategies for the company. However, the shareholders will reconvene on June 20, 2000 in order to vote again on this measure, as the two thirds vote of all issued shares required by the District of Columbia incorporation laws was not met. This will allow those proxy ballots that were not yet received time to be recorded.
Board of Directors member and Executive Vice President Dr. Randolph Graves, who served on the White House's Office of Scientific and Technology Policy Committee and was the Director of Aerodynamics at NASA, opened the meeting by outlining the history of Eurotech. He pointed to Eurotech Founder and principal shareholder Peter Gulko's acquisition of the rights to the EKOR technology as the impetus for the company's founding. Heralding Eurotech's decision to ``acquire or license advanced technologies for which there is a ready market,'' Dr. Graves called Eurotech ``the model for the future of technology transfer--a focused high potential technology portfolio with a ready commercial market.''
In his remarks, President and Chief Executive Officer Don Hahnfeldt described how Eurotech has strengthened its position over the past year. Foremost among Eurotech's advances, Mr. Hahnfeldt said, ``was gaining full control of the potential revenue for EKOR.'' In December 1999, Eurotech swapped equity with Kurchatov Research Holdings Ltd. (KRHL) and agreed to assume $1.1 of KRHL's debt in exchange for 100% of the profits deriving from the EKOR material. Eurotech will pay KRHL 2% of the royalties from EKOR's gross revenues. Prior to the agreement, KRHL would have received a 50% share in EKOR's net profits. Additionally, Mr. Hahnfeldt arranged last year for EKOR to be tested at Chernobyl. Mr. Hahnfeldt described how ``This application and the subsequent performance of EKOR was an outstanding success. To date, EKOR, by covering the largest fuel-containing mass at Chernobyl, has prevented radioactive dust from migrating into the environment for far longer than any other material. Even under the highly radioactive conditions of the Chernobyl sarcophagus, EKOR shows no signs of degradation.''
To help speed the time to market of EKOR, Eurotech has consolidated its management team as well. The addition of Jeffery Stephen as Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer and Jon Dowie as CFO promises to advance the commercialization of Eurotech's portfolio of technologies. Added Mr. Hahnfeldt, ``The commercialization of EKOR for the containment of nuclear waste is on the horizon. We demonstrated EKOR at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State and have begun the government certification process. Eurotech also signed a manufacturing agreement with NuSil Technology, a company specializing in the development and manufacture of advanced technology silicone products for the aerospace, health care and other high technology industries.''
Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Jeffrey Stephen described how he has strengthened the company's infrastructure. He announced the appointment of Paul Childress as the acting Director of Nuclear Business, emphasizing Mr. Childress's wide experience in nuclear environmental services. Engaging Mr. Childress, Mr. Stephen explained, ``will help jump-start our efforts to market EKOR and will increase Eurotech's visibility with the Department of Energy, nuclear waste contractors, and key influencers in the field.'' Mr. Childress joins a growing team of Eurotech consultants, including Mancini Marketing and Golin/Harris International. ``Last week,'' Mr. Stephen told the assembled shareholders, ``Eurotech also engaged international management consultants, Deloitte and Touche, to work with us to evaluate our technology portfolio.'' Noting that Eurotech now has ``an infrastructure to match the excellence of the researchers and scientists working in our labs,'' Mr. Stephen said that ``It is time to accelerate the development of the business system and get down to generating revenue.''
Chief Financial Officer Jon Dowie emphasized the dramatically improved financial position of the company. Total assets of the company increased to $11.5 million at the end of 1999 compared to only $77,000 a year before. Despite a small increase in debt, Mr. Dowie said, ``Our shareholder deficiency of $8.8 million in 1998 became a shareholder equity of $1.1 million at the end of 1999.'' Mr. Dowie noted that the loss per share continued to decrease rapidly (from $0.40 per share in 1998 to $0.27 per share for fiscal 1999). Positive trends accelerated during the first quarter of 2000, when a significant reduction in liabilities resulted in a present total line of credit of $75 million.
Chairman Chad Verdi echoed the confidence of his colleagues in both Eurotech and EKOR: ``EKOR will be a very successful product. Far more important, it's going to address a serious problem that has perplexed scientists and worried environmentalists for years.'' Stating ``Eurotech technologies should generate significant sales over the next decade,'' Mr. Verdi also stressed that Eurotech is not resting on its laurels, noting ``We will increase our technology base through either an acquisition of a technology company or by obtaining technologies direct from the inventors.'' Mr. Verdi added, ``The Company is currently in negotiations to commercialize two of its technologies. We are negotiating the sale of the continuous action reactor technology and putting together a joint venture for our polyadditives technologies.''
At the meeting, Randolph Graves, Don Hahnfeldt and Chad Verdi were each re-elected directors for another term. Simon Nemzov, who has served as a consultant and director to a number of philanthropic and industrial institutions, and Dr. Leonid Khotin, an expert on Eastern European and Slavic affairs, were newly elected to the board. The shareholders approved a management proposal to appoint Tabb, Conigliaro & McGann as Eurotech's independent accountants for the year 2000. The shareholders also approved Eurotech's 1999 Incentive Stock Option Plan. The shareholders voted to reconvene on June 20, 2000 in an effort to gather the two thirds vote necessary to pass management's proposal to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock from 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 shares and to increase the number of authorized shares of preferred stock from 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 shares.
ABOUT EUROTECH:
A diversified technology holding company, Eurotech has acquired a portfolio of advanced technologies developed by prominent research institutes and individual researchers. Acting as an incubator for innovative solutions to environmental and technological problems, Eurotech seeks out and commercializes patented and propriety intellectual assets with significant market potential. Eurotech's established relationships with scientists from the Russian Federation and Israel have helped to position the company as the preeminent ``brain trust'' or technology incubator. Among their many technologies, EKOR, a highly radiation-resistant material utilized in the encapsulation of nuclear waste, is poised to change the protocol for nuclear waste management. Confirmed on the proving ground of Chernobyl, Eurotech's EKOR can successfully isolate nuclear waste and provide long-term storage solutions. For more information, visit www.eurotechltd.com on the Internet.
----
Schroeder to meet firms on German nuke pull-out
GERMANY: June 14, 2000
Story by Clifford Coonan
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=7098
BERLIN - Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and senior representatives of the German nuclear industry will meet on today to discuss a controversial plan to abandon atomic energy, a government spokeswoman said yesterday.
The government discussed the terms of the meeting over the weekend, the spokeswoman said. The talks are aimed at finding a compromise between the government and industry about closing Germany's 19 nuclear plants.
"The result of this meeting was such that the meeting can take place," the spokeswoman said, but declined to offer any more details.
Environment Minister Juergen Trittin, a member of the Greens ecologist party which is junior coalition partner to Schroeder's Social Democrats, and Economics Minister Werner Mueller will also take part in the talks.
A key issue at the talks is likely to be the length of time it takes to abandon nuclear power.
The government wants a 30-year phase-out, while industry demands that the country's nuclear plants only be decommissioned after at least 35 years of full-volume operation.
Abandoning nuclear power has caused a number of spats between the Social Democrats and the Greens.
There have been signs for some time that talks between the government and the leaders of the four major plant operators negotiating the pull-out - RWE AG, Veba AG, Viag AG and EnBW - were close to a deal.
The four utilities together produce around one third of Germany's power needs.
Schroeder has said he expects a deal before the summer recess in July but has warned that if the two sides do not reach consensus by then, the government will introduce legislation to shut down the plants.
The energy industry has threatened huge legal claims for any financial damages caused by being forced to abandon nuclear power, prompting the government to seek to manage the move in consensus with the firms involved.
Negotiations were also hampered by further rows over a ban on the transport of nuclear waste.
The government said in January a two-year ban on transporting nuclear waste, introduced by the last government after it emerged that nuclear fuel containers had been leaking radiation for years, would be lifted in August this year.
-------- imf / world bank
From the Bretton Woods Project - London, UK
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:05:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Weissman - rob@essential.org
Attached and below is our statement on the resignation of Ravi Kanbur as lead author of the World Bank's forthcoming World Development Report on Poverty. This is apparently over a policy row on globalisation issues.
I hope you will be able inform others about this, ie NGOs, researchers and press.
Please let us know if you find out other information.
--
14 June 2000
Contact: Alex Wilks: 0207 523 2170 (daytime), or 0207 284 1886 (evening)
Ravi Kanbur's resignation as World Development Report lead author: a serious blow for the World Bank and for sensible discussion of globalisation
Ravi Kanbur, lead author of the World Bank's forthcoming World Development Report (WDR) on Poverty, has tendered his resignation. He has sent a letter to senior Bank management expressing his concerns about what he saw as unreasonable pressure to tone down WDR sections on globalisation. Reliable Washington sources indicate that US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has got directly involved in re-writing the globalisation sections of this report, which is likely to be extremely prominent in future discussions of international issues and in guiding aid interventions.
Ravi Kanbur, T.H. Lee Professor of World Affairs, Cornell University, was appointed by the Bank in Spring 1998 to lead the team writing this report. His writings and the genuine efforts he made to commission research from and consult a range of groups across the world have won him much respect. Many people had hoped the World Bank's report for this year might break new ground compared to its predecessors and open up debates on issues such as free trade and political disempowerment. Kanbur was at pains to stress that policy-makers must examine the detailed, disaggregated impacts on different population groups, rather than relying on general formulae. The organisations which have fed into this report are very concerned to know what will happen to it now that Kanbur has been forced out.
Alex Wilks, Coordinator of the Bretton Woods Project, commented: "The resignation of the lead author of this flagship Bank report confirms our view that the World Bank is unable to accept dissenting views, whether from insiders or outsiders. Coming soon after Joe Stiglitz departed as Chief Economist this is a major blow for an institution trying to position itself as a 'knowledge Bank' and a 'listening Bank'" "It raises questions of who really calls the shots at the Bank and what evidence or opinions about the impacts of globalisation they are trying to suppress".
At Ravi Kanbur's request, the Bretton Woods Project and New Policy Institue ran an electronic conference to discuss the WDR first draft which (a first for the Bank) was disseminated in January this year. The conference attracted 1,523 people from over 80 countries. Many respondents felt that the draft WDR 2000/01 reflected real progress compared to its predecessors, with a increased examination of non-income dimensions of poverty and recognition of insecurity, voicelessness and powerlessness. It moved beyond national average figures on poverty incidence to examine the many factors which influence poverty outcomes for vulnerable population groups. A number of contributors, however, urged the WDR to be bolder in its conclusions, particularly on the political obstacles to implementing pro-poor policies, and the need for a rights-based approach to press Northern countries to do more on trade and environmental degradation. In his 19 May response to the conference, Kanbur said that his team was looking to strengthen their lines on some of these issues, in particular to: "revise the concluding recommendations to bring global actions to center stage".
BACKGROUND NOTES
Kanbur statement on process integrity In a letter to the Bretton Woods Project of 17 July 1998 Kanbur stated: "since you asked for my views, I wanted to let you know my own personal philosophy and perspective as we go into the processes leading up to the Poverty WDR. First and foremost, I want to stress that I would stand behind any Report that I put my name to, and would not submit to any substantive editing I did not agree with".
UK government funding, research input Many UK organisations were involved in submitting research or engaging in consultations on the WDR. The UK government gave the Bank an additional grant of £750,000, aiming to help the report team "give a voice to poor people in the preparation of the World Bank's millenium World Development Report" [DFID News Release, 4 December, 1998]. A number of UK organisations, including Oxfam, IDS, ODI, Christian Aid and CREDIT contributed research to the report. The WDR's findings are likely to be influential on the drafting of the UK government's white paper on globalisation, due this November.
About the WDR The Bank produces World Development Reports every year. The ones at the start of each decade, however, are the most influential as they take an overall look at the 1990 report was very influential in the Bank and for many aid agencies and researchers across the world. This WDR is due to be signed off by the Bank Board this month, then printed in time to be launched in mid-September, just before the World Bank/IMF annual meetings in Prague.
WDR's are officially not documents of the Executive Board of the World Bank, and is thus not an official policy document, it is a document prepared by the Chief Economist's staff, and therefore ultimately represents the views of staff and management. At the same time, the process of preparation of WDRs to become more consultative, to include views of outsiders.
"There is no doubt that wide ranging consultation does indeed influence the team's thinking and perspective as alternative views are encountered and debated." Newsletter Update on WDR 2000/01, No. 1, January 1999 [http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty/newsl/newsl]
Bank President James Wolfensohn, stated in a letter to the Bretton Woods Project of 26 August, 1998 that "I view WDRs as being one of the Bank's critical instruments for dialogue with the development community at large. I have also emphasized that we should not just be reciting generic answers but raising fundamental questions to which there are no easy answers".
About Ravi Kanbur Ravi Kanbur, the T.H. Lee Professor of World Affairs at Cornell University is on leave of absence from his post for the academic year 1999-2000 to lead this report. A UK citizen, Kanbur was on the staff of the World Bank from 1989 to 1997, serving successively as Adviser, Senior Adviser, Resident Representative in Ghana, Chief Economist for Africa, and Principal Adviser to the Chief Economist.
About the Bretton Woods Project The Bretton Woods Project works with UK-based NGOs to monitor the World Bank and IMF. Groups in the network which established the Project include Christian Aid, WWF, New Economics Foundation and World Development Movement. See: www.brettonwoodsproject.org
Resources available:
For more information on the e-conference, including a full archive of contributions, see: www.worldbank.org/devforum/forum_poverty.html
For more general background on the WDR, see: www.worldbank.org/poverty/wdrpoverty.
The letters and documents mentioned in this statement are all also available from the Bretton Woods Project by fax or post.
----
China asks World Bank to delay project
World Scene
Washington Times
June 14, 2000
http://208.246.212.80/world/default-2000614215411.htm
After criticism that a controversial World Bank-funded project in western China will force people from their homes, Beijing has asked the bank to delay a decision on the project.
Called "Poverty Reduction in Western China," the project will involve the displacement of 58,000 residents of overpopulated regions in Qinghai province near the eastern border of Tibet to the interior of the province.
The Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank, who already gave the green light to the project, will examine the report of a 10-month panel study that was completed in April. The report favors objections by human rights organizations that the displacement might dilute the region's Tibetan population.
-------- india / pakistan
NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARMED WITH HAIR TRIGGERS
by Christopher Kremmer
Sydney Morning Herald
14 June 2000 Page 15
A border incident in Kashmir rapidly escalates into war, with Indian armoured divisions driving deep into Pakistan. Facing imminent defeat, Islamabad gives New Delhi four hours to pull back its troops or face a nuclear attack.
It's only a scenario, but two years after the Subcontinent went nuclear, Kashmir where a Muslim uprising backed by Pakistan has cost 25,000 lives in a decade remains the burning fuse of a potential holocaust.
The nuclear arsenals lack sophisticated early warning systems, and experts say delivery systems are more advanced than previously thought. The nuclear arms race is not restrained by treaties, which India and Pakistan have not signed, and missile flight times between major cities are as short as three minutes.
``Apart from the Cuban missile crisis in the early '60s, the world has probably never experienced such a dangerously hair-trigger nuclear environment,'' says Praful Bidwai, a New Delhi researcher and critic of nuclearisation.
In May 1999, a year after both countries tested nuclear weapons, hundreds of Indian and Pakistan-based troops were dying in a bitter battle for mountainous terrain in the Kargil sector of Kashmir. Says Bidwai: ``On no fewer than 13 occasions during Kargil, senior politicians on both sides made public statements suggesting they were ready for a wider even a nuclear war.''
Among the cheerleaders was India's Defence Minister, George Fernandes, who earlier this year said nuclear weapons would not preclude a conventional war, which India would win ``any time, anywhere''. He knows the dangers of escalation, but India's size has encouraged a belief that it can fight and win a nuclear war. ``Senior Indian officials regularly tell us that a nuclear exchange would devastate Pakistan but India would survive, even if Delhi and Bombay were destroyed,'' said a Western diplomat in New Delhi.
Despite the bombast, it was Indian restraint that prevented the Kargil conflict sliding into general war, reaping rich diplomatic dividends for New Delhi.
In March, visiting US President Bill Clinton sealed the West's acceptance of India's primacy in the region, based on economic potential and democratic traditions. Australia followed, agreeing to resume defence co-operation during a visit by the Foreign Minister, Mr Downer, who, unlike Mr Clinton did not visit Pakistan.
Critics of that approach say it has inspired smugness in India, and desperation in Pakistan, which feels isolated and wronged. The Kargil debacle saw Pakistan's Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, toppled in a coup on October 13. Since then India has refused to talk to Islamabad unless Pakistan stops aiding and abetting the Muslim uprising in Kashmir.
``India's stand is understandable, but frankly untenable. There is no justification for refusing talks,'' says Kanti Bajpai, visiting fellow at the Kroc Institute at the University of Notre Dame. ``Even without Pakistan, violence in Kashmir will go on.'' Pakistan's military leader, General Pervaiz Musharraf, confronts an economy dependent on drip-feed finance from the International Monetary Fund, and a defiant fundamentalist movement which continues to export Islamic extremism to Kashmir and elsewhere and regards accused terrorist Osama bin Laden as a hero. Western diplomats believe Musharraf is a tough, straightforward moderate. But his doubtful political skills and the prospects of Pakistan disintegrating are vigorously discussed in the local press, which remains uncensored.
The Supreme Court has given Musharraf three years to root out corrupt politicians, revive the economy and return the country to democracy. If he fails, the reins of power and control over Pakistan's nukes could by default fall to the fundamentalists.
American influence and the global non-proliferation regime has been damaged by Washington's own push for an anti- ballistic missile screen and its failure to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. India once regarded with suspicion as a Cold War fence-sitter now finds itself expected to play a greater role in maintaining regional security. Yet in Sri Lanka, where a weak central government battles to save the northern town of Jaffna from falling to the world's most ruthlesslessly efficient guerilla army and terrorist organisation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, New Delhi has dithered. Domestically, India's broad-based coalition government has decentralised power and kept a check on Hindu hardliners in the largest coalition partner, the Bharatiya Janata Party. But a weakened centre is unable to restrain the financial mismanagement of the States, with many on the edge of bankruptcy. Without continued economic reform and growth, India's aspirations to be a great power could be as illusory as the former Soviet Union's, its unity as fragile as Indonesia's. Defence spending is rising faster than national income.
The continued health of 76-year-old Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, will also be crucial. It is his steady hand which has given an air of stability to what is otherwise a dangerously volatile region.
-----
INDIA : RADIOACTIVE CARGO IN GUTTED MSIL GODOWN?
by A.A. Harichandan Kasturi & Sons
The Hindu 14 June 2000
BANGALORE, JUNE 13. Radioactive material imported by a Peenya-based company was part of the cargo in the MSIL air cargo godown that was gutted recently, according to sources.
Tritium activated zinc sulphide was being imported by the company. The cargo, with airway bill number 098-7249-5150 and IGM number 1289-2000, was stored in the godown during the fire at the MSIL air cargo complex on June 4. However, the company has denied any knowledge of such cargo imported by it. According to sources, in a letter to the General Manager of MSIL on June 3, the company stated that the cargo of tritium activated zinc sulphide must not be disposed of as ordinary waste, but should be treated as nuclear radioactive waste. The company is also said to have forwarded a copy of the letter to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai. Sources say that the temperature inside the godown was high enough to melt the lead containers of the radioactive material, and expose it. However, it is not known if the concentration of tritium in the cargo was high enough to be dangerous. The scientific officers from the Forensic Sciences Laboratories, who are investigating the fire, collected evidence from the air cargo godown over two days. It is not known if they were exposed to any radioactivity. When contacted, the Director of the laboratories, Dr. B.M.Mohan, said that the FSL was not equipped to handle radioactive material, and the disposal of the cargo must be handled by competent professionals. An expert on aspects of safety relating to atomic energy told The Hindu that the actual quantity of tritium was usually too low in the case of tritium activated zinc sulphide for it to be harmful. The radioactive concentration of tritium that may be present was also low in this case, he said.
Further, there is the possibility of the tritium being locked-in by the melting lead pots which would solidify into single units. Tritium gets easily mixed in the atmosphere. If ingested, it gets eliminated in the normal process in two to six days in the Indian conditions where people drink a lot of water. Tritium activated zinc sulphide, a phosphorescent material, is used in the manufacture of dials. Tritium is being phased out from the process in favour of promethium, which is less harmful.
----
India Calls Pakistan's Talks Offer 'Propaganda'
Reuters
June 14, 2000 Filed at 10:00 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-india-p.html
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India Wednesday termed Pakistan's offer to include New Delhi in a nuclear security dialogue as ''propaganda'' and said Islamabad would have to create a proper environment for talks to resume between the arch-rivals.
``It is for Pakistan to create a proper environment for the process to start. It could start only if Pakistan stops cross border terrorism and avoids anti-India propaganda,'' an Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman told reporters.
Pakistan and the United States are scheduled to resume talks on nuclear security and security issues in Washington this week and Islamabad had said Tuesday it could consider any reciprocal nuclear restraint with India.
A statement issued by Pakistan's foreign office Tuesday said Islamabad has repeatedly called for an Indo-Pakistan ``strategic restraint regime'' to avoid a nuclear or conventional arms race.
It said Pakistan was willing to consider any restraint arrangement on a reciprocal basis with India.
``There is nothing new in the Pakistan proposal which is essentially propagandist in nature. India's security concerns extend much beyond south Asia,'' the Indian foreign office spokesman said.
India and Pakistan conducted tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May 1998, earning both countries international condemnation and sanctions and stepped up fears of a nuclear arms race in the restive region.
The spokesman said a road map for a composite dialogue process had been included in the ``memorandum of understanding'' signed between the countries during Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's historic trip to Lahore by bus in February 1999.
The spokesman said the composite dialogue process was derailed by Pakistan after it drew India into a border conflict over the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir.
He said in the nuclear field India was committed to no-first use, a moratorium on nuclear testing, avoiding an arms race and the concept of a credible minimum nuclear deterrent.
The spokesman said deposed Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had reconfirmed that the Pakistani army was behind the conflict in Kashmir's Kargil sector last summer.
Monday, Sharif said that the Pakistani army did not consult him about last year's Kargil confrontation which brought the India and Pakistan to the brink of a fourth war.
-------- israel
$250 million for Israel is threatened
June 14, 2000
By John Godfrey
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-2000614233637.htm
Rep. Sonny Callahan, Alabama Republican, will seek to withhold $250 million in aid to Israel if that nation insists upon selling a high-technology airborne warning and control system (AWACS) to China.
The Clinton administration objects to the congressman's plan, but congressional aides from both parties say there is growing concern over the sale and the trend it portends. Conversely, opponents of the plan - and even some proponents - worry that a heavy-handed slap at Israel would be ill-timed given the Mideast peace talks and Prime Minister Ehud Barak's shaky coalition in the Knesset, or parliament.
"If the secretary [of defense] tells us the sale is not a threat, then the issue is over," Mr. Callahan said yesterday of the $250 million sale to China of an AWACS built with an Israeli-made Phalcon radar system.
Mr. Callahan, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, would make release of the $250 million contingent upon certification by the U.S. secretary of defense that the sale would not jeopardize national security.
The provision, set to match the sale price of the AWACS, could be part of the 2001 spending bill for foreign aid Mr. Callahan's subcommittee is scheduled to mark up today.
Mr. Callahan would also withhold from the bill a provision that gives Israel all of its aid within 30 days of the beginning of the fiscal year. Last year, Israel received about $3 billion in economic and military assistance. Other countries do not get this so-called early dispersal, and instead have their aid spread throughout the year.
The early dispersal provision could be added as the foreign aid bill progresses through Congress, but the threat of withholding the privilege will be a "hammer" that could fall at any time, Mr. Callahan said.
The chairman in charge of the Senate bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said that the sale is "worthy of concern," but that he has not yet had time to consider Mr. Callahan's proposal.
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland Democrat, who serves on Mr. McConnell's committee, said the Phalcon sale by Israel was not appropriate, but in light of Middle East peace negotiations, "it is not the time to be schoolmarmish."
Nonetheless, Mr. Callahan has strong and diverse allies, including Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young, and Reps. David R. Obey, Wisconsin Democrat, and Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Illinois Democrat.
"I totally agree with Sonny," said Mr. Obey, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Obey called the sale a threat to national security but said he would withhold backing for the Callahan plan "for the moment" if the administration felt the plan would be counterproductive or send mixed signals to the peace process.
But "if the sale goes forward, then all bets are off," Mr. Obey said.
Mr. Young said he does not necessarily support the specific proposal, but absolutely shares Mr. Callahan's concerns.
It is not in the nation's interest to provide support that "might find its way to an adversary," Mr. Young said. "It wouldn't be the same money," Mr. Young said of the $250 million Mr. Callahan would withhold, "but money is fungible," or interchangeable.
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright has said the administration opposes Mr. Callahan's proposals.
"Although the United States has real concerns about the proposed Israeli sale of Phalcon aircraft to China - and we are discussing the matter with the Israeli government - we do not believe that linking this issue to our assistance to Israel is the appropriate way to proceed," Mrs. Albright told reporters before departing for the Middle East.
A statement released yesterday by the State Department said the administration wants to "work in close consultation with Congress to resolve this in a way that is consistent with our close strategic relationship with Israel."
The sale was announced in 1996, but the actual outfitting of the plane, a Russian Il-76, with the Israeli-made Phalcon radar system was not detected until last October.
The aircraft will boost the Chinese military's capability to target enemy forces with "over-the-horizon" surveillance. U.S. defense experts view the sale with alarm because it could be used to directly threaten U.S. aircraft carriers and naval forces in the Pacific should they be called to defend Taiwan.
In April, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen urged the Israeli prime minister not to go through with the deal.
"We are aware of the sensitivity in the United States with regard to China," Mr. Barak told Mr. Cohen. But Mr. Barak added, "We are, of course, aware also of our commitment in the contracts that we have signed."
China could buy between three and seven additional aircraft.
Some say the short-term impact of the sale on the security of Taiwan is less important than the long-term impact of the transfer of sensitive technologies. The United States would face the prospect of China's developing even more sophisticated weapons and possibly selling them to U.S. enemies, congressional aides and defense experts said yesterday.
Israel has insisted that the Phalcon system built by Israel Aircraft Industries contains no U.S. technology.
That argument is backed by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is "vehemently opposed" to tying Israel's aid to the Phalcon sale.
The groups says the proposal would set a dangerous precedent.
"Once it starts, it never stops," said Ken Bricker, spokesman for AIPAC.
"Israel played by the rules" when it announced the sale, but suddenly finds itself under attack now that U.S.-Sino relations have cooled, Mr. Bricker said.
He also noted that the Senate had passed its version of the foreign aid bill with no strings attached.
-------- korea
Letter leads to nuclear stash
Korea special report
Jonathan Watts in Tokyo
Wednesday June 14, 2000
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,331714,00.html
A mildly radioactive letter sent to the Japanese prime minister, Yoshiro Mori, led police to a warehouse full of a material associated with the extraction of uranium yesterday. The discovery of 15 tons of monazite came after an anonymous tip-off that dangerous radioactive material was being smuggled from Japan to North Korea.
The claim was made in a letter sent on June 6 to Mr Mori and the heads of eight government bodies, including the police and defence agencies.
Each envelope contained three grams of monazite, a mineral phosphate mined and processed to recover uranium.
Monazite, which is not controlled by international treaties, also includes thorium, which can be used in nuclear bombs and reactors.
The sand-like yellow substance was found to be radioactive, though officials said the level was not harmful.
According to the Kyodo news agency, a hand-written note in the envelope warned: "Uranium is being sent to North Korea and police should investigate because it is dangerous."
The sender said the smuggling was being carried out by the president of an education ministry foundation, whose name has been withheld.
The police found the monazite stockpile during a search of properties owned by the foundation near Tokyo and in central Japan. According to science agency officials, there were no harmful levels of radioactivity at the sites.
In interviews with domestic media, the president said he had imported 50 tons of monazite from Thailand about 20 years ago with the intention of selling it on to hot-spring resort operators, who strive to offer unique mixes of minerals in bath waters.
The president said he had sold most of his original stock and the remaining 15 tons was securely stored.
The police are investigating whether he broke nuclear-related laws by importing or storing the monazite.
Attention is also focused on the intentions of the sender of the radioactive letters. One theory is that the warning was designed to raise fear about the North Korean capital Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programme before yesterday's historic summit between the leaders of North and South Korea.
----
S. Koreans watch - and welcome - summit
USA Today
06/14/00- Updated 10:07 AM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nwswed07.htm
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Vendors at Seoul's wholesale markets measured out lengths of silk and weighed buttons as usual Wednesday, but kept their television sets tuned to summit talks in Pyongyang.
''I watched it yesterday as I was working and then I rushed home to watch it again with my family,'' said Chang Ki-chul, 62, who sells men's suits. ''I could watch it over and over and it's still amazing to me.''
As the second day of summit talks got under way, South Korea was keeping watch - by television, by radio and by newspaper. Taxi drivers listened as they navigated Seoul's notoriously busy traffic; office workers and commuters gathered around TV monitors at banks and train stations.
Chang rushed to a bank around the corner to watch South Korean President Kim Dae Jung step off his plane Tuesday to a surprisingly warm welcome by the North's leader, Kim Jong Il.
Oh Kyung-soo, a 29-year-old college student, watched at home with relatives, including some in-laws with family in the North who cried as the two leaders shook hands. Schools broadcast the meeting on monitors for a live history lesson.
''Everybody was going crazy yesterday,'' said Chang, who had a newspaper account of the visit spread before him. ''We've been enemies for 55 years and now, finally, our leaders are meeting to discuss peace - that's a historic moment for the whole world.''
Within hours, the rustle of newspaper filled Seoul's subway trains as commuters flocked to newsstands displaying the first dispatches from the groundbreaking meeting.
''There are no parties or celebrations, really, but everyone is interested,'' said Hwang Hye-yon, 55, a wool and gabardine vendor who took advantage of a quiet moment at the bustling Tongdaemun market to watch the broadcast on a small television.
One former North Korean, singer Kim Yong, celebrated the summit talks by offering cold noodles - Pyongyang's specialty - for free at the chain of restaurants he opened after defecting. Another business symbolically poured South Korean and North Korean drinking water into the same vat, and Seoul's young pop singers and hip-hop duos performed at commemorative concerts.
For residents of the South's capital, the broadcasts are a rare, fascinating glimpse into the isolated North. Footage showed the women of Pyongyang in traditional hanbok dresses, which South Korean women wear only on special occasions. Here, shorts and T-shirts and cell phones hanging around the neck are standard issue.
''The way the women were dressed seemed a bit old-fashioned and the way they were cheering so enthusiastically was strange to me,'' said Lee Chung-ho, 36, a banker who had a TV monitor on at his branch. ''And the expression on the faces of the children singing seemed so practiced.''
Though buoyed by Kim Jong Il's gracious greeting, most South Koreans reserved judgment Wednesday on what might come out of the three-day talks.
''The summit talks aren't a complete success yet - we're only halfway there. Kim Jong Il needs to come to Seoul next,'' said Kim Jung Yon, a 21-year-old architecture student at Yonsei University.
Before even considering reunification, the two sides must negotiate permanent peace and reuniting divided families, some said.
''If they can agree on letting families reunite, that would be the biggest gift that Kim Dae Jung could bring back from Pyongyang,'' said Lee Chung-ho.
---
Korean leaders sign summit agreement
USA Today
06/14/00- Updated 07:39 PM ET
By Paul Wiseman, USA TODAY
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nwswed01.htm
SEOUL, South Korea - The leaders of North and South Korea reached a historic agreement late Wednesday that could signal the end of the Cold War on the Korean peninsula.
South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il pledged to allow meetings between families divided after the Korean War, cooperate on everything from economic development to the environment and work toward eventual reunification.
The North Korean leader also agreed to make a return visit to the southern capital Seoul "at an appropriate time."
The pact is the centerpiece of an astonishing summit this week in the northern capital Pyongyang. It comes almost exactly one year after North and South Korean warships clashed in the Yellow Sea. Though the leaders had never met, this week Kim Dae Jung and Kim Jong Il joked, held hands and behaved like partners, not sworn enemies.
"They've got a lot of work to do and it's just the first step," said President Clinton, referring to the summit accord. "But it's clearly a move in the right direction and everyone else in the world should be encouraged by this. This is a good thing."
Korea has been divided into the communist North and capitalist South since the end of World War II. The two countries fought a bloody war from 1950 to 1953 and never signed a peace treaty. There have been sporadic conflicts along the tense border ever since, and the United States has 37,000 troops in South Korea to keep the peace.
Wednesday's deal came after more than three hours of face-to-face talks. After they signed the agreement in the Baekhwawon State Guesthouse in Pyongyang, the two Kims clasped hands and raised their arms in triumph.
The leaders toasted the agreement with champagne. They agreed to:
Let an unspecified number of divided families meet around Aug. 15, a holiday celebrated in both North and South Korea marking the peninsula's liberation from Japanese rule in 1945. Millions of South Koreans are believed to have relatives in the North they haven't seen in 50 years. South Korea also agreed to "resolve" the issue of North Korean spies released from South Korean prisons but not allowed to go home.
Promote economic development. Although no details were included in the deal, it seems to call for the South to increase assistance to North Korea's devastated economy.
Conduct exchanges in sports, the arts and the environment. In a separate development, sports officials from both countries talked about fielding a joint team in the Sydney Olympics, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.
Work "independently" toward reunification, seeking common ground. Almost everyone agrees, though, that reunification would be so costly and complex that it will take at least a decade or a lot longer.
---
U.S. tempered about Korean summit
USA Today
06/14/00- Updated 01:37 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/world/nwswed08.htm
WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration on Wednesday commended the leaders of North and South Korea for their historic agreement toward eventual reunification, but expressed cautious optimism about future relations on the Korean Peninsula. ''I think we need to look at what the process will be coming out of this meeting,'' White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said. ''We've had some false starts before and it's certainly our hope that they can find some way to build on the success of the last two days.'' South Korea President Kim Dae Jung and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, closed their summit Wednesday by signing an agreement to work toward eventual reunification. The agreement did not mention North Korea's demand did not mention North Korea's demand that the United States withdraw its 37,000 troops from South Korea. Lockhart declined to comment on how the agreement might affect American troops there. Lockhart declined to comment on how the agreement might affect American troops there.
---
North Korea a genial host to the South
Washington Times
June 14, 2000
By Edward Neilan
http://208.246.212.80/world/default-200061423458.htm
SEOUL - North Korea's unpredictable and heretofore reclusive leader, Kim Jong-il, surprised his South Korean counterpart, Kim Dae-jung, with a massive welcoming turnout yesterday and pledged to open a "dialogue without reserve."
The cheering crowds, which displayed the characteristic fervor and discipline of communist societies, marked the opening of an unprecedented three-day summit in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital.
Western correspondents, barred from joining the historic event, which was open only to Korean journalists, were forced to chronicle the proceedings from their hotel room television sets in Seoul, the capital of South Korea.
Nevertheless, the day's demonstration of congeniality drew praise from Kim Dae-jung, as well as from the United States, Russia and the United Nations.
A South Korean spokesman said today's discussions will be conducted through an "expanded summit." He did not elaborate, but left the distinct impression that it will be a "nuts and bolts" session as ministers with specific responsibilities and detailed knowledge join the leaders in dialogue.
The spokesman also dampened speculation that the two Kims would agree to set up a hot line to communicate in periods of tension.
Swept along yesterday by the upbeat summit moment, which he himself had worked so hard to bring about, the South Korean guest told his host he was tremendously moved by the welcome, especially as he had not expected to be able to make a visit to the North so soon.
He pledged to work toward eventual reunification of the Korean Peninsula, divided into a communist North and a Western-aligned South after World War II. After decades of Japanese colonial subjugation before the war, Korea became a microcosm of the ideological bitterness spawned by the Cold War. From 1950 to 1953, it became a savage battleground.
For the short term, South Korea's leader appealed for reunions of divided families and an opening of land, sea and air routes between the two rivals, whose border has remained sealed nearly 50 years.
"Let us open up the road that has been blocked off for half a century," Kim Dae-jung said.
"Let us open new sea lanes of communication and air routes, too.
"When that happens, all Koreans will be able to travel freely between the two sides and work toward reconciliation, cooperation and eventual reunification," he said.
The summit began with a surprise welcome by Kim Jong-il at the airport on the outskirts of Pyongyang.
The 58-year-old North Korean leader, shedding his dour image, appeared relaxed and smiling. He held hands with his guest during a limousine ride into the North's capital, traveling along avenues lined with hundreds of thousands of people waving bouquets of pink paper flowers.
Then he offered a curious assessment of his expectations for the meetings:
"The world is closely watching us. Why President Kim came to North Korea and why I accepted is a question mark," the North Korean leader said.
"We have to give the answer to this question during the two nights and three days" of the summit, the pool quoted him as saying. "I ask not only President Kim, but also [accompanying] ministers to make contributions to this."
In Washington, White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart underscored the importance of the summit, saying the Clinton administration was "heartened to see the warm welcome that Kim Dae-jung received."
He said he didn't want to speculate about what, if any, concrete results would come out of the meeting, adding, "It's obviously . . . an important part of the process that they have been brought together in this forum to have discussions directly."
The Russian Foreign Ministry also welcomed the summit, being held just weeks before President Vladimir Putin's own planned visit to the isolated North.
"We are pleased that this awaited meeting has taken place," Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov told Interfax news agency. "It encourages hopes for a constructive dialogue between the two countries."
At U.N. headquarters in New York, Secretary-General Kofi Annan warmly welcomed the historic summit and said he hoped it would mark a turning point toward peace, stability and reunification.
"The secretary-general wholeheartedly welcomes the historic inter-Korean summit, which began today in Pyongyang," a statement issued through a U.N. spokesman said yesterday.
"He salutes the vision and wisdom of General Secretary Kim Jong-il and President Kim Dae-jung in opening this dialogue at the highest level," the statement added.
The reuniting of families strikes a deep emotional chord with virtually all Koreans.
An estimated 10 million, or nearly one in four South Koreans, have relatives in North Korea they have not seen in the half-century since the Korean War.
"Many of the family members are passing away due to their advanced age. We have to attend to their lifelong wishes," Kim Dae-jung said in a banquet speech at the end of the first day of talks.
Despite the congenialities of the moment, huge substantive problems that have bedeviled Korean leaders and their respective communist and free-world allies for decades are waiting to be addressed.
At least three big topics lie ahead: • North Korea's missile and nuclear programs. Kim Dae-jung has promised the United States and Japan he would raise the issue. But analysts believe he will avoid raising the ire of his host.
• Kim Jong-il's demand that 37,000 American troops be removed from the South. He says that progress toward reunification of the two Koreas is impossible unless U.S. forces are first withdrawn.
• A reciprocal visit by Kim Jong-il to Seoul. An agreement here would define the summit as a success. The secretive North Korean leader is known to have traveled outside his country only three times in his life, most recently on a secret trip to Beijing last month in preparation for this week's meetings.
Speculation in Seoul centers on an October visit.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
---
2 Korean Leaders Speak of Making 'a Day in History'
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/061400korea-summit.html
SEOUL, South Korea, June 13 -- During a 40-minute limousine ride into the North Korean capital from Pyongyang's airport on Tuesday, the leaders of North and South Korea, who had never met before, had this extraordinary exchange:
"June 13 will be a day recorded in history," the reclusive North Korean president, Kim Jong Il, said to his southern counterpart after they arrived together at his state guesthouse. "Let's get on," replied Kim Dae Jung, "and make that history."
Then, in words that managed to be both hopeful and enigmatic, the northern leader, in only his second known meeting with another head of state after six years in power, said, "I will try not to be too proud, and you will not be disappointed."
The dialogue was reported by South Korean journalists traveling with their president, who were told of it by a government official.
In fact, disappointment appeared to be far from the spirit of either man at the start of a summit meeting whose opening formalities seemed surprisingly relaxed, exceeding the expectations of many people, including perhaps those of the principals themselves.
Indeed, whether reviewing goose-stepping northern troops or chatting easily with his cherubic junior, there was the 75-year-old South Korean leader, barely able to suppress his pleasure at realizing a cherished wish of setting foot in the north.
The triumph of restoring dialogue across the world's most heavily armed border will certainly seal the place of Kim Dae Jung, already a heroic champion of democracy in his country, as a huge force for change in modern Korean history.
During the meeting on Tuesday, the two leaders discussed setting up a hotline. "From now on, let's directly contact each other," Kim Jong Il was reported to have said.
The talks today are expected to be the first to deal in depth with problems that divide the two countries. One topic brought up today was the possibility of setting up representatives offices in each country, according to pool reports from Pyongyang.
In South Korea, where the meeting was banner news and was broadcast and rebroadcast in schools, offices and on the huge television screens displayed from many buildings in central Seoul, people clapped, gasped and even cried at the sight of the two Kims shaking hands.
"When I saw the two leaders greet each other, my heart raced with excitement," a 38-year-old woman told The Korea Herald. "At that moment, I was convinced that even if reunification doesn't happen right away, we may see it happen in the near future."
North Korea's state-controlled media were more subdued, but by its unusual standards, extraordinarily positive about engagement with the south. "The Great Leader Kim Jong Il warmly greeted President Kim Dae Jung at the airport," Radio Pyongyang announced. Later it reported that the meeting represented "a landmark turning point in the road toward national reconciliation, cooperation, peace and unification."
The South Korean president is now expected to press for an easing by northern officials of the harsh restrictions on communications and travel that prevent the estimated 1.8 million survivors of the 1950-53 war with relatives in the north from making contact with their families.
After inheriting power from his Communist father and presiding over his nation's worst economic catastrophe, the little-known Kim Jong Il, meanwhile, has sealed his emergence from the shadows by confidently acting as a host to his elder guest at a summit meeting that seemed largely conducted according to his vague and secretive terms.
The younger leader's expression as he reviewed the troops upon Mr. Kim's arrival, balancing his slightly visible paunch on his elevated heels, was one of satisfaction that comes from success at gamesmanship with missiles and rumors about nuclear weapons that brought an erstwhile enemy to town bearing lavish gifts.
As an inducement for the famine-stricken and impoverished north, the South Korean government pledged large quantities of fertilizer to Pyongyang when they first agreed to the summit meeting after secret negotiations in China last April. Providing a further lubricant, the South Korean leader traveled with heads of his country's biggest conglomerates, all eager for a foothold in the north.
In another enigmatic comment by the host, Mr. Kim told the South Korean president: "The world is closely watching us. Why President Kim came to North Korea and why I accepted is a question mark. We have to give the answer to this question during the two nights and three days, and I ask not only President Kim but also ministers to make contributions to this."
Enigma has long been a trademark of North Korean leaders, starting with the country's founder, Kim Il Sung, who combined Stalinism with almost cult-like leader worship in four decades of power.
The event on Tuesday confirmed that the founder's son also relishes surprise. "Today was a demonstration of Kim Jong Il's new ruling style," said Dr. Yu Suk Ryul at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security in Seoul. "In the recent past, he paid a surprise visit to the Chinese Embassy in Pyongyang. During a previous visit by Chung Ju Yung, the honorary chairman of the Hyundai Group, Kim paid a surprise courtesy call to the Baekhwawon State Guest House where he was staying in Pyongyang. Looking at such actions, it makes sense that Kim Jong Il came out to personally greet President Kim Dae Jung."
Before taking off from Seoul on Tuesday morning, in a final comment that betrayed his wariness about the north, the South Korean leader told his nation to pray for his safe return.
Moments earlier, in his departure speech, he said that he would work on "the easy things" with his counterpart, seeking momentum-building accomplishments, instead of great leaps forward on security issues and other sticky questions.
In that spirit, the first day was indeed heavy on ceremony and short on detail, at least announced details. After their surprising ride together to the state guest house, past hundreds of thousands of North Koreans who mostly chanted their own leader's name and waved colorful fronds, the two presidents met together for 27 minutes.
Their meeting was followed by a lunch at which the head of the North Korean Workers' Party acted as host. Then, after a traditional dance performance, and more rubbing of elbows by the two delegations, there was an evening banquet.
At the insistence of the northern organizers, the talks lack a formal agenda, and even the schedule of events has been kept a closely held secret. In addition to the car ride together on Tuesday and the brief meeting afterward, the two leaders were expected to meet by themelves one more time, and to attend a gathering of the two delegations.
Kim Dae Jung is expected to return to Seoul by motorcade by crossing at the the heavily guarded border village of Panmunjom. "The threshold of success for this summit meeting was a picture of the two men together, some material goods for the north for Kim Jong Il to show off, and some news for Kim Dae Jung to bring home about separated families," said Marcus Noland, a North Korea expert at the Institute for International Economics in Washington.
Mr. Noland said that most of this agenda had been quickly achieved in the first hours of the day, but that the family issue will prove much harder to resolve because reunification threatens the ideological purity of North Koreans, who live under constant indoctrination.
But in his remarks at the evening banquet, Kim Dae Jung persisted with his dream of untrammeled contact, even proposing the re-opening of road and rail links after more than a half-century of barbed wires, heavily armed border guards and frequent defections.
"When that happens," Mr. Kim said "all Koreans will be able to travel freely between the two sides and work toward reconciliation, cooperation and eventual reunification."
---
Two Koreas Reach Agreement to Ease Cold War Tensions
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/14cnd-korea-summit.html
SEOUL, South Korea, June 14 -- After more than three hours of talks between their presidents on the second day of a historic summit, North and South Korea achieved agreement today on a multi-point program of national reconciliation.
The agreement, which was signed and toasted with champagne by the two leaders, who shook hands vigorously and smiled broadly, was more a general statement of common principles than a detailed roadmap for the future.
But if kept deliberately vague, it covered many of the basic points that have long been seen as keys to ending the Cold War on the Korean peninsula.
These included reconciliation and unification; the establishment of peace; allowing members of separated families to exchange visits, starting in August; and increasing cultural exchanges.
In addition, it was agreed that the northern leader, Kim Jong Il, would visit Seoul "at the earliest appropriate moment." The two sides are also known to have discussed the creation of offices in each other's capitals, and establishing a hot line between their leaders.
"At this very hour, the attention of the 70 million Korean people is drawn to Pyongyang, and the eyes of the entire world are riveted to this place," the South Korean President, Kim Dae Jung, said in a banquet prior to the signing.
"Chairman Kim Jong Il and I have successfully concluded the summit," he said. "For the first time, the Korean people can see a bright future as a dawn of hope for reconciliation, cooperation and unification is breaking."
In reply to Mr. Kim's toast, Kim Young Nam, the second-ranking figure in North Korea, said: "History gives us opportunities only once. Reunification is not for the future but for the present."
Interjecting a note of mystery into a summit meeting that has already had a few surprises, no statement was immediately available from North Korea about the agreement. News of the agreement was broadcast in the south an hour after it was signed. It was not immediately known how the news was broadcast to the North Korean people.
"It is important to remember the symbolic importance of this meeting," said a Western diplomat who spoke on the basis of anonymity.
"Hopefully, things will continue to proceed from here, but this has already been an unexpected success."
The long elusive and little known Kim Jong Il, 58, was frequently on view for the second consecutive day today, as he was shown talking in a relaxed and self-confident manner with his southern counterpart.
Mr. Kim even joked about his reputation as a recluse. "Westerners seem to have been very anxious about why I live like a hermit," he said in an informal chat with Kim Dae Jung, moments before the two leaders went into a two hour and 20 minute meeting. "And now, with your visit, they've got the answer."
Seeking to dispel this image, the North Korean leader said he had traveled to China and Indonesia many times, but said that he had done so in secret.
South Koreans expressed surprise today about the warm and apparently relaxed atmosphere surrounding the talks, which began with Kim Jong Il unexpectedly greeting Kim Dae Jung upon his arrival at the airport near Pyongyang.
Many people said they were impressed by how normal and personable the mysterious northern leader was, after years of state-sponsored stories in the south that portrayed him as a crackpot dictator and hard-living playboy.
"This will change the relationship between the two countries," said Park Han Sung, a clerk at an eyeglass shop in downtown Seoul. "Maybe nothing dramatic will happen right away, but most people would agree that a surprising amount of progress and understanding has been achieved already."
If they are confirmed by the north and followed up on, the four points of agreement would advance critical interests on both sides, as well as of regional parties to the 50-year-old Korean conflict.
For Pyongyang, there was little doubt that increased exchanges meant a boost in aid and investment from the south, which northern leaders hope would prop up their spectacularly failing economy, the only industrialized one that has experienced famine in peacetime.
The southern delegation, for its part, has rushed to leave little doubt of its willingness to help, reportedly offering today to provide $450 million in economic assistance, through its ministry of unification, and speed its delivery of 200,000 tons of fertilizer.
For Kim Dae Jung, progress on the reunion of seven million of his compatriots with their relatives in the north was seen by many as a bottom-line gauge of success for the summit. "Many of the family members are passing away due to their advanced age," Mr. Kim said in a speech intended to give a clear sense of urgency. "We have to attend to their life-long wishes."
While both sides clearly have interests in the matter, reconciliation and reaching a peace agreement to finally end the state of war that formally persists between the two countries is also something keenly supported by other countries with interests as disparate as the United States, China and Japan.
With surprising bluntness, Kim Dae Jung told his counterpart that for this to happen, "it is important to improve your relations with the United States and Japan."
---
Past Korean Accords Have Failed
Associated Press
June 14, 2000 Filed at 3:24 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/i/AP-Koreas-Summit-Past-Accords.html
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- Since 1971, North and South Korea have held many rounds of talks to discuss issues such as the reunion of families and political and sports exchanges. Twice before agreements promoting the peninsula's reunification have failed.
------
Aug. 12, 1971: Red Cross officials of the two Koreas begin talks to reunite tens of thousands of families separated by their closed border. After 300 sessions over 14 years, they agree to grant temporary reunions for only 100 family members.
July 4, 1972: South Korea's intelligence chief and a confidant of North Korean leader Kim Il Sung sign a joint communique pledging to work toward reunification of the peninsula. Hailed as a major peace document, the accord is scrapped one year later when Pyongyang criticizes Seoul for having its secret agents capture a South Korean opposition leader overseas and bring him home to be prosecuted for anti-government activities.
Sept. 4, 1990: North and South Korean prime ministers start talks that lead to a Dec. 13, 1991, agreement promoting peace and eventual reunification. It is never put into practice, partly because of a dispute over the North's suspected development of nuclear weapons.
-------- kosovo
KOSOVO ON THE VERGE OF ECOLOGICAL CRISIS
June 14, 2000 (I-Net)
Morning news edited by Nikola Stan
AIM (Academic Information Network),
Belgrade, June 14, 2000 12:00
http://www.aim.ac.yu/cgi-bin/f_news.pl?id=1#4
PRISTINA, Group of French doctors, confirmed to daily "Glas javnosti" news reporter, that ecological catastrophe is threatening Kosovo. Adducing on the researches that have been done by their colleagues during the last 12 months, they claimed that the percent of radioactive elements in air, water and soil is very high.
They confirmed doubts that there is a nuclear waste storage in the Bondstill American Military Base, near Urosevac. The second storage is said to be located in Salkovac village, near Pristina, near the water refinery which supplies Pristina with drinking water. "This is one of the reasons why soldiers from western countries flee Kosovo, and drink only bottled water imported from abroad."
-------- npt
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
Statement on the Conclusion of the 2000 NPT Review Conference
From: "Merav Datan" mdatan@ippnw.org
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:27:11 -0400
For four weeks in April and May, the 187 state parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) met in New York for the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The parties meet every five years to review the status of international efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons, assess compliance by the parties with their treaty obligations, and to chart future courses of action to realize the goals of the treaty, among them the elimination of nuclear weapons.
At the conclusion of this year's NPT Review Conference, the first since the NPT was indefinitely extended in 1995, a considerably detailed final consensus document was issued by the parties to the NPT. This document, which followed long and difficult negotiations, provides an important basis for measuring the success, and/or shortcomings, of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. In our view, the Review Conference produced some modest victories for those who advocate the prompt and complete abolition of nuclear weapons. It was also, for reasons explained below, a political success for the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), a group of middle powers (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden) seeking to advance the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world.
Deeds, not words, however, will ultimately determine whether the 2000 NPT Review Conference, and indeed the NPT itself, has succeeded in its avowed purpose. Some aspects of the final document are very encouraging. Advocates of abolition, both NGOs and states, must now use the leverage provided by the final document to push, prod and compel all NPT parties to fulfill their commitments.
We are also cautious in our appraisal of the NPT Review Conference at this stage because of an issue that loomed over the conference without being addressed directly in the final document, and that is the possible U.S. deployment of a national missile defense system (NMD). Russia, China and even many NATO allies are firmly opposed to NMD. Indeed, Russia has threatened to withdraw from all existing nuclear arms control treaties if the U.S. proceeds with deployment and has made its recent ratification of START II conditional on non-deployment. We are, therefore, mindful that any progress on non-proliferation and disarmament that may have been made in New York could be undone if U.S. President Clinton, or his successor, decides to proceed with NMD.
Enforcing compliance with Article VI of the treaty is particularly important to IPPNW. Article VI contains the core promise, the essential quid pro quo, that lies at the heart of the NPT: a promise from the nuclear states (the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France and China) to eliminate their own nuclear arsenals in exchange for the non-nuclear weapon states' pledge not to acquire nuclear weapons.
Below is a brief overview of what we consider to be the key elements of the 2000 NPT Review Conference final document.
1. Unequivocal Undertaking
Throughout much of the NPT's history the nuclear powers, especially the United States, have stated that the abolition of nuclear weapons was an "ultimate goal." These words, "ultimate goal," were used as a rhetorical shield by the nuclear weapon states against accusations that nuclear disarmament was not proceeding quickly enough. They allowed the nuclear status quo to remain in effect for three decades and had the effect of postponing, perhaps indefinitely, the principal objective of the NPT: the establishment of a world without nuclear weapons.
The word "ultimate" was dropped from the Review Conference final document to describe the goal of elimination of nuclear weapons. Instead, the final document, in referring to Article VI, speaks of "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals..." This is the strongest political statement on abolition by the nuclear weapon states to date. While no timetable is established, this wording narrows the "wiggle room" available to the nuclear powers, particularly the U.S., to indefinitely defer their full compliance with Article VI. The statement further asserts that "the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons." Again, however, deeds, not words, are needed to turn rhetoric into reality.
2. Preserving and Strengthening the ABM Treaty
NMD was implicitly addressed at the NPT Review Conference when the parties called in the final document, again referring to implementation of Article VI, for "preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty." Without modifications, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would prohibit NMD and the U.S. is seeking to negotiate such modifications with Russia. The language of the document ("preserving and strengthening") is ambiguous in that it allows Russia and the vast majority of NPT state parties to argue that the ABM Treaty must remain unchanged. Our concern, however, is that the U.S. might argue that modifying the ABM Treaty qualifies as "preserving and strengthening" -- a transparent and, in our judgment, disingenuous argument that would undermine the basis of consensus that led to the final document. Abolition advocates, and opponents of NMD, must vigorously support the majority view.
3. Nuclear Doctrines
The final document also included an unprecedented commitment toward "a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination." This provides a basis for challenging the nuclear doctrines of the nuclear weapon states and NATO.
4. Irreversibility
Another first for the NPT was agreement on the "principle of irreversibility to apply to nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other related arms control and reduction measures." This means that once weapons are dismantled or destroyed they should not be rebuilt or replaced.
5. Increased Transparency
The final document calls, for the first time in the history of the NPT, for "increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to their nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to Article VI..." Although there are no specific examples of how the nuclear weapons states are to fulfill this obligation, there is now a bona fide basis for demanding it.
6. Further Reductions of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons
Again, for the first time, the NPT parties have explicitly called for the "further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives..." This part of the final document explicitly asserts the expectation of the parties that the nuclear weapons states will move unilaterally to reduce tactical or theater nuclear weapons. This assertion takes on particular significance in light of current NATO practice as well as Russia's new nuclear doctrine, which lowers the threshold for nuclear weapons use to deflect a conventional attack on its territory, and the potential introduction of tactical nuclear weapons into regional conflicts. Again, the language provides leverage for pushing the nuclear weapons states to act on their own to reduce non-strategic nuclear arsenals.
7. De-alerting
IPPNW, as a member of the Back from the Brink Campaign, has been advocating that the nuclear states should take a variety of measures to take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert. Although the final document does not explicitly call for the de-alerting of nuclear weapons now on high alert, it does call for "concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems." This is, effectively, a call for de-alerting nuclear weapons to help avoid nuclear war by accident or miscalculation. This language provides potential leverage for abolition advocates who view de-alerting, as we do, as a high priority.
8. De-linking Nuclear and General Disarmament
The nuclear weapon states, and the U.S. in particular, have historically argued that the language of Article VI only contemplates nuclear disarmament in the context of general and complete disarmament. This interpretation has allowed the nuclear weapon states to essentially defer forever their obligation to eliminate their nuclear arsenals since general and complete international disarmament is, at best, a goal that may only be achieved in an unforseeable future. The final document now clearly de-links nuclear disarmament from general disarmament while re-affirming "that the ultimate objective of the efforts of the States in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control."
9. Universality
The final document urges all states not party to the NPT (Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan) to accede as non-nuclear weapon states "promptly and without condition." The document also explicitly states that despite their nuclear test explosions in 1998, India and Pakistan are not considered by the NPT state parties to be nuclear weapon states, and it calls upon India, Pakistan, and Israel to place their nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The final document also calls upon India and Pakistan to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (which Israel has signed).
10. Fissile Materials Ban
The final document recognizes that fulfillment of NPT Article VI requires a "non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices..." and "regrets that negotiations have not been pursued on this issue." Progress in the Conference on Disarmament on a fissile materials cut-off treaty has been non-existent since 1995, when the NPT Review and Extension Conference recommended such negotiations.
11. Nuclear Weapons Free Zones
In several paragraphs the final document reaffirms the importance of nuclear weapon free zones in the nuclear disarmament process and urges the continued creation of such zones "around the globe."
* In our view, these are among the most significant developments to arise from the 2000 NPT Review Conference. We see the final consensus document as further support for the view that abolition is a legitimate and achievable goal and that possession, use, and threatened use of nuclear weapons are, as the World Court has said, illegitimate and illegal under international law. We believe the final document provides rhetorical and political leverage for our efforts to de-alert nuclear weapons, to prevent deployment of NMD, to bring about prompt, dramatic reductions in nuclear arsenals, and, most importantly, to advance the complete elimination of nuclear weapons through negotiation and implementation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
At the same time, we recognize that the signing of the NPT some thirty years ago raised similar hopes that were dashed as the years passed. Nuclear disarmament has proven an elusive goal. Accordingly, we take a guardedly optimistic view of the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The NPT remains intact and the parties have evinced a commitment to try and realize its full promise. For that promise to be fulfilled, however, IPPNW and other NGOs, as well as the non-nuclear parties to the NPT must be prepared to wage a constant and energetic campaign.
The 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons, which IPPNW was instrumental in securing, played a significant role in the deliberations of the 2000 NPT Review Conference and is cited in the final document as a legal basis for some of the commitments the parties have agreed to undertake with regard to nuclear disarmament. The New Agenda Coalition (NAC) countries provided critical leadership at the Review Conference in the face of nuclear weapon states' pressure on non-nuclear weapon states during the deliberations. The NAC countries were steadfastly outspoken advocates of the need to move more quickly towards complete nuclear disarmament. IPPNW has supported the NAC directly and through the Middle Powers Initiative, which is headquartered at IPPNW's headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
In summary, the 2000 NPT Review Conference produced a final document that reflects many important and favorable developments. Since the late 1980s, IPPNW has been a staunch advocate of the abolition of nuclear weapons. Our understanding of the health and environmental consequences of nuclear warfare, and our solemn obligation as physicians to protect and preserve life and health make abolition, for us, a moral imperative. Thousands of nuclear warheads remain on hair-trigger alert and tens of thousands more could be launched in hours. Just one of these weapons is capable of slaughtering millions. And explosion of just a few could have devastating and long-lasting effects on the environment, disrupt transportation and delivery of food, fuel, and medical supplies, and possibly trigger famine and mass starvation.
The NPT remains vitally important to efforts not only to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, but to achieve a nuclear weapons free world. It is now up to IPPNW, the NGO community, and sympathetic state parties to the NPT to make the abolition of nuclear weapons, the promise of the NPT, a reality.
-------- russia
Russia: No Progress in ABM Talks
Wednesday June 14 9:25 AM ET
From: "Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space" globalnet@mindspring.com
MOSCOW (AP) - A top Russian general on Wednesday accused the United States of trying to ``demonize'' North Korea and said that there was absolutely no missile threat from so-called rogue states.
``We evaluate the threats, the true missile threat, to the United States as being nil,'' Gen. Leonid Ivashov, head of the Defense Ministry's Department for International Cooperation, told reporters.
``As far as we know, North Korea has no intention of forcing the United States to its knees.''
Ivashov's comments followed talks Tuesday between U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen and Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev on U.S. proposals to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to permit the United States to build a limited national missile defense.
The United States says it wants to defend against attack from states such as North Korea. Ivashov said that the historic summit meeting this week between North Korea and South Korea ``was a major step toward lifting the concerns of the United States.''
Russia's top missile officer, Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev, said Cohen hadn't managed to get Russia to budge from its opposition to the U.S. proposal.
Yakovlev, head of the Strategic Rocket Forces, reiterated Russia's conviction that such a system would upset the strategic balance and start a new arms race.
``What is being done in the United States is an invitation to both countries of the nuclear club and the so-called threshold countries to build up their nuclear potential and ability to overcome ABM systems,'' Yakovlev was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.
Bruce K. Gagnon Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 90083 Gainesville, FL. 32607 (352) 337-9274 http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk globalnet@mindspring.com
----
Russia-US missile warning center to be in place in 2001.
Itar-Tass
June 14, 2000
http://www.individual.com/frames/story.shtml?story=v0613073.2ts&level3=139501&date=20000614
MOSCOW, June 13 (Itar-Tass) via NewsEdge Corporation - The Russian-American missile launch warning center will start working at full capacity in 2001, the commander of Russian Strategic Troops, Vladimir akovlev, told reporters on Tuesday.
The center will be located in Podlipki, a city near Moscow. Yakovlev said "work on setting up the center is already going - groups of programme specialists are being formed, the software is being worked up".
Three lines of the center's operation will be exchange of information about launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles, rapid task-solving in unclear situations and formation of a database on launches of missiles and booster rockets.
Yakovlev said the "talk is in particular about interaction in case of errors in work of systems of the Missile Attack Warning System and unsanctioned missile launches".
He said the center would help the "development of Russian-Ameircan dialogue from the perspective of a right understanding of existing and predicted dangers".
In prospect, "other members of the nuclear club can join in this process on the condition of dialogue development and effective work of the center, as there should be full openness and understanding here", Yakovlev said.
---
Russian Officials Flesh Out Alternative Antimissile Proposal
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
MOSCOW, June 13 -- Russian officials have told the United States that they are developing a system that is capable of shooting down ballistic missiles soon after they are launched, a senior United States official said today.
Moscow has yet to provide details about the new system, but after weeks of vague and confusing statements, the Russians have finally begun to flesh out their plan in meetings here with Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.
"Things have become a bit clearer," a senior Pentagon official said. "The Russians claim they have a new system under development that focuses on intercepting missiles in the boost phase," or shortly after they have been launched.
The two sides, however, still have strong and potentially unbridgeable differences about how to defend against a missile threat posed by nations like North Korea, Iran and Iraq, and the seriousness of the threat.
The Russian plan, first floated as an idea by President Vladimir V. Putin on the eve of a summit meeting with President Clinton, represents an important evolution in Moscow's political strategy to counter the Clinton administration's antimissile defense plan.
The Kremlin has steadfastly opposed Washington's proposal to deploy 100 interceptors and a battle-management radar system in Alaska and has insisted that it would violate the Antiballistic Missile Treaty the United States signed with the Soviet Union in 1972.
On that point the Clinton administration agrees, but it has asked the Russian government to amend the treaty to accommodate the American plan. While Washington insists that its plan could not neutralize Russia's large nuclear force, Moscow fears that it is a first step toward a grander American antimissile scheme.
Recently, however, Moscow decided that the best way to argue against the American position was not simply to give a flat "no," but to propose an alternative -- one which would have little ability against Russian strategic forces but which would still protect the United States from emerging missile threats.
At first, United States officials complained that the Russian plan was distressingly vague. But President Putin and Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev clarified the Russian thinking today with Secretary Cohen. According to Mr. Cohen, there are two main elements to the Russian plan. One would create a system to protect American and Russian territory by shooting down missiles as they are launched. In the case of North Korea, for example, antimissile interceptors would be deployed near the Korean peninsula and destroy North Korean missiles as they ascend.
The second element of the Russian plan would use "theater" antimissile systems to protect Europe. These are systems that are allowed by the 1972 treaty, and which are used to shoot down short- and medium-range missiles.
Regarding the so-called boost-phase approach, the Russians say they are developing a new defensive system. And some American scientists, including Richard L. Garwin of the Council on Foreign Relations, have also argued that such an approach is more promising than the Clinton administration's plan.
They say it is easier to hit a large missile as it ascends than to intercept fast-flying warheads in space, as the White House has proposed. And they have also argued that a boost-phase approach could be the basis of a political compromise between Moscow and Washington.
Still, the Pentagon remains skeptical. Mr. Cohen said he doubted that the Russian system could be developed by 2005, the deadline for the first phase of the antimissile program planned by the Clinton administration. "We are willing to listen to proposals about a boost-phase intercept system, but our understanding is that it requires a great deal of technical challenge," he said.
Among the difficulties, Mr. Cohen asserted that it would be hard to develop an interceptor that could distinguish between a missile's flame and the missile itself and hit it in time.
American and Russian experts plan to meet to discuss antimissile technology in more detail. Pentagon officials insist that the discussions indicate that the two sides are approaching the missile defense issue in a business-like manner.
But Moscow and Washington still have huge differences. For one thing, the Russians view their plans a substitute for the American system, while the Pentagon says that it is, at best, a supplement.
For another, Russia continues to oppose the Clinton administration's insistence that the ABM treaty be amended to permit the testing and deployment of a national missile defense system. The Russians also say the two sides should put more emphasis on political efforts to dissuade third world nations from building long-range missiles.
"Pulling out of the 1972 ABM commitment would amount to restarting the arms race," Marshal Sergeyev said today.
-------- spying
Former Army Colonel Arrested in Spy Case
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/14cnd-espionage.html
TAMPA, Fla. -- A retired Army Reserve colonel was arrested Wednesday, accused of spying for the Soviet Union during a 25-year Cold War conspiracy while he worked in Germany.
The U.S. Attorney's Office identified him as George Trofimoff. It said he conspired to sell classified military intelligence information to the Soviets when he was a civilian employee of the Army.
Trofimoff was indicted by federal grand jury in Tampa. The indictment was unsealed Wednesday, after he was arrested.
Trofimoff obtained the classified information while serving as a civilian chief of the U.S. Army element of the Nuremburg Joint Interrogation Center in Germany from 1969 to 1994, prosecutors said.
Trofimoff also served in the Army Reserve, retiring as a colonel in 1987. He had served several years in the regular Army before entering the Army Reserve in the 1950s.
Trofimoff, who lived in Melbourne, retired from his Army civilian employment in 1995, after 35 years.
He was born in Germany to Russian parents and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1951.
He is the highest-ranking U.S. military officer ever charged with espionage, federal prosecutors said. He had access to all classified information received or produced by the Nuremberg center.
A hearing before a U.S. magistrate judge was set for midafternoon.
The case will be prosecuted in Tampa, said Steve Cole, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Tampa's MacDill Air Force base is home to the U.S. Central Command, which directed the Gulf War in 1991.
MacDill is also home to the U.S. Special Operations Command.
Florida has been the scene of other Cold War espionage cases.
Ernst Ludwig Forbrich, 43, was convicted in 1984 in Tampa on two counts of espionage and was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. Forbrich, a resident of West Germany, was convicted of trying to buy U.S. military secrets on behalf of East Germany.
In 1982, U.S. Army Warrant Officer Joseph George Helmich confessed in the midst of his espionage trial in Jacksonville to selling military secrets to the Soviet Union.
Helmich admitted to contacting Soviet agents in Paris in 1963, when he was facing a possible court-martial because of bad checks. He was sentenced to life in prison.
---
'Smart card' plan would help ID officers
USA Today
06/13/00- Updated 10:07 PM ET
By Gary Fields, USA TODAY
http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncstue18.htm
WASHINGTON - The Secret Service has developed what it hopes will alleviate security concerns after a government report revealed security breaches at two airports and 19 government buildings.
The agency has developed a smart card that would be issued to officers who need to travel with their firearms. The plastic card contains a microprocessor that is encoded and holds a digitized photograph of the officer, along with weight, height, police agency and other information.
An officer needing to travel with a gun or enter a federal building would run the card through a scanner at the location. The scanner would work much like automated teller machines and devices now common at grocery stores and on gas pumps.
After swiping the card through the scanner, the officer would type in an identification number and the security agent checking the officer would have the miniaturized information available via computer.
Greg Regan, who heads the Secret Service's financial crimes division, said the level of encryption on the computer chip on the card has never been broken so counterfeiting the card would be exceptionally difficult.
Regan said the Secret Service got the idea for the police smart card from its work with the credit card industry, which he said is at the forefront of security devices. ''The chips are next generation credit card,'' he said. The cards would cost about $4 to make and the reader about $600, he said.
The Secret Service touts the card as a way to address issues that were raised in April by a General Accounting Office investigation. Investigators used fake police IDs and other credentials found on the Internet and gained entry to secure areas, including the Justice Department where they drove a van into the courtyard and slipped into Attorney General Janet Reno's suite.
The investigators also used the fake IDs to get past secure areas at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Orlando International Airport.
The GAO investigation prompted the Federal Aviation Administration last week to change its security measures for allowing armed law enforcement officers on commercial flights.
The directive requires that uniformed airport police officers check the IDs of all law enforcement officers who need to fly armed. In addition to the directive, the FAA had also hinted it might have to severely restrict who could fly armed unless a better way could be found for verifying the identities of law enforcement.
Organizations from the Fraternal Order of Police to the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association had opposed such restrictions saying it would severely inhibit law enforcement's ability to do its job.
Secret Service spokesman James Mackin said his agency's idea could be used to address that issue along with dozens of others. ''This is for everybody. After that GAO report everybody was looking at their vulnerabilities,'' Mackin said. ''This is something we're putting out there for everybody, the FAA, other law enforcement agencies and those folks who were identified in the GAO report. Whether or not they decide to adopt it is up to them.''
Several of the agencies and departments involved in the discussions thought the plan was promising.
Justice Department spokeswoman Gretchen Michael said the department is ''very well aware of the smart card. It is a very secure way of doing things and one of the many things we're considering.''
Rebecca Trexler, spokeswoman for the FAA, said the Secret Service plan is ''certainly what we're working for, a counterfeit-proof form of identification that can be used in aviation.''
-------- ukraine
Ukraine counts on Canada in quest for Chernobyl aid
CANADA : June 14, 2000
Story by Irene Marushko
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=7090
WINNIPEG - Ukraine will count on Canada's support when it seeks western aid next month to close the notorious Chernobyl power plant, scene of the world's worst civil nuclear disaster, Ukraine's foreign minister said during an official visit to Canada.
"We expect the Canadian government will advocate for the implementation of the commitments issued by the G7," Borys Tarasyuk told Reuters, referring to monetary promises made in 1995 by wealthy Group of Seven countries to help fund the plant's closure.
Canada, which has always enjoyed warm relations with Ukraine, announced it would contribute C$18 million ($12.2 million) to build a new shelter around the fourth block of the reactor, encased in a concrete "sarcophagus" following the explosion in 1986 that spewed clouds of radiation across much of Europe.
Ukraine promised a week ago to close the entire reactor site finally on December 15. U.S. President Bill Clinton has pledged $78 million in fresh funds to improve safety at Chernobyl, located just 110 kilometres (70 miles) from the capital Kiev.
A donor conference is set to take place next month in Berlin when western countries and organisations are expected to pledge money to help Ukraine fund the closure and open two modern reactors to compensate for the lost electricity.
Tarasyuk said Ukraine was short some $375 million for the shelter project, plus it would need some $90 million to $100 million a year for fuel for thermal power stations, which would take over interim energy production when Chernobyl is closed.
"The shelter project is just one element of commitments of the G7 and European Union," Tarasyuk said in flawless English, referring to the signing of the 1995 Chernobyl memorandum of understanding in 1995.
"We think that the role of Canada could be of great importance as a member of G7 and as the host country for the signing of this protocol," he said.
Canada and Ukraine have had a cordial relationship since independence, in part because a large number of Canadians are of Ukrainian descent.
Tarasyuk's visit to Winnipeg, known as the cradle of Ukrainian-Canadian culture, included a chat with Prime Minister Jean Chretien who was on a separate tour of Western Canada.
Tarasyuk also took advantage of the visit to tout the "new" Ukraine, as a country at last emerging from post-Soviet collapse and poverty and for the first time able to report increases in gross domestic product and industrial output.
"A priority objective of the government is to enter the WTO this year and to create conditions of associated membership for the European Union," Tarasyuk said ahead of the country's seventh negotiating round next month on accession to the World Trade Organisation.
----
Japan's Mitsui mulls Ukraine power sales to Europe
UKRAINE : June 14, 2000
Story by Olena Horodetska
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=7097
KIE - Mitsui & Co Ltd , a leading Japanese trading house, is looking into exporting Ukrainian electricity to European customers, a senior company official said yesterday.
"We are considering a project in electricity generation," Takeo Suetomi, chairman of Mitsui Project Promotion Committee, told reporters in Russian after meeting Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.
"Ukraine generates a lot of electricity and it already exports it to Eastern Europe each year...We can purchase electricity and export it for our clients in Europe," he said.
Suetomi said Mitsui had a "firm" order from a client in Europe to purchase electricity from Ukraine. He said the company was now waiting for Ukrainian government aproval for the project, but gave no detail.
Mitsui could export one to two billion kilowatt hours in the first year of the project, Suetomi said.
"It is a modest figure...but if we start now we could double this in the next three or four years," he added.
Ukraine currently produces about 170 billion kilowatt hours, just half of what it generated before independence in 1991.
Output has been fallen steadily over recent years due to scarce fuel supplies for thermal power stations and stoppages of reactors at nuclear power stations.
The cash-strapped country is eager to attract investment to its ailing energy sector to modernise ageing equipment and improve energy effiency.
Suetomi also said his company was in talks with Ukraine on other projects, including the completion of a new terminal at Kiev's international airport, Boryspil.
But he said Ukraine first had to reach an agreement on its debts to the Paris Club of sovereign creditors.
Ukraine plans to approach the Paris Club with a request to restructure $500 million of its debts, but for this it must persuade the International Monetary Fund to renew lending which was frozen in September 1999 over slow reforms.
The government hopes to get the $2.6 billion three-year IMF loan programme back on track in the nearest future. An IMF monitoring mission will arrive in Ukraine on June 14.
-------- us military
Gulf Vet Disability Claimed By More Than 183,000 Vets
Payments to Vets Cost $1 Billion Annually, More Are Applying
By Tom Nugent
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:01:57 -0700
From: "Gary Vesperman" vman@skylink.net
One in four of U.S. service personnel who participated in the nine-month Operation Desert Storm is now officially classified as "disabled," according to Department of Veterans Affairs figures obtained by FedBuzz.
The percentage of Gulf War veterans granted disabled status -- 26 percent -- is now higher than for any modern U.S. combat experience and is two and one half times the disability rate from the 10-year-long Vietnam War, according to VA sources.
VA Public Information Officer Jim Benson told FedBuzz that more than 183,000 veterans have been granted "disability status for one or more conditions" resulting from Operation Desert Storm between August of 1990 and April of 1991.
Benson said that another 36,782 disability claims by Gulf War vets are now pending and are being evaluated.
About 700,000 members of the U.S. Armed Forces took part in the nine-month military campaign that decided the outcome of the Gulf War.
The cost of the disabilities: $1 billion annually.
The revelations come in the midst of a continuing controversy over the cause and scope of sickness and injury to Gulf War veterans. While VA has not recognized what some experts call a "Gulf War Syndrome," pressure builds on the government to determine whether or not chemicals from Iraqi sources harmed large numbers of troops.
However, one VA official has told Congress that the largest number of service-connected conditions claimed by disabled Gulf War veterans deal with knee problems.
VA's Benson speculated on several reasons for a Gulf disability rate that in comparison to other wars might surprise the public.
"So many things have changed," he said. "Number one, we have a much greater ability now to assess combat and theater-related injuries. Number two, we have a much greater communications ability as far as communicating the availability of benefits to the veteran population at large."
According to the latest VA data, 183,037 -- or 26 percent -- of the 700,000 troops who served in Operation Desert Storm now receive disability compensation from the VA. The disability-rate for World War II was 8.6 percent -- while the rate for the Korean conflict ran even lower, at 5 percent.
The rate for the ten-year-long Vietnam War, where 58,000 U.S. soldiers died and many others were injured or developed war-related illnesses, was 9.6 percent. By comparison, fewer than 150 U.S. soldiers were killed in the Gulf War, which lasted about six months.
VA, which is currently paying annual benefits of more than $1 billion to compensate the 183,000 disabled vets, has gone to "great lengths" to help Gulf War veterans, said Benson.
But neither VA nor the U.S. Department of Defense has concluded what various veterans lobbying groups are seeking -- the recognition of a specific, diagnosable disease that could be defined as "Gulf War Syndrome."
Added Benson: "We're trying to get the word out to the vets about the many efforts that are being made on their behalf. But what's made it difficult is that so many people have a variety of symptoms. So far, we haven't been able to group all of them into a single illness."
During recent congressional testimony, VA Under Secretary for Benefits Joseph Thompson told a subcommittee of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs that the "number of disabilities per veteran" in the Gulf War was higher than the number of disabilities in any earlier American war.
According to Under Secretary Thompson, the disabled Gulf War veterans averaged 3.2 disabilities each -- compared to 1.79 each for World War II disabled; 2.01 each for Korean conflict disabled, and 2.76 each for Vietnam War disabled.
Thompson also noted during his testimony last October that the most prevalent cause of disability during the Gulf War was "injury to the knee," followed by injuries to the skeleton. Thompson's list of a dozen different types of injury made no reference to "Gulf War Syndrome," or to "undiagnosed illnesses" of any kind.
Since the Gulf War ended in late 1991, VA has reported that disabilities from "undiagnosed illness" account for only a few thousand of the 183,000 total Gulf War disabilities. During the same period, health researchers at VA have repeatedly announced that they cannot find verifiable evidence of any specific medical condition known as "Gulf War Syndrome."
Describing the injuries and illnesses that have been documented as major causes of disability, Thompson told Congress: "With respect to the prevalence of service-connected conditions among Gulf War veterans, the number-one service-connected condition claimed is impairment of the knee, followed by skeletal system disability, lumbar-sacral strain, arthritis due to trauma, scars, hearing loss, hypertension, inter-vertebral disc syndrome, tendinitis and osteoarthritis."
As the Gulf War Syndrome controversy grows, the stream of Gulf War vets seeking disability status continues to pour into VA.
"There have been huge changes in communications technologies," said Benson, pointing to the Internet and other tools as a reason for heightened awareness of benefits among veterans. "There's no doubt that veterans know a lot more today about how to access the support system at VA."
----
Lockheed Is Fined $13 Million in China Satellite Case
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By BLOOMBERG NEWS
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/lockheed-fine.html
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Lockheed Martin Corporation has agreed to pay $13 million to the government to settle a case involving the sale of satellite technology to China in 1994, company and Clinton administration officials said today.
The company was charged with violating arms export laws. The settlement, which officials said is likely to be announced on Wednesday by the State Department, is the largest civil penalty ever assessed under the Arms Export Control Act, the primary law regulating sales of American technology.
A criminal investigation is still under way over whether the Loral Space and Communication Corporation also violated export controls in a separate incident. The Lockheed Martin settlement may put pressure on Loral to settle that case.
But it also allows the Clinton administration -- which has been charged with laxness in keeping sensitive technology out of Chinese hands -- to argue in the midst of a presidential election year that it is enforcing export control laws.
In a statement tonight, Lockheed Martin's spokesman, James Fetig, confirmed that the company, the world's largest military manufacturer, had decided to settle the case, in which the State Department had charged the company with 30 violations of arms export laws. He said that under the agreement, Lockheed Martin neither admits nor denies the allegations.
The financial settlement came close to the maximum penalty of $15 million. But under the terms of the accord, officials said, the company is spared a far more costly fate: a suspension of its rights to export satellite technology.
In its statement, Lockheed Martin said, "The corporation appreciates the opportunity to enter into a settlement agreement with the Department of State that resolves the charges.
"We are committed to full compliance with all export control measures and believe this agreement will allow us to assure the State Department that we will meet all of our export control obligations."
At issue in the case was a series of interchanges between Lockheed Martin rocket experts and the Chinese about kick motors, which are small rocket motors that are used to lift a satellite into its final orbit. At the time of the exchanges, Chinese-made kick motors had suffered a number of failures. Martin Marietta Aerospace, which was later acquired by Lockheed, provided help to AsiaSat, a satellite company based in Hong Kong with heavy financial ties to the Chinese government. AsiaSat was a client of Martin Marietta.
The technical transfers caused considerable concern within the State and Defense Departments. The same kick-motor technology that helps China in launching commercial communications satellites, officials said, could help its military launch spy satellites. In April, the State Department spokesman at the time, James P. Rubin, said "any assistance to Chinese technical capability in space launch has the potential to be applied to missile development."
Moreover, the State Department charged that Martin Marietta had failed to clear its technical analysis of the rocket problems with Washington before passing it on to the Chinese, and had made no effort later to retrieve it. The company said at the time that it had violated no laws.
At the time, the Clinton administration was encouraging more commercial interchanges between American and Chinese satellite companies. But the rules on those transfers have since been tightened by Congress, in reaction to disclosures that in 1996, two years after the Martin Marietta incident, Loral had helped Chinese rocket makers solve a different set of technical problems.
Those transfers, officials say, raised more security concerns than Martin Marietta's help to AsiaSat.
Under the civil agreement, Lockheed Martin will be allowed to use $5 million of its fine to install computer systems that would give the American government access to all of its foreign space and missile deals. The access is to include data that might require licenses for export.
---
Lockheed to Pay Record Fine for Assisting China
Aerospace: No. 1 defense contractor settles case for $13 million.
U.S. says firm illegally gave expertise to fix rocket engine.
Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, June 14, 2000
By NORMAN KEMPSTER, Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/business/updates/lat_lockheed000614.htm
WASHINGTON--Lockheed Martin Corp. will pay a record $13-million fine for illegally helping the Chinese government correct critical defects in the rocket motor for its Long March 2E satellite launch vehicle, Clinton administration officials said Tuesday.
Lockheed, the world's largest defense contractor, consented to the penalty to settle charges brought by the State Department in April. The fine was the largest ever imposed under the Arms Export Control Act, eclipsing a $10-million penalty imposed on Boeing Corp. in 1998.
"The settlement is in recognition of the government's concerns about protecting national security through strict regulatory controls and Lockheed Martin's commitment to compliance with these regulations," said company spokesman James Fetig.
Although the firm was not required to admit guilt to settle the case, it agreed to pay a fine that was only slightly short of the $15-million maximum that could have been imposed if the government had prevailed on all 30 counts of the charges in a proceeding before an administrative law judge.
The State Department said the Bethesda, Md.-based contractor agreed in 1994 to assess the troubled Chinese rocket motor, which had repeatedly failed in test firings. Lockheed acted on behalf of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co., a Hong Kong firm of which a Chinese government-owned company was majority stockholder.
In August 1994, the department said, Lockheed technicians conducted a detailed study of the Chinese rocket motor. A month later, Lockheed completed a 50-page report that was sent uncensored to Asia Satellite even though the Pentagon cleared only five of the pages for export.
The department said Lockheed did not disclose the violation, as required by federal contracting rules, until it was caught by the U.S. Customs Service.
The charges said that in 1992, General Electric Co.'s Astro-Space Division--now merged into Lockheed Martin--obtained permission to provide technical data and drawings to the Chinese government-owned rocket company concerning the use of the Long March 2E to launch satellites for Asia Satellite. However, the State Department said the 1992 contract did not call for the sort of technical evaluation conducted by Lockheed Martin in 1994.
In statements issued after the formal charges were filed, Lockheed officials said the alleged violations were technical, not criminal, and that there was no direct technology transfer to the Chinese.
Although the State Department did not charge that Lockheed's actions advanced China's military missile program, the formal charges said the company violated multiple sections of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
The company agreed to pay $8 million in fines through 2004, including $1.5 million this month, $1.5 million in each of the next three years and $2 million in 2004, according to administration officials.
The State Department authorized Lockheed to use the remaining $5 million to install a computerized monitoring system at its major plants .
News of the fine was released after the close of trading. Lockheed Martin shares fell 31 cents to close at $25.25 on the New York Stock Exchange.
---
Lockheed Martin Settles Fed Lawsuit
Associated Press
June 14, 2000 Filed at 2:40 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/f/AP-Lockheed-Fine.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Lockheed Martin Corp. is being fined $13 million and will give the federal government closer scrutiny of its overseas activities to settle a case involving the sale of satellite technology to China in 1994.
Lockheed will be required to pay $8 million over four years, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday. The remaining $5 million in penalties was suspended and will be used by the company to take remedial measures to improve security, including construction of a comprehensive computer control system, he said.
The agreement requires that the State Department and Pentagon be given access to the system over the next four years. The system will keep track of all the company's overseas activities involving missiles and space subject to regulation under the Arms Export Control Act.
``We certainly think that these remedial measures and better oversight measures are necessary to ensure that violations don't occur in the future,'' Boucher said.
The settlement is only $2 million short of the maximum penalty of $15 million for violation of the arms export laws.
It is also believed to be the largest penalty ever assessed under the Arms Export Control Act and could offset criticism of the administration's stand on technology deals with China.
James Fetig, spokesman for Lockheed, said Wednesday, ``We have reached a settlement agreement the resolves the AsiaSat matter.''
Fetig said Lockheed neither admitted nor denied it was guilty of violating the law. ``We stand on previous statements,'' he said.
In the past Lockheed denied any wrongdoing and suggested there was no evidence any information given to AsiaSat ever reached the Chinese government.
AsiaSat, a satellite company based in Hong Kong, was a client of Martin Marietta Aerospace, which was acquired later by Lockheed.
In April, the then-State Department spokesman James P. Rubin said ``any assistance to Chinese technical capability in space launch has the potential to be applied to missile development.''
The administration is generally considered friendly toward China's efforts to achieve top-level standing internationally in technology.
At issue were exchanges between rocket experts at Lockheed Martin and the Chinese about kick motors, which are used to lift a satellite into final orbit. Some administration officials were concerned that the same technology could help China launch military spy satellites.
-------- us nuc facilities
USEC wants to test centrifuge
By Bill Bartleman
bbartleman@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
http://www.paducahsun.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/200006/14+00QA_news.html+20000614+news
The United States Enrichment Corp. wants to develop gas centrifuge as the next generation of technology for enriching uranium into nuclear fuel and to deploy the technology at its enrichment plant in Portsmouth, Ohio. The USEC board of directors recently approved a plan to build a pilot plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., to test and refine gas centrifuge technology, which was once the federal government's top choice for replacing the 1940s-era gaseous diffusion process used at plants in Paducah and Portsmouth.
If testing is successful, USEC wants to use a 20-year-old building in Portsmouth that was designed by the federal government for centrifuge production before the technology was abandoned when the U.S. Department of Energy determined that so-called AVLIS laser technology was the wave of the future.
However, years of testing raised questions about whether AVLIS would work in commercial production. AVLIS was abandoned two years ago when USEC, the private company that took over the government's nuclear fuel production in 1997, determined it was too risky and too costly.
Elizabeth Stuckle, USEC communications director, said the company is negotiating with DOE to acquire the rights to the classified centrifuge technology. Also, USEC is negotiating to lease buildings in Oak Ridge where the pilot plant would be located.
USEC is expected to build a 20-unit test plant that would cost about $14 million, according to sources familiar with the project. It could be in operation by the fall of 2001.
Testing could take two or more years, and design and construction of a commercial production facility would take an additional three to five years, according to the source familiar with the project.
Stuckle cautioned that development of centrifuge technology could be abandoned at any time if testing indicates that it isn't feasible or economical. If that happens, USEC would look at other technology used in other countries.
Stuckle said the Oak Ridge pilot project would center on the American centrifuge technology developed by DOE. Also, she said Russian and European technology could be incorporated into the study. Gas centrifuge is used in Russia and by EURENCO, a European consortium that produces and sells enriched uranium at a lower cost than USEC.
In the 1980s, DOE spent almost $2 billion building the centrifuge plant in Portsmouth. The centrifuge units have been dismantled and disposed of, but the building is still standing. It currently is used for storage and other purposes.
A source familiar with USEC's plans said the company wants to design new units that could easily be installed and retrofitted in the Portsmouth building. A new commercial plant would include about 14,000 centrifuge units. The source said millions of dollars could be saved if the existing building could be used.
Stuckle said using the Portsmouth facilities "definitely is a possibility that is being looked at." However, she said no final decision had been made.
Meanwhile, the USEC board is scheduled to meet June 21, and Washington sources say a vote will be taken to close one of the uranium enrichment plants. USEC officials have not confirmed or denied the reports, but Stuckle said the board will continue reviewing cost-cutting measures that include a potential plant closure.
Under the current production method, the two plants work in tandem, with uranium enriched to about 2 percent in Paducah and then shipped to Portsmouth where it is enriched to about 5 percent, the level needed for use as nuclear fuel.
Work is under way to upgrade the Paducah plant so it can enrich up to 5 percent. The work and approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to be completed next year.
----
Privatization sponsor opposes uranium glut
By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650,
Paucah Sun,
June 14, 2000
http://www.paducahsun.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi?/200006/14+00Rr_news.html+20000614+news/A
U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who co-sponsored legislation to privatize USEC Inc., has asked the Clinton administration for tighter control over the receipt of 500 tons of uranium from Russia. Domenici, who with former Sen. Wendell Ford of Kentucky wrote a bill to privatize USEC, said a depressed market in which USEC competes threatens the nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia, as well as the entire domestic enrichment industry.
As agent for Russian enriched uranium derived from nuclear warheads, USEC is paying more for the material than the production costs of USEC plants at Paducah and Portsmouth, Ohio. Trying to get Russia to lower prices, USEC has offered to buy natural uranium from Russia for resale in a glutted market.
On June 21, the USEC board is expected to vote to close one of the plants. The company is cutting about 625 jobs at the two facilities, and market conditions threaten the 330-employee Honeywell plant in Metropolis, Ill., this country's sole supplier of raw material to the USEC plants.
In a letter last month, Russian Minister for Atomic Energy Yevgeny Adamov said his country would halt uranium shipments to the United States as outlined under the agreement. On Monday, Domenici wrote Adamov and U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson saying that development seriously jeopardizes disarmament.
"When Congress agreed to privatize USEC, it did not anticipate that the administration would effectively allow the (Russian) agreement to be privatized along with (USEC)," Domenici wrote. "Nor was Congress informed of transfers of huge inventories of natural uranium to USEC prior to privatization, transfers that could be predicted to drastically impact the global uranium market."
Domenici referred to about $746 million in stockpiled uranium that the Department of Energy gave USEC to help capitalize the company. USEC is now rapidly selling the inventory amid financial trouble. Coupled with potentially more uranium from Russia, that could depress the market even more.
Last week, Jim Graham, chief executive officer of ConverDyn, the marketing arm of the Honeywell plant, told a congressional subcommittee that the plant could close without government intervention. He cited the Russian and USEC inventory sales as key factors.
On July 20, 1998 â€" two days before the USEC board authorized the sale of $1.9 billion in stock to privatize USEC â€" Domenici wrote the Department of Treasury and the board saying the transfer of DOE uranium as part of privatization could "imperil" the Russian agreement. The board received a similar letter from Russia.
Domenici urged the board to stop privatization until the process was resolved. Despite his and the Russian concerns, and the objections of two board members, the board approved the stock sale, according to transcripts of the meetings.
Financial advisers told the board that stopping the stock offering would effectively kill it by scaring potential investors. USEC also promised the Treasury not to flood the market with the excess uranium.
After the vote, Domenici helped secure $325 million from Congress to keep the Russian deal afloat. In his letter to Adamov, he referred to the 1998 developments.
"My anticipation of these issues formed the basis of my efforts to propose re-evaluation of the national security implications of privatization actions before proceeding," he wrote. "Unfortunately, my strong advice on this issue was not heeded by the administration."
Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, is urging the Clinton administration to save the Russian agreement, brokered in 1993. He said steps must be taken to establish sufficient government oversight and control, including legal protections; to ensure the deal is fully implemented at 30 metric tons of Russian uranium imported by USEC annually; and to create a "stable, fair and predictable" sale of the material to keep from hurting the market.
"If the administration can advance proposals meeting such criteria, you can be assured that I will seek their prompt and careful consideration by Congress," Domenici wrote.
On Tuesday, the Washington, D.C.-based International Trade Commission heard evidence about another serious market issue. The six-member commission is expected to rule by the end of July whether uranium from four countries once part of the Soviet Union could materially harm the U.S. enrichment industry.
In 1992, the countries agreed to limit exports of uranium in return for suspending charges they violated a U.S. "anti-dumping" law that imposes stringent duties on foreign countries selling cheap uranium here. Although the Department of Commerce imposed duties in 1993, the law requires that the penalties be revoked after five years unless material harm can be shown. That review began in July 1998.
If the trade commission finds material harm, the duties will continue. If not, they will be revoked by the Department of Commerce.
-------- new mexico
Internal Reports Show Los Alamos Foul-Ups, Reports FedBuzz.com
June 14, 2000
SOURCE: FedBuzz.com
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000614/nm_fedbuzz.html
LOS ALAMOS, N.M., June 14 /PRNewswire/ -- Internal reports from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) show a continuing series of security lapses, equipment failures, management errors and worker contamination, it was reported today by FedBuzz.com.
The federally-focused news and data site ( http://www.fedbuzz.com ) presented these and other examples of problems at the Lab since 1998:
-- A taxi driver witnessed a presentation of a "sensitive device" at the LANL facility in 1998 when he drove security-cleared visitors to the lab, then decided to leave his vehicle and join the tour. -- The plutonium processing plant was shut down for a week last October when it was determined that the 50-year-old fire sprinkler system was "inoperable." Personnel were made to rove the facility as a fire watch. -- A pager system for LANL emergency response employees was suddenly shut off by the outside paging service in September of 1999 because the Lab had not paid the bill. -- Numerous workers were contaminated with radiation, including one who was exposed because he reused gloves worn the previous day. LANL said the reuse of gloves had been a long-time practice "to minimize the generation of waste."
In the headlines Tuesday because computer hard drives possibly containing confidential nuclear data were discovered missing from a security vault, the LANL facility is operated by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy.
FedBuzz said that hundreds of reports about the security and contamination incidents are available on a little-known web site produced by the Lab. Some breeches of security are noted with little detail in the reports, which cite the need for secrecy.
But other reports are lengthy, including one that describes a 1997 shutdown of the plutonium processing facility for ``poor conduct of operations'' and ``lack of adequate hazard review'' among other reasons.
FedBuzz.com is an OmniSite that provides news and data to help all Americans to better access vital federal information. It has been named as a site to visit by USA Today. The web address for the site is http://www.fedbuzz.com
----
Four Corner power plants dump toxins into Navajo air
EPA reports millions of pounds of chemical toxins released annually
By Brenda Norrell
INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY -
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2000
From: Lori Goodman - kiyaani@frontier.net
FARMINGTON, N.M. - A new EPA report shows that two power plants and their coal mines in San Juan County released 13 million pounds of chemical toxins into the Four Corners' air in one year alone -- toxins breathed by Navajo, Jicarilla Apache, Southern Ute and other residents.
"Exposure to small amounts of toxins daily will add up to a lot -- enough to kill -- in a lifetime," said Anna Frazier, Navajo member of the grassroots organization Dine' Citizens Against Ruining our Environment.
The EPA's Toxic Release Inventory reveals that two power plants 15 miles west of Farmington at the Navajo Nation border -- the San Juan Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant -- produced the vast majority of toxins such as hydrochloric acid, xylene and benzene.
A refinery in Bloomfield operated by the San Juan Refinery, southeast of Farmington in the vicinity of the Navajo Nation and Jicarilla Apache Nation, also released a large amount of toxins.
The EPA study for 1998 is the first of its kind.
"The only way to clean up or lessen the toxic emissions in the Four Corners is to have the power plants clean up their act or shut them down completely," Frazier said.
"Our Navajo Nation government is certainly not going to do that. They would rather have the revenues coming in from the coal companies and the power plants."
Frazier said Navajos are paying with their lives so residents of Phoenix and California can reap the benefits of Navajo coal-powered electric power plants.
"In Phoenix and California, they run their air conditioners full blast day and night at the cost of Navajo lives.
"There are five electrical power plants surrounding the Navajo reservation that spew sulfur dioxide and NOX (numerous noxious oxides) day and night along with the coal companies raising black dust day and night.
"It's no wonder the health of the Navajo people is declining rapidly.
"My blood boils when I think about these things."
Frazier said dollars are the bottom line and polluting sources of energy provide the revenues on which the Navajo Nation operates.
The Navajo Nation receives the bulk of its annual $100 million operating expenses from royalties, leases and taxes from its coal, oil and gas. Those revenues provide operational expenses for the tribal government, including the salaries of the 88-member Navajo Nation Council, the tribe's annual budgets show.
Frazier said the EPA's findings should wake up the Nation. "This ought to wake up the Navajo Nation Council Resources Committee and Navajo EPA. They need to put more pressure on San Juan and Arizona Public Service power plants."
She said the Navajo Nation government offers many excuses for failing to make power plants clean up emissions. And she points out that the Navajo EPA has even said that chronic respiratory diseases can also be caused by dirt and dust from unpaved roads and dust storms.
"That's like burying your head in the sand because you don't want to admit or know the truth."
"Many livestock owners live down river from the power plants. I know sheepherders in the Red Valley and Rattle Snake area who used to get soot on their clothing when the wind shifted their way," she said of the Navajo communities southwest of the power plants.
"Many of those people died from different types of cancers, but mostly respiratory - lung cancer.
"The Navajo people living in the rural area of the Four Corners are outdoors people. They tend to their livestock, have out-houses, cook and eat outdoors in the summer, because they do not have air conditioners."
Navajo environmentalists point out that the Four Corners region, recently visited by President Clinton in the promotion of Internet technology, has attracted mining companies that used Navajos as human guinea pigs. The pattern began with uranium mining in the mid-Twentieth Century for the production of the first atomic bomb, they say.
In nearby Cove and Red Valley on the Navajo Nation, where most of the men worked in uranium mines, at least one member of every family is reported to have died from respiratory illness or cancer.
But few health studies have been conducted by the Indian Health Service or Centers for Centers for Disease Control correlating the rise in cancers and respiratory diseases with mining, existing uranium tailings or the widespread release of toxins from power plants.
Chris Shuey of the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque said the EPA's report is lacking and fails to address the pollution caused by the oil and gas industry clustered in areas like the Navajo community of Aneth, Utah, in the Four Corners, the site of 350 oil and gas wells.
"No one can tell you how much benzene local people, especially Native people, are breathing daily,"
Shuey said the typical response of health officials is: "Of course, cancer-causing chemicals, heavy metals, radionuclides, particulates, sulfur dioxide, etc., in your air and on your land can't be good for your health, but gee, we don't know how bad it really is..."
In addition to the airborne toxins, the two San Juan Country power plants buried 6.5 million tons of solid waste on their sites or at nearby coal mines. The reported airborne toxins released were in addition to more than 300 million pounds of other emissions such as particulates and nitrogen dioxide. Earlier reports showed San Juan County power plants among the worst polluters in the nation for these pollutants which can travel hundreds of miles.
Meanwhile, the Navajo Nation Council pursues energy development as a primary source of economic development and the state of New Mexico expresses no alarm over EPA's report.
Max Johnson, New Mexico's hazardous materials bureau chief for the state Office of Emergency Management, said toxic releases have not skyrocketed.
"It's just that now we're seeing the numbers," Johnson said.
Julie Grey, spokesperson for the Public Service Company of New Mexico, which manages and partly owns the San Juan Generating Station, reflected the sentiments of other energy producers.
Grey said that no one knows the actual health risks associated with the EPA numbers.
Frazier, however, points out that highly-paid non-Indian management at the Four Corners power plants have always claimed that the toxins in the air and soil are not life threatening.
"They can move to another area if they feel their health is threatened -- but our Navajo people can not move to another location."
"That is the difference here."
Dine' CARE was cofounded by Navajo environmentalist Leroy Jackson, found dead in 1993 after his life was threatened in his successful fight to halt clear-cutting of the Ponderosa Pines of the Navajos' Chuska Mountains. Dine' CARE became the genesis for the Indigenous Environmental Network.
Of the top 11 emitters in New Mexico, six are in the northwest corner -- in or adjacent to Indian country:
4. Four Corners Power Plant (Arizona Public Service Co.), Fruitland; 3.8 million pounds
5. San Juan Generating Station (Public Service of New Mexico), Waterflow; 3.6 million pounds
6. BHP San Juan Coal Mine (adjacent to SJGS), Waterflow; 3.1 million pounds
7. BHP Navajo Coal Mine (adjacent to FCPP), Fruitland; 2.5 million pounds
8. Giant Refining Ciniza Refinery (Giant Industries), Jamestown, (17 miles east of Gallup in the vicinity of the Navajo Nation and Zuni Pueblo); 608,000 pounds
11. San Juan Refining Co. (Bloomfield Refinery), Bloomfield, NM; 172,000 pounds.
For more information: http://www.epa.gov/tri/tri98.
Brenda Norrell PO Box 2526 Tucson, Arizona 85702 FAX/my name on it/520-887-0307 http://www.indiancountry.com
----
Chronology, according to Energy Dept.
USA Today
06/14/00- Updated 10:57 AM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncswed07.htm
April 7: A member of an emergency nuclear response, or NEST, team recalls seeing the hard drives in the vault during an inventory.
April 27: Another member of the response team does not recall seeing the two drives, contained in one of three emergency response ''kits'' in the vault, but says if they had been missing he would have taken notice.
May 2-4: The NEST emergency response team participates in an exercise at the Lawrence Livermore weapons lab in California. It's not known whether ''Kit No. 2" - later to be found with the drives missing - was used in the exercise.
May 4: A wildfire begins in federal parkland near the Los Alamos laboratory and quickly spreads out of control.
May 7: With the laboratory threatened by the fire, members of the NEST team late in the evening inspect the vault to assure the three kits are ''out of harm's way'' and discover the two drives missing from Kit No. 2. The discovery is not reported.
May 8: The Los Alamos lab is evacuated because of the fire threat and scientists disperse.
May 22: With the fire danger over, operations resume at the lab.
May 24: A group of scientists begin an ''intense search'' for the missing hard drives, but senior lab officials are not informed of the possible loss.
May 31: Los Alamos lab director John Browne first learns of the missing hard drives and the next day informs Energy Department officials in Washington.
June 1-2: Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger, the DOE's top security official, and Edward Curran, chief of counterintelligence, are informed of the loss and meet with the FBI.
June 4: A team of 22 FBI agents and a dozen DOE investigators, led by Habiger, descend on Los Alamos and begin investigation, interviewing those with access to the vault and continuing the search.
June 12: The Los Alamos laboratory announces in a news release that two top-secret hard drives containing nuclear data had been found missing.
June 13: Six laboratory managers, including the head of the nuclear weapons programs, are put on paid leave, pending the investigations. Richardson complains about not being informed about the loss for nearly three weeks and promises disciplinary action.
June 14: Congressional intelligence and armed services committees begin hearings into the security breakdown. At Los Alamos, FBI and DOE officials begin plans to give polygraph tests to scientists who had access to the vault.
---
Staff at Los Alamos Waited 3 Weeks to Tell of Data Loss
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By JAMES RISEN
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/061400los-alamos-theft.html
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Energy Department acknowledged today that employees at the Los Alamos National Laboratory waited more than three weeks last month before reporting the loss of two computer hard drives that contained some of the nation's most important nuclear secrets.
The acknowledgment came as Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and his department faced harsh criticism in Congress over the loss of the hard drives, the latest in a string of security lapses at the New Mexico laboratory, where nuclear weapons are designed.
Officials said that six managers at Los Alamos had been placed on leave and that disciplinary action at the laboratory was expected shortly. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Energy Department have opened a joint inquiry into the disappearance of the hard drives, which had been stored in a vault at the laboratory.
The hard drives were discovered missing by members of the government's Nuclear Emergency Search Team, or NEST, which stores its computer data at Los Alamos for use in responding to nuclear accidents and terrorist threats.
The team members went to the vault on May 7 to make sure that the material was secure while a forest fire raged in the area.
Eugene E. Habiger, a retired Air Force general who is the Energy Department's senior security officer, said in Congressional testimony today that each hard drive was "little bigger than a deck of cards."
General Habiger said they were one of three "kits" of material for the NEST members "to rapidly deploy to situations that require some of our nation's best minds to look at an improved nuclear device or perhaps a stolen nuclear weapon."
The general went on to say that with the nearby fire burning out of control, "the decision was made to go into the vault by two individuals who are authorized unescorted access into that vault to take the kit."
Senior Energy Department officials at Los Alamos and in Washington said today that more than three weeks passed before they learned of the disappearance. John C. Browne, the director of the Los Alamos laboratory, said he was not informed of the loss until the night of May 31, while F.B.I. and Energy Department officials in Washington said they were not notified until June 1.
The hard drives were stored inside the vault in the laboratory's X Division, where nuclear weapons are designed. They contained highly sensitive data needed by the NEST members in the event of an emergency involving nuclear weapons.
The data on the hard drives included information needed by the team to render nuclear devices safe in emergencies. In addition, the missing material included intelligence information, including some about the Russian nuclear weapons program.
The Energy Department has not ruled out espionage as the cause of the disappearance of the hard drives. But officials said that there might well be a more innocent explanation, and that the hard drives might have been lost in the chaos resulting from the fire, which burned hundreds of houses in the Los Alamos area and came within a half mile of the building where the vault is.
Department officials said it was not immediately clear how long the hard drives might have been missing from the vault.
One victim of the controversy at Los Alamos may be Mr. Richardson, a former House member from New Mexico whose political prospects had appeared bright until recently. He has been mentioned as a possible running mate for Vice President Al Gore on the Democratic ticket, but the scandals at the Energy Department and the rising price of gasoline may have doomed his chances.
"I am outraged by the security lapses that have taken place," Mr. Richardson said today. "We are not going to tolerate this. There will be accountability and disciplinary action."
"What I am most concerned about," he added, "is the failure of the lab to promptly notify the Department of Energy when these potential breaches took place."
In an effort to show a rapid response to the building controversy, Mr. Richardson announced that he had named former Senator Howard H. Baker Jr., Republican of Tennessee, and former Representative Lee H. Hamilton, Democrat of Indiana, to investigate the disappearance of the nuclear secrets. Their review will be independent of the inquiry by the F.B.I. and the Energy Department, a department spokeswoman said.
Members of Congress heaped scorn on the Energy Department and Los Alamos managers during hearings today, saying they found it incredible that a major security breach could occur after they had received assurances from Mr. Richardson that security had been tightened in the wake of accusations of espionage and evidence of security breaches at the laboratory.
"I have to tell you, in my hometown of Menominee, Mich., if I want to check out a library book at the Menominee public library, you have to have a library card and they make a record of it if you remove the book," said Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, during today's House hearing.
"And if you keep the book too long, they send you a notice asking you to return it," he continued. "Well, most Americans would find it hard to believe that Menominee public library has a more sophisticated tracking system for 'Winnie the Pooh' than Los Alamos has for highly classified nuclear weapons data."
The White House joined in the criticism today.
Joe Lockhart, the White House spokesman, said that comprehensive changes at the Energy Department might be needed. "The fact that we don't know the answers is troubling," he added, referring to what happened at Los Alamos.
Over the last year, Mr. Richardson has battled with Congress about security issues in his department, as he opposed creation of an agency within the department to oversee nuclear weapons programs, saying it would undercut his authority. Congress required a revamping of the department last year after there were accusations that China stole some of the nation's most sensitive nuclear secrets because of lax security. Last fall, Mr. Richardson dropped his public opposition to the change when the proposal drew support from majorities in the House and the Senate.
The agency's creation marked the most far-reaching legislative response to two scathing studies last year -- one by a House panel and another by a presidential review board -- that looked into the accusations of espionage by China.
---
Energy Chief Skips Hearing, Drawing Fire From Republicans
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/00/06/14/late/14los-alamos.html
WASHINGTON, June 14 -- The disappearance of nuclear secrets from the Los Alamos National Laboratory fueled more bipartisan anger on Capitol Hill today as senators trained harsh criticism at Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.
Mr. Richardson declined an invitation to appear before a joint hearing of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a fact noted with biting sarcasm.
Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, a Republican who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said it was fitting, in a way, that Mr. Richardson was not there.
"He's been absent, in a sense, at the Department of Energy as our nation's secrets seem to be mishandled, if not vanish," said Mr. Shelby. "Perhaps if the secretary would spend more time ensuring the safety of our nation's nuclear treasures and less time trying to get the vice president elected president, we would not be here today."
(Also today, the Senate, in a 97-0 vote, confirmed John A. Gordon, a retired Air Force general who has been deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to head a new nuclear-weapons agency within the Energy Department.)
Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, noted that Mr. Richardson was scheduled to give a luncheon speech today.
"He was asked to be here.
It is important that he should be here," Mr. Craig said. "I guess it's more important to be before the National Press Club than it is a joint hearing of the United States Senate Intelligence and Energy and Natural Resources Committees." Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, the Republican who heads the Energy Committee, joined in the roasting of Mr. Richardson with a play on words about the recent fires in New Mexico. "I can only conclude that our national security is going up in smoke in some way of comparison, as a consequence of the disaster they had out there," he said. "You know, you can lose your car keys, but it's pretty hard to explain how you could lose the technology that's evidently on these hard drives." Today's first witness before the joint hearing was John Browne, the laboratory director, who said he, too, had felt a deep sense of dismay.
"And I asked myself and the people around me the same question: How could this have happened at Los Alamos after everything we've been through in the last year?" he said.
Mr. Browne said there had been "real security improvements" in the wake of disclosures of earlier security lapses, including some that investigators suspect may involve espionage by China. When the hard drives were found to be missing after the recent fires, Mr. Browne said, "my mood changed from being extremely disturbed to extremely angry to where I am today, which is frustrated."
Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico, said everything he had heard told him "we're dealing with a serious security lapse, as I understand the situation."
---
Los Alamos Security Under Fire
Associated Press
June 14, 2000 Filed at 3:59 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Missing-Secrets-Fire.html
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) -- Even as government officials assured the nation that a raging wildfire advancing on the Los Alamos National Laboratory wouldn't compromise national security, members of a nuclear SWAT team were already worrying about missing weapons data.
Two computer hard drives had been lost, despite being stored in a vault hardened against forced entry and protected by a device that reads a person's unique palm print.
The drives contained information that the Nuclear Emergency Search Team could use to disable nuclear weapons, said Los Alamos Deputy Director of Security Gene Tucker. He said other countries could potentially use that information to develop nuclear capabilities.
``Depending on the sophistication of the country in question, it could prove valuable,'' Tucker said in an interview at the lab Tuesday.
Los Alamos spokesman Kevin Roark said the information doesn't provide blueprints for nuclear weapons, but added: ``It's the kind of stuff that would be very valuable to a country without a nuclear weapons program.''
An internal inquiry has turned up no evidence that espionage was involved, Tucker said. He said investigators hope the missing secrets can still be found.
``It could be that the hard drives were knocked off a table and kicked into a corner somewhere,'' he said.
The fire threatened the lab on May 7, and the vault was on the western side of Los Alamos, near an area where the fire destroyed more than 200 homes. At the time, Tucker said, team members decided to pack up essential materials.
``They conducted a very quick inventory,'' he said. ``During the course of that inventory, they determined these items weren't there.''
Tucker said the team left, planning to conduct a more thorough search after the fire was no longer a threat.
The lab was closed from May 8 until May 22, as the blaze destroyed several trailers, a temporary building, and workshops and offices.
On May 11, the day after the town of Los Alamos was evacuated, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said the lab's nuclear materials were safe. On May 13, the lab gave the media a tour of its facilities, a move officials said was unprecedented.
``This is an attempt to show you we are not hiding anything,'' Gene Habiger, director of security and emergency response for the Department of Energy, said then. ``If anyone thinks the government, the Department of Energy, can suppress the truth, they're wrong.''
When most lab workers were allowed to return May 24, team members began looking for the hard drives, Tucker said. After searching unsuccessfully, they notified security May 31.
``It would have been in our best interest from a security perspective to have known about this as early as possible so we could assist in the search,'' Tucker said.
Tucker said his division told the Department of Energy about the missing hard drives on June 1. Over the next three days, ``we tore this lab apart,'' he said, adding later, ``we stripped the vaults down to the walls.''
On June 5, the department told the lab to cease its inquiry and, joined by the FBI, began its own investigation, Tucker said.
It is the second time the FBI has been involved in tracking down nuclear weapons data missing from Los Alamos in the last two years. Former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee is accused of mishandling nuclear weapons secrets that officials have said could be used to build bombs.
Lee hasn't been accused of giving the secrets to foreign agents and claims he destroyed tapes he made containing the secrets. He is in jail awaiting trial.
Over the past two years, the lab has taken several steps to tighten security, including installing new sensors and monitors, increasing computer security, and training to focus workers' attention on security issues, Tucker said.
He said about 80 people had some level of access to the vault.
``Somebody may have misplaced and forgotten (where the tapes are) and is now afraid to admit it,'' he said.
Or, someone could have stolen the tapes, he said. ``You can define that as mischief or worse.''
---
Lee Attorneys To Seek Bail Again
Associated Press
June 13, 2000 Filed at 6:30 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/a/AP-Wen-Ho-Lee-Bail.html
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- Attorneys are seeking bail again for a former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist jailed while awaiting trial on charges of breaching security.
Attorney John Cline said he intends to ask for another bail hearing in three to four weeks from U.S. District Judge James Parker, who took over the Wen Ho Lee case this month.
U.S. District Judge John Conway, who presided over earlier motions, refused to release Lee from the Santa Fe jail where he is being held in solitary confinement.
Conway removed himself from the case this month, saying he did not relish the months-long commitment the case requires.
Parker said at a special hearing Tuesday that he will keep the Nov. 6 date Conway earlier set for Lee's trial.
Cline said that since the first bail hearing, the defense has discovered evidence that might better support Lee's case and influence the judge to reconsider.
Lee, 60, was arrested in December on a 59-count indictment that charged him with copying top secret computer files. Although under investigation for three years in connection with the alleged loss of U.S. nuclear secrets to China, Lee has not been charged with espionage.
He has denied giving secrets to anyone.
---
Richardson to Set Up Panel for Los Alamos Security
Reuters
June 13, 2000 Filed at 4:24 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-crime-nuclear-pa.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson plans to name an independent panel to investigate security lapses at the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory on Tuesday, a government official said.
The official said the panel would include a mix of Democrats and Republicans to provide a bipartisan look at the disappearance last month of two computer hard drives believed to contain U.S. and Russian nuclear secrets.
``Richardson is taking some steps to have an independent look at this problem,'' said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The White House was expected to welcome the development. White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said earlier that comprehensive changes at the Energy Department may be needed in the wake of the latest security problems at the facility in New Mexico.
---
Polygraphs set for workers at Los Alamos lab
Washington Times
By Jerry Seper
June 14, 2000
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-2000614234824.htm
The FBI will begin administering polygraph tests today to workers at the Los Alamos weapons laboratory who had access to two now-missing top-secret computer hard drives containing U.S. nuclear secrets.
A day after government officials disclosed the missing hard drives, Senate Republicans yesterday angrily called on Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to explain how the highly sensitive tapes disappeared.
"You can point the finger at one man," said Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, referring to Mr. Richardson, who last year promised a "zero-tolerance security policy" for the department.
"He gave us the assurance that everything was under control," Mr. Warner said, adding he will ask Mr. Richardson and other top Energy Department officials to testify at a still-unscheduled hearing to determine the cause of the latest security breach.
Rep. Thomas J. Bliley Jr., Virginia Republican and chairman of the House Commerce Committee, called the disappearance of the hard drives evidence of "nothing less than a failure of leadership" by Mr. Richardson, considered by some to be a top Democratic contender for the vice-presidential slot.
Said Sen. Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska Republican and chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, "It's starting to look like our national security is going up in smoke like the area around Los Alamos."
Members of the Nuclear Emergency Support Team in Los Alamos discovered the disappearance when they entered the vault to take three nuclear kits to safety as wildfires raged in the area, forcing the closing of the 43-square-mile facility for about two weeks.
The missing hard drives, each about the size of a deck of cards, contain information used by the team to respond to nuclear accidents or terrorist acts. They describe sensitive and highly technical nuclear weapons data needed to disarm and dismantle an array of U.S. and Russian nuclear devices in an emergency or terrorist attack.
The hard drives were taken from locked containers in the Los Alamos national laboratory's "X Division," where nuclear weapons are designed. They were discovered missing May 7 but not reported by Los Alamos officials to the Energy Department in Washington until June 1.
The FBI, the lead agency in an ongoing "criminal inquiry," already has interviewed 90 persons in the probe, and will begin the polygraph examinations today. The 90 had access to the secure vaults where the hard drives were stored, including 28 who could enter the area unescorted. The FBI will identify those it wants to undergo polygraph examinations.
The White House yesterday called the security breach "troubling," but offered its continued support of Mr. Richardson.
"The president has confidence in Secretary Richardson," said White House spokesman Joe Lockhart. "We've done an enormous amount as far as changing the security culture at the Department of Energy, at the labs. But I think we have to wait and see, and get some of these questions answered to see what more we may have to do.
"There's a number of troubling questions raised by this, but I think we need to let the investigation take place before we try to reach any conclusion about these issues," he said.
Last May, Mr. Richardson said there was a "zero tolerance security policy," that "no security infractions are acceptable," and that penalties would be strengthened. He said those involved in "verified unintentional or reckless breaches that create a significant risk of a national security compromise or that display a willful disregard for security procedures" would be disciplined.
Mr. Richardson said yesterday he was "outraged" by the Los Alamos security lapse but doubted it was espionage and recommended an independent panel to probe security lapses at Los Alamos. The White House later announced that former Sen. Howard Baker, Tennessee Republican, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, Indiana Democrat, would head the panel.
Mr. Lockhart, in a statement, said he expects efforts to be "thorough, expeditious and conducted in a manner that does not interfere with the FBI's investigation of this very serious matter."
The unexplained disappearance of the hard drives comes in the wake of an espionage scandal involving former Los Alamos computer scientist Wen Ho Lee, who was fired and later indicted by a federal grand jury on 59 counts of illegally removing U.S. nuclear secrets from a computer.
On Capitol Hill, the missing hard drives sparked new concern about security at the Energy Department laboratories, particularly Los Alamos. Retired Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger, the department's top security official, told the House Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations it did not appear espionage was involved, although he could not explain how the hard drives came to be missing.
Gen. Habiger confirmed that the FBI was investigating the incident as a possible case of espionage, and Mr. Lockhart, during a press briefing at the White House, said espionage "isn't something we can rule out, which is why the FBI is involved."
The hard drives were discovered missing as a potentially deadly forest fire threatened the facility, although no effort was made for 17 days to interview people about the missing data. The "brush-clearing" blaze, set by the National Park Service, burned 47,000 acres, destroyed 405 homes, caused the evacuation of 25,000 residents and created an estimated $150 million cleanup bill for the Los Alamos laboratory.
Gen. Habiger said after the discovery, the lab was evacuated and most of its workers - their homes threatened by fire - scattered with only security and firefighters left at the facility. Asked why those with access to the vault were not immediately identified and questioned, Gen. Habiger said the focus was "on saving the laboratory from destruction from the fire."
He said an "intensive" search for the tapes began May 24, after the lab had been reopened.
Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan Republican and subcommittee chairman, described the loss of the hard drives as "startling" and said "real security" at Los Alamos was going to require additional changes in how the Energy Department and how its labs control their classified data.
"Americans everywhere want absolute assurances that our nuclear secrets remain just that - secret," he said. "Sadly, today's headlines are indeed startling regarding the missing disks and the unsuccessful attempts of answering the many questions that are now out there."
Mr. Upton also criticized department officials in Washington, whom he said failed to properly oversee security issues despite Mr. Richardson's "professed commitment over one year ago to make security and cyber-security a top priority throughout the department."
"I find the whole situation bewildering," he said. "How could [the Energy Department], which was the catalyst for the security changes at the nuclear weapons labs last year, leave its own system so vulnerable to misuse?"
The subcommittee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, said he also was "very concerned" that the department had no idea what happened to the hard drives.
"However, what is more concerning is the laissez-faire attitude Los Alamos national laboratory and the Department of Energy have displayed in trying to ascertain what happened to highly classified information," he said, noting that one department official told reporters it was premature to call the incident a security breach.
"I, for one, think it is a security breach . . . no one can say what has happened to the hard drives, who had control of the hard drives or who last had access to them," he said.
Mr. Stupak said he also was concerned Los Alamos took three weeks to alert Energy Department officials in Washington that the hard drives were missing. "This is not a joke. We're talking about highly classified nuclear weapons data," he said. "We need answers and we need results."
---
Richardson's VP Chances in Question
Associated Press
June 14, 2000 Filed at 6:46 p.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/p/AP-Richardson-Veepstakes.html
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Democratic strategists and friends of Bill Richardson worried Wednesday that the flak and finger pointing over sky-high gas prices and lost nuclear secrets could doom -- or at least darken -- the Energy secretary's prospects of becoming Al Gore's running mate.
Republicans at a joint hearing of the Senate intelligence and energy committees made clear that they would make a protracted political issue of Richardson's accountability for the disappearance of nuclear secrets from a vault at the Energy Department's Los Alamos weapons lab in New Mexico.
``The secretary stands naked on this issue,'' said Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska.
Controversy is hardly what presidential candidates look for in a No. 2, especially Gore, already weighed down by the baggage of campaign fund-raising allegations and President Clinton's scandals.
Gore refused to discuss whether Richardson's troubles would disqualify him. ``I am not speculating about anyone as a running mate at this pont, and I have not compiled a list of potential running mates, so I am just not going to engage in any kind of speculation,'' he said on CNN.
Democrats contemplated the possibility of news headlines stretching into the fall, linking Richardson's name with investigations and hearings.
``If there are going to be ongoing investigations about this, that's one thing. I don't think it should knock (Richardson) out of the running but it's certainly not a positive,'' said Democratic consultant David Doak, whose client list includes California Gov. Gray Davis, also mentioned as a possible running mate for Gore.
Other Richardson loyalists, although confident of his resilience to weather the storm, privately voiced concern that the noise would make him a risk that Gore would just as soon not take.
Campaign officials refused to comment. Gore's top-secret vetting process is being conducted by former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who met with Richardson last month.
Since allegations of spying at Los Alamos first surfaced early last year, Richardson has given repeated assurances that security had been tightened and America's nuclear secrets were safe. Two computer hard drives were found missing from a Los Alamos vault on May 7 -- a breach not disclosed until this week.
``It isn't one of my best days,'' Richardson said with some self-deprecation as he began remarks to an energy efficiency forum at Washington's National Press Club.
Add to the Los Alamos headache the painful reminder that two months ago, when the Energy Department revised its forecast and declared prices would fall off after an early-April peak, Richardson claimed victory.
Drivers have instead seen prices soar to well over $2 per gallon, particularly in the Midwest, a critical battleground in the presidential campaign. It's a bread-and-butter problem that not only undercuts Richardson's credibility, but also the credibility of Gore's argument that the economy is on track and he can keep it rolling.
Richardson, despite public denials, has made no secret of his interest in being picked to join the Democratic presidential ticket.
The top Hispanic in Clinton's Cabinet, Richardson, 52, has quietly courted favor with long-time friends of the vice president and claimed an on-stage spot right behind Gore as he claimed victory in the March 7 ``Super Tuesday'' primaries.
On the campaign trail and TV talk shows, Richardson has so enthusiastically stumped for Gore that Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., chairman of the Intelligence Committee, griped Wednesday that the mess at Los Alamos might not have happened if Richardson ``had been doing his job as secretary ... and not out running for vice president.''
Richardson, a former congressman from New Mexico and United Nations ambassador, has long been considered an obvious vice presidential contender -- though by no means a top candidate -- because of his appeal within the Latino community. It's an emerging constituency aggressively courted by both Gore and Republican rival George W. Bush.
Richardson could also help Gore in New Mexico, one of a handful of ``toss-up'' states in this election, although it isn't a large prize, awarding only five Electoral College votes.
---
Energy Chief Skips Hearing, Drawing Fire From Republicans
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By DAVID STOUT
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/late/14los-alamos.html
WASHINGTON, June 14 -- The disappearance of nuclear secrets from the Los Alamos National Laboratory fueled more bipartisan anger on Capitol Hill today as senators trained harsh criticism at Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.
Mr. Richardson declined an invitation to appear before a joint hearing of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a fact noted with biting sarcasm.
Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, a Republican who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said it was fitting, in a way, that Mr. Richardson was not there.
"He's been absent, in a sense, at the Department of Energy as our nation's secrets seem to be mishandled, if not vanish," said Mr. Shelby. "Perhaps if the secretary would spend more time ensuring the safety of our nation's nuclear treasures and less time trying to get the vice president elected president, we would not be here today."
(Also today, the Senate, in a 97-0 vote, confirmed John A. Gordon, a retired Air Force general who has been deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to head a new nuclear-weapons agency within the Energy Department.)
Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, noted that Mr. Richardson was scheduled to give a luncheon speech today.
"He was asked to be here.
It is important that he should be here," Mr. Craig said. "I guess it's more important to be before the National Press Club than it is a joint hearing of the United States Senate Intelligence and Energy and Natural Resources Committees."
Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, the Republican who heads the Energy Committee, joined in the roasting of Mr. Richardson with a play on words about the recent fires in New Mexico. "I can only conclude that our national security is going up in smoke in some way of comparison, as a consequence of the disaster they had out there," he said. "You know, you can lose your car keys, but it's pretty hard to explain how you could lose the technology that's evidently on these hard drives." Today's first witness before the joint hearing was John Browne, the laboratory director, who said he, too, had felt a deep sense of dismay.
"And I asked myself and the people around me the same question: How could this have happened at Los Alamos after everything we've been through in the last year?" he said.
Mr. Browne said there had been "real security improvements" in the wake of disclosures of earlier security lapses, including some that investigators suspect may involve espionage by China. When the hard drives were found to be missing after the recent fires, Mr. Browne said, "my mood changed from being extremely disturbed to extremely angry to where I am today, which is frustrated."
Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico, said everything he had heard told him "we're dealing with a serious security lapse, as I understand the situation."
---
Senate hearing examines loss of nuclear secrets at Los Alamos lab
CNN
June 14, 2000 Web posted at: 11:59 AM EDT (1559 GMT)
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/06/13/losalamos.hearing/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Energy Secretary Bill Richardson declined to appear at Wednesday's Senate committee hearing on security concerns at national laboratories, which focused on the most recent loss of classified nuclear information at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
"Mister Secretary, you should be here today, of all people," chided Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is holding the hearing in conjunction with the chamber's Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Shelby added that if Richardson spent "more time trying to protect America's treasures and less time trying to get the vice president elected president, we would not be here today."
Shelby's sentiment was shared by other panel members, many of whom pointed to the empty chair that had ben set aside for Richardson, rhetorically asking "what could be more important than protecting the nation's security?"
"I hope that the secretary will respond to these questions: What did Secretary Richardson know, when did he know it and why isn't the secretary here to answer that question?" Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) asked.
Wednesday's hearing comes one day after the House began its own inquiry. Witnesses expected to testify before the committees were Edward Curran, chief operating office of counter intelligence at DOE; Gen. Eugene Habiger, director of the office of security and emergency operations at DOE; and John Browne, the director of the Los Alamos lab.
Six managers at the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico were placed on administrative leave with pay Tuesday pending the outcome of various investigations into the loss of two computer hard drives containing classified nuclear weapons information.
Energy Department officials have promised new measures to protect the nation's nuclear secrets. Richardson announced Tuesday that former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton will conduct a separate investigation and make recommendations to President Bill Clinton.
Neither lab nor Energy Department officials would comment on the action to place the officials on leave, nor would they identify the individuals. But The Associated Press reported that among those put on leave was Stephen Younger, head of the nuclear weapons programs.
"I will not tolerate security lapses and I'm outraged at what happened," said Richardson, who did not learn of the missing nuclear weapons files for nearly a month. He said he doubts that espionage or theft was involved and said the two computer drives probably were "misplaced" during the turmoil surrounding the wildfires that threatened the lab last month.
Agency chiefs told a House congressional committee that DOE has completely restructured its cyber-security program and plans a number of additional initiatives to ensure that nuclear weapons data remains secure.
The DOE officials told members of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations that two hard drives -- about the size of a deck of cards -- have been missing from a storage vault at the New Mexico lab since May 7, when the lab was threatened by raging wildfires that forced an evacuation three days later. The department has said no breach of security was detected, but the incident has raised new questions as to whether the Clinton Administration is directing adequate funding to electronic security.
The University of California, which operates the national laboratory, did not report the hard drives' disappearance to department headquarters until June 1 -- a matter of great interest to committee members. At that time, the FBI and DOE began conducting an investigation into the matter.
Both hard drives disappeared from a vault in the lab's highly secured "X Division," where nuclear weapons designers work. The drives were part of three kits that contained highly sensitive nuclear weapons information used by the lab's Nuclear Emergency Search Team, which is trained to respond to nuclear accidents or terrorism.
The drives, while heavily protected in the 3-by-10-foot vault, are meant to be portable "because they are used by our Nuclear Emergency Search Team to respond to incidents around the globe on a 24-hour basis," Browne recently told CNN. He said it is not clear if the information on the computer hard drives has been "compromised," but conceded the material "would be valuable to certain people."
He did not elaborate.
Even if the computer drives do turn up, their loss is a new embarrassment for the Los Alamos lab, where the first nuclear bomb was built more than a half-century ago.
Gen. Habiger told House subcommittee members that the vault is so secure, it is "something that you and I would need several weeks to break into."
Habiger said that 28 people had unescorted access to the vault, meaning they knew how to open it. Fifty-seven others were granted escorted access to the vault.
All of the individuals with unescorted access have been interviewed, as well as most of those with escorted access, Habiger said. He said that he believes it is likely that the drives may have simply been misplaced.
"The individuals who have access to those kits are dedicated, loyal Americans," he said as to why he did not suspect lab employees of foul play.
The drives were accounted for during an April 7 "fully confirmed audit," Habiger said, adding that later in the month an additional, unconfirmed audit was conducted and no "alarm bells" went off -- indicating that all three kits were likely intact. A May 22 inventory found four of the six hard drives were accounted for, he said.
The subcommittee's Republican majority raised several questions about the laboratory's security procedures during the hearing. Its chairman, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan), said he was "fairly incredulous" to find that such a high number of lab employees had unescorted access to the missing drives. And Rep. Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) questioned why the laboratory did not track access to the vault.
"It is amazing to me that there is not some record of who accessed it, when and if anyone removed something from that vault and, if so, when it was returned," Burr said.
Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tennessee) added: "I think when you start with the presumption that because you've got good, dedicated Americans there, that rather than getting started with a criminal investigation, you're delaying an investigation of all of those who had access."
"The presumption or the assumption was 'There's a good reason somebody out there has got it,' instead of thinking that it could have been stolen," Habiger replied.
The FBI is leading the investigation "very, very aggressively," Habiger said. The bureau will begin polygraph examinations of lab employees beginning tomorrow, he said.
Richardson promises action
Richardson vowed Tuesday to conduct a full investigation, announcing that the two prominent former members of Congress will lead an independent panel to review the security lapses at the New Mexico lab.
The White House welcomed the move.
"The president is pleased that Senator Howard Baker and Congressman Lee Hamilton have agreed to conduct a review regarding missing data at Los Alamos," said White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart. "He expects their efforts to be thorough, expeditious and conducted in a manner that does not interfere with the FBI's investigation of this very serious matter."
The two retired officials have strong resumes. Baker, a Tennessee Republican, was Senate majority leader from 1981 to 1987 and served as President Ronald Reagan's chief of staff during the stormiest days of the Iran-Contra scandal. Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat, chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee from 1992 to 1994 and served as ranking Democrat on the renamed International Relations Committee until 1999.
Lockhart said the lab's security lapses were "troubling," but that the president had not lost confidence in his energy secretary. Instead, Lockhart said comprehensive changes at the Energy Department may be needed.
"We've done an enormous amount as far as changing the security culture at the Department of Energy, at the labs. I think we have to wait and see, and get some of these questions answered to see what more we have to do."
Lockhart said the president considers the security lapse to be a serious matter.
"There's a number of troubling questions raised by this, but I think we need to let the investigation take place before we try to reach any conclusion about these issues," he said. Investigators would need to look at the sequence of events and reporting within the labs, he added.
New questions about lab security
Los Alamos was the center of a security controversy during most of 1999 over allegations against one of its former scientists, Wen Ho Lee.
Federal prosecutors brought a 59-count indictment against Lee in December, charging him with copying top-secret computer files that have never been found. Although under investigation for three years in connection with the alleged loss of U.S. nuclear secrets to China, Lee has not been charged with espionage.
In jail awaiting trial, Lee has denied giving secrets to anyone.
Members of Congress began raising new questions about security within hours after Monday's disclosure of the latest incident.
"If they can't keep track of this kind of information, it raises serious concerns about overall security," said Senator Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that the case of the missing hard drives was "completely unacceptable," and accused the administration of allowing a "culture of disdain towards security" that has led to "severe national security breaches."
In a written statement, Goss questioned why relevant authorities were not immediately contacted after the hard drives were discovered missing and why the Department of Energy did not conduct a comprehensive search until weeks after the discovery -- one of the issues that arose during the morning hearing.
Goss said he may hold committee hearings on the matter later in the week.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
---
How Nuclear Secrets Disappeared
Associated Press
June 14, 2000 Filed at 10:43 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Missing-Secrets-Chronology.html
A chronology of events involving the disappearance of two computer hard drives containing nuclear secrets from a vault at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, according to Energy Department officials.
April 7: A member of an emergency nuclear response, or NEST, team recalls seeing the hard drives in the vault during an inventory.
April 27: Another member of the response team does not recall seeing the two drives, contained in one of three emergency response ``kits'' in the vault, but says if they had been missing he would have taken notice.
May 2-4: The NEST emergency response team participates in an exercise at the Lawrence Livermore weapons lab in California. It's not known whether ``Kit No. 2'' -- later to be found with the drives missing -- was used in the exercise.
May 4: A wildfire begins in federal parkland near the Los Alamos laboratory and quickly spreads out of control.
May 7: With the laboratory threatened by the fire, members of the NEST team late in the evening inspect the vault to assure the three kits are ``out of harm's way'' and discover the two drives missing from Kit No. 2. The discovery is not reported.
May 8: The Los Alamos lab is evacuated because of the fire threat and scientists disperse.
May 22: With the fire danger over, operations resume at the lab.
May 24: A group of scientists begin an ``intense search'' for the missing hard drives, but senior lab officials are not informed of the possible loss.
May 31: Los Alamos lab director John Browne first learns of the missing hard drives and the next day informs Energy Department officials in Washington.
June 1-2: Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger, the DOE's top security official, and Edward Curran, chief of counterintelligence, are informed of the loss and meet with the FBI.
June 4: A team of 22 FBI agents and a dozen DOE investigators, led by Habiger, descend on Los Alamos and begin investigation, interviewing those with access to the vault and continuing the search.
June 12: The Los Alamos laboratory announces in a news release that two top-secret hard drives containing nuclear data had been found missing.
June 13: Six laboratory managers, including the head of the nuclear weapons programs, are put on paid leave, pending the investigations. Richardson complains about not being informed about the loss for nearly three weeks and promises disciplinary action.
June 14: Congressional intelligence and armed services committees begin hearings into the security breakdown. At Los Alamos, FBI and DOE officials begin plans to give polygraph tests to scientists who had access to the vault.
-------- tennessee
Top floor at DOE office getting crowded
June 14, 2000
By Frank Munger,
Knoxville News-Sentinel staff writer
http://www.knoxnews.com/editorsview/munger/fm06142000.shtml
The popular thing these days in the world of corporate downsizing is to reduce the layers of management to cut costs and gain efficiency. In a eye-opening maneuver, the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge office has decided to buck that trend and add a layer of management.
G. Leah Dever, the Oak Ridge manager, last week announced the management restructuring -- which amounted to the creation of two new deputy manager positions. It's called the "dual deputy structure," according to a DOE press release.
In addition to the regular deputy manager (Ed Cumesty, who presumably will be known in-house as the deputy manager), there's now a deputy manager for business affairs (Bob Folker) and a deputy manager for operations (not yet named).
Dever, in a prepared statement, said she was very pleased. She added: "The new dual deputy structure will provide added emphasis and expertise to both the line management and business aspects of our large and complex operation."
The government's Oak Ridge enterprise, of course, is not quite as large as it used to be. In fact, it's considerably smaller.
Which leaves with me one thought:
Over the past 20 years, I have heard a lot of complaints about DOE and its Oak Ridge operations, but I have never, ever heard anyone suggest DOE had too few managers.
*DOWN IN THE DUMPS: In decades past, the Department of Energy tried to convince folks that the agency was responsibly disposing of its nuclear wastes, and agency spokespeople routinely chided media types who referred to the nuclear landfills as "dumps."
Of course, as the leaking legacy confirms, those old landfills were dumps.
Now, however, as DOE's waste-disposal methods have improved, with highly engineered facilities that offer multiple layers of environmental protection, the government has done an about-face and referred to these sites as "dumps."
What?
On Energy Secretary Bill Richardson's Web site, there is a long list of his accomplishments, including this one:
"Worked to expedite the cleanup of contaminated DOE sites by opening a low-level nuclear waste dump in New Mexico ...."
This apparently is a reference to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Interestingly, the underground facility cost billions of dollars, and it's certainly not your average dump.
It also is not home to low-level waste, as Richardson's glowing biography suggests. Transuranic waste, which includes plutonium and other highly hazardous radioactive elements, will be sent to WIPP, and that's not low-level -- even by DOE's warped standards.
The only thing low-level about this seems to be the competence of the federal workers who put together this information on the secretary's behalf.
*HOT SEAT: Could there be another "nuke" in the state Legislature? Walter "Sunny" Day, a radiological controls supervisor at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge, is trying to gain a seat in the Tennessee Senate. Day, a Blount County resident, is running in the Republican Primary in the 8th District, which also includes part of Sevier County.
Howard Kerr, a nuclear engineer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and long-time nuclear proponent, already holds a seat in the Tennessee House. He's also from Blount County.
*HIROSHIMA: Dutch Van Kirk, the navigator on the Enola Gay, the B-29 aircraft used to drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945, offered blunt, candid responses to numerous questions during his recent visit to Oak Ridge.
Could this Manhattan Project be accomplished in today's climate? "No way. You just couldn't do it. You have too many nosy people."
Would he like to visit Japan? "I have no big desire to go back. Been there; done that. I think the museum (at Hiroshima) would be interesting, but I don't want to fly across an ocean just to see another museum. That's not hard-heartedness on my part; it's not disinterest on my part or anything. I just have no overwhelming reason to go back."
Was he nervous on the A-bomb mission? "No. I was nervous on my first missions over Europe and all that. I finally made up my mind that I wasn't going to live through the war, so why worry about it, and I enjoyed myself a lot more thereafter. But this was a mission where we had our share of concerns -- getting away from the bomb and everything -- but I don't think anybody on that crew was especially nervous."
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/
----
The K-1435 Incinerator also emits small amounts of beryllium, lead, and mercury, which are contaminants in the waste feed, and miscellaneous combustion by-products, including hydrochloric acid and hydrogen fluoride.
From: magnu96196@aol.com
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000
http: //tis.eh.doe.gov/oepa/tigerteam/eh0246/eh0246_3.html#2013
-----
Re: http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oepa/tigerteam/eh0246/eh0246_3.html#2013
From: magnu96196@aol.com
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:54:25 EDT
Because summary compliance information is not compiled or recorded, the K-25 Site does not independently verify whether emissions comply with permit conditions, for example, whether the particulate emissions are below 3 pounds per hour, hydrogen fluoride is below 0.68 pounds per hour, or beryllium emissions are below .002 pounds per day. The absence of this oversight and review does not ensure that the automated information systems continue to calculate compliance data properly.
----
Our Views: Senate's 'sick worker' action is meaningful
Wednesday, June 14, 2000
Oak Ridger
http://www.oakridger.com/
The Senate has gone an important step beyond earlier House action by setting out actual cash amounts that would be available to workers made ill in Oak Ridge and at other nuclear weapons plants.
"Workers at Oak Ridge and across the country who served our nation during the Cold War have suffered through an extraordinary set or circumstances and have waited too long for the federal government to address their grievances," said Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson calls the Senate's sick worker legislation "a historic opportunity for Congress to do the right thing and act quickly."
We hope the impatience hinted at by both men rules the day. Indeed, with almost no one disputing anymore that some workers may have been exposed to radiation and other hazardous materials, it is clearly time that Washington act with dispatch to right a wrong.
The Senate's Thompson Amendment, entitled the "Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act," is an important step in that direction, and arguably the biggest step to date. It sets out various screening and compensation procedures for workers who believe that their illnesses are due to exposure to beryllium, silicosis, and radiation.
And it does so, it seems to us, in a manner designed to settle and put this tragic issue behind us once and for all, and soon. Whether that outcome can be achieved awaits full congressional approval as well as some demonstration of restraint by the litigious trial lawyers' crowd.
But the Senate's recent action is a responsible, reasonable step in the right direction.
----
DOE sees 'gulf' on overrun appeal
June 14, 2000
By Frank Munger,
Oak Ridge bureau Knoxville News-Sentinel
http://www.knoxnews.com/business/10427.shtml
A Department of Energy official said BNFL Inc. has made "tremendous physical progress" on its Oak Ridge cleanup project since last summer, but he indicated there is a "gulf" between DOE and its contractor on cost overruns being negotiated. "These financial aspects are nowhere near being completed," Robert Brown, an assistant manager in DOE's Oak Ridge office, said Tuesday. He was participating in a nuclear cleanup symposium in Knoxville.
BNFL, a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels, has encountered sizable cost overruns in the cleanup of three Oak Ridge buildings once used to process uranium for bombs and reactor fuel.
The company is working under a $238 million fixed-price contract but is asking DOE for a series of "equitable adjustments," arguing that some costs were not known at the time the contract was signed in 1997.
A BNFL spokesman recently acknowledged the company is requesting about $100 million for unforeseen cleanup costs and another $40 million to compensate for the impact of a DOE-imposed moratorium on recycling nickel taken from the Oak Ridge facilities. The company had planned to offset some costs by selling the nickel commercially.
U.S. Rep. Thomas Bliley, R-Va., chairman of the House Commerce Committee, recently said the Oak Ridge contract costs were out of control, and he compared it to the infamous "Pit 9" cleanup project in Idaho. Bliley said he'd been told that BNFL was seeking as much as $210 million in additional money from DOE.
Negotiations are continuing, but Brown said DOE doesn't think some of BNFL's requests are reasonable.
DOE already has settled one claim by giving BNFL an additional $1.9 million to cover damages incurred at the cleanup site during a storm last year, when part of a roof was dislodged. DOE also extended the BNFL's schedule for 70 days to accommodate delays caused by the storm.
"We clearly acknowledged that was our responsibility," Brown said. "It was an act of nature."
Other negotiations, however, may be tougher.
"There were roughly 11 requests for equitable adjustments," Brown said. "Three, including the storm damage, we feel we may have partial responsibility. The rest, at this point in time, we do not feel are our responsibility."
The DOE official said he expects the financial negotiations to be completed by the end of August.
Meanwhile, a BNFL spokesman said the Oak Ridge project continues work as usual, with about 1.5 million pounds of metal being removed from the old buildings each week. Although DOE has halted the recycling of nickel, BNFL still has contractual authority to recycle other metals with radioactive contamination on the surface.
DOE is evaluating the overall recycling program, and some reports have suggested Energy Secretary Bill Richardson may put a temporary hold on all commercial sales of metal taken from federal nuclear facilities in Oak Ridge and elsewhere.
James Owendoff, a top cleanup official from DOE headquarters in Washington, declined to discuss details of BNFL's cost overruns or the potential ramifications if the recycling program is shut down entirely.
When asked if he considered BNFL's work in Oak Ridge a success story, Owendoff said the contractor "is getting the job done."
He added: "As my granddaddy would say, if this job were easy, anybody could do it."
Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or twig1@knoxnews.infi.net.
-------- washington
DOE fined for missing critical Hanford deadline
By ROBERT GAVIN
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
June 14, 2000
http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/hanf142.shtml
OLYMPIA -- The state yesterday levied its biggest fine ever against the U.S. Department of Energy for failing to meet a deadline critical to the cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
The state Department of Ecology said it fined Energy $200,000 because it did not complete safety tests for double-walled underground tanks holding radioactive waste.
Previously, the biggest fine against Energy was $110,000, levied after a 1997 chemical explosion in the plutonium processing plant.
Although there is no evidence that the double-lined tanks are leaking, Ecology officials said, the assessment of their condition is vital to the treatment of Hanford's most dangerous waste -- tens of millions of gallons of liquid radioactive waste. Most of the 54 million gallons of waste is stored underground in rotting, 149 single-walled tanks, many of which are leaking.
Clean-up plans call for the waste from the single-walled tanks to be pumped into 28 double-walled tanks and stored there for final treatment. A treatment plant to turn the volatile liquids into stable glass for long-term storage is scheduled to be in full operation by 2009, although the recent firing of the plant contractor could bring delays.
"These tanks are a central component of the clean-up effort," said Bob Wilson, Ecology's compliance inspector. "We have to make sure the tanks are safe because they will be needed for decades to come."
Under 1989 agreement, the Department of Energy promised to provide an analysis of the structural condition of the double-walled tanks by Sept. 30. Energy submitted a report on time, state officials said, but did not complete all tests.
Ami Sidpara, acting assistant manager for operations at Energy's Office of River Protection, said yesterday that the testing was delayed because urgent problems arose: namely the buildup of hydrogen in a double-walled tank, and the rising heat inside a single-walled tank.
Energy installed new equipment to stop the buildup of hydrogen and pumped out the singled-walled tank.
"There was no immediate safety issue (with the tank assessment), and we prioritized," Sidpara said.
Sidpara said Energy had the testing program in place, but did not follow through. He said Energy officials have been working closely with Ecology over the past few months, have a clearer understanding of what Ecology wants, and expects to meet future deadlines, including a final report due in 2006.
Ecology officials said they will cut the fine in half, to $100,000 if Energy meets all the deadlines.
Gerald Pollett, executive director of the Hanford watchdog group, Heart of America Northwest, called Ecology's fine "appropriate."
"The reason it's so darned important is they (the double-walled tanks) are going to hold the liquid high level waste for a lot longer than anyone expected," Pollett said. "Under (Energy's) best plan, 90 percent of the wastes will still be in the tanks by 2018."
-----
Hanford health project aims to educate
By Annette Cary,
Tri-City Herald,
June 14, 2000
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2000/0614.html#anchor596920
The federal government is preparing to start a $1.5 million project to educate those who lived downwind of Hanford on the risks of past exposure to radiation.
"We want to inform people and health care providers and help people make more informed choices about their health care," said Greg Thomas, technical project officer for the program of the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Called the Hanford Community Health Project, the effort is an outgrowth of previous plans for medical monitoring of people who could have been exposed to airborne radiation during World War II or the Cold War. ATSDR failed to get money from Congress to monitor Hanford downwinders for thyroid disease that could have been caused by Hanford's releases of radioactive iodine.
This fall, the agency plans to survey 500 people born in Benton, Franklin and Adams counties between 1940 and 1951. Those who remained in the area would have been young children when radioactive iodine releases were believed to be greatest. Children are more vulnerable to thyroid damage from radioactive iodine, which concentrates in the thyroid.
ATSDR is working with the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to do the survey, although it's still waiting for approval from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Downwinders would be asked about health experiences related to their thyroid, such as whether they get regular medical care and how well-informed their doctor is about radiation exposure. The survey also would ask whether they would use a screening program for thyroid disease if it were available. Other questions would assess how much they know already about their exposure.
"We want to see where the gaps are in knowledge," Thomas said. "We don't want to duplicate what's been done before."
The results would be used to guide ATSDR in developing materials and doing outreach activities to educate all downwinders, Thomas said. Materials should be ready next spring.
ATSDR still is pushing for money for a medical monitoring program, but the Hanford Community Health Project would accomplish that program's first two objectives: outreach and education.
ATSDR had expected to receive $5 million from Congress to start a medical monitoring program to screen downwinders with the most potential exposure to radioactive iodine for disease, then refer them for treatment.
That money did not materialize after the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science recommended against broad-based testing of those exposed to radiation from above-ground testing at the Nevada Test Site and Hanford. The institute said education was more important.
Also, an $18 million study of thyroid disease in Hanford downwinders found no link between increasing doses of radiation and thyroid disease.
Although Congress gave ATSDR no money for thyroid screenings, it will use other money from the Department of Energy for the education and outreach program.
DOE's support of programs to compensate nuclear workers who may have fallen ill or died because of workplace exposure is boosting pressure for DOE to consider whether those who lived near nuclear sites also may have been harmed.
According to the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, DOE has promised a national workshop to discuss the concerns of nuclear watchdog groups. That also could put pressure on the federal government to pay for the medical monitoring.
"We haven't given up on the screening program," Thomas said. "We are continuing talks with the Department of Energy."
Those who would like to be on a mailing list to be informed of Hanford Community Health Project activities and receive information developed by the project can leave their name and address at800-207-3996 or e-mail it to hanford@norcmail.uchicago.edu.
-------- us nuc weapons
Senate OKs Nuclear Weapons Chief
Jun 14, 2000
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
http://chblue.com/a/ap.washington/20000614/3947b327.1f36.3/ap.asp
WASHINGTON (AP) - Spurred by another security breech at the Los Alamos weapons lab, the Senate swiftly confirmed the No. 2 man at the CIA to head a new nuclear weapons agency within the Energy Department.
Air Force Gen. John A. Gordon, now deputy CIA director, won unanimous confirmation Wednesday after his nomination had been held up for months. The vote was 97-0.
The disappearance of nuclear secrets from a vault at the Los Alamos weapons lab in New Mexico has prompted a criminal investigation and unleashed another torrent of criticism about security at the Energy Department, leaving the Clinton administration scrambling to contain the political fallout.
Senior Energy Department officials told a Senate hearing that the FBI has taken over what now is a criminal investigation and that some scientists - members of a special nuclear emergency response team - were to begin undergoing polygraph tests Wednesday as authorities try to find out what happened to the secrets contained in two computer hard drives.
As the vote was taken on Gordon's nomination, senators at a hearing lashed out at Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, who had sent his senior advisers but did not show up for the hearing to explain the latest security flap involving his department.
Perhaps Richardson would have found time to attend ``if the secretary would spend less time trying to get the vice president elected,'' Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., chairman of the Intelligence Committee, declared sarcastically.
But Democrats also were sharply critical.
The incident, coming after the alleged espionage controversy involving former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee last year, represents ``a culture of indifference about security,'' said Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev.
Until the latest security breach, Gordon's nomination had languished in the Senate since last March. Democrats and the administration had sought to use the nomination to try to get changes that would make the new agency less independent within the Energy Department.
``It is critical that General Gordon take over,'' said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., in light of the latest Los Alamos security breach. He accused Richardson ``of not minding the store'' in terms of assuring that America's nuclear secrets are secure.
Gordon, who has said he would retire from the military if confirmed, ``will be taking on one of the most challenging assignments in the federal government,'' said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Armed Services Committee's senior Democrat.
----
Re: ABM Re-interpretation, What threat? - U.S. action endangering U.S. security...
From: "Steven Starr" shadesahoy@socket.net
"With anything like the present nuclear arsenals, NMD is destabilizing: An American NMD, while wholly ineffective against a massive Russian first strike, is well adapted to mopping up the residual Russian retaliatory force after a massive American first strike. It can therefore be understood as a means of forcibly removing the Russian deterrent. Such a prospect understandably would make Russian policymakers nervous. Thus NMD deployment is an inducement to a Russian preemptive strategic attack. Better to destroy as much of the American forces as we can while we still have a chance, the argument goes, than to be completely at their mercy once their shield goes up. The coutner to this argument is that any "sheild" will be stupefyingly porous. But what if Russian officials, believing the assertions of American officials, think the shield will be anything like impermeable?"
This quote is taken from "A Path No Man Thought", by Carl Sagan and Richard Turco (Random House, 1990, page 401), with the word "Russian" substituted for "Soviet" and the acronym "NMD" substituted for the acronym "SDI".
Steven Starr
----
Clinton May Not Get Arms Deal
Associated Press
June 14, 2000 Filed at 1:28 a.m. EDT
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Arms-Control-Blues.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite President Clinton's efforts to build a legacy in his remaining days in office, he seems likely to become the first president in decades to fail to negotiate a major agreement with Moscow on strategic arms.
And with the clock ticking, his job isn't being made any easier by Republicans in Congress bent on thwarting his negotiating authority -- or by growing international alarm over U.S. plans for a national missile defense.
This week's disclosure of missing computer hard drives containing nuclear weapons data at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory in New Mexico has only further hardened GOP animosity toward the Clinton administration's national security policy.
It's likely to spill over into Clinton's attempts to reach further agreements on nuclear weapons. ``It's an enormous embarrassment,'' said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Jesse Helms, R-N.C., has said any arms-control pact Clinton negotiates this late in his presidency will be ``dead on arrival'' in his committee.
And, late last week, the Senate added an amendment to a defense spending bill that would effectively deny Clinton an authority presidents of both parties before him have had -- the ability to make unilateral reductions in nuclear arms.
Dramatic unilateral cuts in the U.S. tactical nuclear forces deployed in Europe by then-President Bush in September 1991 prompted then-Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev to withdraw all tactical weapons from outside Russian territory and to dismantle thousands of warheads.
At the same time the Republican-led Senate was denying Clinton this authority, it voted to give it to the next president. Senate Republicans are betting that will be Texas GOP governor, George W. Bush.
Bush has recommended deep reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal -- now at the 7,200 Cold War-vintage level -- whether Russia makes corresponding cuts or not.
He also has urged Clinton to make no new arms control pacts with Russia that he might have to renegotiate.
Clinton has said he will ignore such a recommendation, but he's had little luck in coming up with any such agreement, partly because of his advocacy of a missile-defense program.
Now, two leading Senate Democrats on foreign policy issues -- Joseph Biden of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, and John Kerry of Massachusetts, a committee member -- have come forth and urged Clinton to leave missile-defense decisions to the next president.
After opposing Republican plans for a missile defense for most of the first six years of his presidency, Clinton did an about-face in late 1998 and agreed to support such a concept. His condition was that the system be designed to stop a limited missile attack from what the United States considers ``rogue'' states like North Korea, Iran or Iraq.
``The world changed very vividly when the North Koreans fired that missile,'' Clinton's top adviser on Russia, Strobe Talbott, said recently, referring to North Korea's August 1998 launch of a multistage missile over Japan.
So far, Clinton has been unable to persuade either Russia or America's European allies to go along with such a system. Nor is Russia willing to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to permit such a system.
The controversy has had a chilling effect on arms reduction proposals.
The START II treaty, negotiated by Bush and Gorbachev and establishing reductions to 3,000 to 3,500 warheads on each side, has yet to take effect.
The cash-strapped Russian government has proposed going as low as 1,500 warheads as part of a future START III agreement, compared with the 2,000 to 2,500 warhead level the United States has suggested.
The domestic dispute over missile defense has put such talks on hold.
Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected Clinton's appeals for Russian support to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty to allow such a system.
And, while some White House officials hold out the possibility of a late-term agreement, Putin is mindful that missile defense and arms control have become presidential campaign issues and that, either way, he'll be dealing with someone other than Clinton.
Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Reagan and Bush successfully negotiated major nuclear disarmament agreements with Moscow. President Carter negotiated one but had to withdraw it from Senate consideration in 1980 after Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan.
``What would be most tragic about the possible failure of the administration to conclude an agreement with Russia is that the opportunity for success has been so great after the end of the Cold War,'' said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, an arms-control advocacy group.
----
CIA official OK'd to head weapons agency
USA Today
06/14/00- Updated 02:34 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncswed01.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) - Spurred by another security breach at the Los Alamos weapons lab, the Senate swiftly confirmed the No. 2 man at the CIA to head a new nuclear weapons agency within the Energy Department.
Air Force Gen. John A. Gordon, now deputy CIA director, won unanimous confirmation Wednesday after his nomination had been held up for months. The vote was 97-0.
The disappearance of nuclear secrets from a vault at the Los Alamos weapons lab in New Mexico has prompted a criminal investigation and unleashed another torrent of criticism about security at the Energy Department, leaving the Clinton administration scrambling to contain the political fallout.
Senior Energy Department officials told a Senate hearing that the FBI has taken over what now is a criminal investigation and that some scientists - members of a special nuclear emergency response team - were to begin undergoing polygraph tests Wednesday as authorities try to find out what happened to the secrets contained in two computer hard drives.
As the vote was taken on Gordon's nomination, senators at a hearing lashed out at Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, who had sent his senior advisers but did not show up for the hearing to explain the latest security flap involving his department.
Perhaps Richardson would have found time to attend ''if the secretary would spend less time trying to get the vice president elected,'' Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., chairman of the Intelligence Committee, declared sarcastically.
''The secretary stands naked on this issue,'' declared Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska., adding that Richardson had made repeated assurances that improved security measures at the labs were safeguarding America's nuclear secrets.
But Democrats also were sharply critical.
The incident, coming after the alleged espionage controversy involving former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee last year, represents ''a culture of indifference about security,'' said Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev.
At a joint hearing of the Senate intelligence and energy committees, DOE and Los Alamos officials said that the two computer drives - used as part of a ''tool kit'' for an emergency nuclear response team known as NEST - had last been confirmed in a top-secret vault on April 7.
On May 7, members of the NEST team went into the vault to safeguard the kit and put it out of harm's way from a raging fire that was closing in on the laboratory. On the next day the laboratory was evacuated.
Los Alamos lab director John Browne told the senators the team members told no one of the disappearance. ''That was the first mistake,'' said Browne, adding that he was ''disturbed, angry ... and frustrated'' about the way the whole incident had been handled ''after everything that we've been through the past year.''
Los Alamos was the focus of a yearlong controversy in 1999 over alleged security lapses involving former lab scientist Wen Ho Lee. Lee has been charged with illegally copying highly classified nuclear weapons computer files and awaits trial. He had been the focus of a three-year investigation into alleged losses of secrets to China, but has not been charged with espionage.
While the loss of the nuclear material appeared to focus on 26 members of the NEST response team, who had free access to the highly secured vault, six lab managers including the head of the nuclear programs, have been put in paid leave ''pending an explanation of their actions,'' said Edward Curran, head of DOE counterintelligence. Los Alamos lab officials denied that the six were being disciplined.
The new disclosures gave Republicans plenty of ammunition to criticize the Clinton administration's national security record. And while Richardson emerged largely unscathed last from the Wen Ho Lee case, this time Richardson is expected to be a prime target.
''This incident occurred on his watch. He'll have to be made accountable,'' said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
A summer of investigations into another Los Alamos security flap is not what Richardson, the most prominent Hispanic in the administration, had expected as he hopes to remain in contention as a potential vice presidential running mate to Al Gore.
The administration moved on Tuesday to try to regain the offensive amid these developments.
Richardson announced that two highly respected elder statesmen - former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, R-Tenn., and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind. - would investigate the disappearance of the hard drives and make recommendations on security improvements to President Clinton.
-------- us politics
Gore to voters: It's the economy, stupids!
Trailing in the polls, the vice president basks in our "prosperity" while promising more.
Salon.com
06/14/00
By Jake Tapper
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/06/14/gore/index.html
June 14, 2000 | NEW YORK, New York -- If Vice President Al Gore could bronze beloved former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin and hang him like a mezuza around his neck, he probably would, and you could hardly blame him. In case you haven't read the papers lately, the U.S. economy is in pretty good shape -- especially compared with the last time a guy named Bush was in the White House.
On Tuesday afternoon at the New York Historical Society on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the vice president strode out with Rubin to remind voters that he had something to do with the state of the economy. Rubin -- former CEO of investment firm Goldman Sachs & Company, former head of the Clinton administration's National Economic Council and Treasury secretary for four and a half years -- did his part to vouch for him.
"The vice president was deeply involved in every major economic decision we made," he assured the Democratic crowd in his introduction, saying Gore was a major proponent of the 1993 deficit-reduction package -- even casting the tiebreaking vote for the bill in the Senate. Rubin argued that Gore's advocacy for fiscal discipline, free-trade initiatives such as NAFTA and GATT and measures that "invest in our people" steered the country on the "right path."
"The question now before us," Rubin asked, "is whether we want to keep moving forward with the strategy that worked so well --"
"YES!" a woman in the audience cried, prompting cheers and laughter.
"You need to travel around with the vice president," Rubin quipped. For whatever reason, polls indicate that the vice president doesn't get much credit for our economic well-being, at least not as much as he would like.
Recent polls still have him trailing Texas Gov. George W. Bush, and a Bloomberg poll from May 25 to June 4 indicated voters think Bush would do a better job with the economy as president than Gore, by a 42 percent to 39 percent margin. The difference is within the margin of error, but the fact that Bush is even competitive on this issue is surprising. And it was the reason for today's speech, as well as the veep's three-day "prosperity and progress" tour from New York to Scranton, Penn., and Cincinnati, Ohio.
Without mentioning the word "Bush," both Rubin and Gore attempted today to sell Gore as the better steward to continue the progress made since Bush's dad was expressing surprise at the marvels of supermarket scanners while Rome burned and the economy crumbled. Rubin continued to hammer home the idea that Gore was the candidate of "sound and sensible" fiscal policies.
"America needs a president who understands the qalities of this complex age," Rubin said in what sure sounded like a dig at the acuity of a certain other potential president. "Support for Al Gore is support for sound, sensible economic policy," Rubin said, as if Gore was just the sum of a pile of well-researched masters of economic policy dissertations. (Now that you mention it ...)
Gore then took the stage while Rubin sat on the stage, gazing at him from his right flank, along with two American flags. Two other flags flanked Gore's left, while behind him hung banners reading "PROSPERITY" and "PROGRESS" and a sign with a map of the United Superimposed over the words "Prosperity and Progress and Prosperity and Progress and Prosperity and Progress ..."
"Two decades ago, in the days before his election, Ronald Reagan asked a justly famous question that deserves to be asked again today," Gore said. "'Are you better off than you were four years ago?'"
"YES!" the crowd cheered.
"Let me go even further," Gore continued. "Are you better off than you were eight years ago?"
Again, the resounding affirmative.
And there is a lot for the Clinton-Gore administration to crow about. In 1992, the deficit was a record-breaking $290 billion; in 1999 the tables were turned with a record-breaking budget surplus. President George Bush's tenure brought the creation of only 2.5 million jobs, almost half of which were in the public sector; the economy under the seven-plus years of the Clinton administration rang in an unprecedented 22 million new jobs, 92 percent of which were in the private sector. Wages are rising, home ownership is the highest it's ever been, inflation is down (from 4.7 percent under Bush to 1.9 percent today -- the lowest core rate since 1965) and unemployment is now down to 4 percent, the lowest rate in 30 years.
And, Gore noted with a smile, "believe it or not, I am here to give you still more good news: We're all learning that the estimates of America's budget surpluses, already the highest ever, are expected to rise again -- dramatically -- in the coming weeks."
"None of this boom happened by accident," Gore said, laying out the dominoes he feels were put into effect by the controversial 1993 deficit reduction package: "fiscal discipline gave us lower interest rates" which "sparked more investment, more jobs and more growth."
But crowing about the past won't be enough, and Gore outlined Tuesday a plan that continues the economic principles Rubin laid out in his introduction -- paying down the debt and maintaining balanced budgets -- while also setting new goals. These include "locking off" Medicare funds so its surpluses can't be used for any other program; introducing "Social Security Plus" accounts so seniors can invest and save money in addition to their guaranteed government checks; and eliminating the national debt by 2012.
Gore also wants to establish special accounts focused on the Democratic mantra: education, health care and the environment. These are: an "Education, Training and Children's Trust Fund" for new and better-trained teachers, child care and after-school programs; a "Health Care Trust Fund," which will add a prescription drug benefit while also allowing Americans between the ages of 55 to 65 to buy into Medicare; and a "National Energy Security and Environmental Trust Fund," which would provide grants for researchers to find cleaner methods of transportation, electric power and industrial production.
Whew!
---
THE ISSUES Firmly for Death Penalty, Gore Is Open to a Review
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/061400wh-gore-death.html
Despite his longstanding support for the death penalty, Vice President Al Gore suggested yesterday that recent studies showing drastic error rates in court appeals of death penalty cases could prompt a fresh evaluation of the nation's use of capital punishment.
"If there is a study that shows a large number of mistakes, that has to make you uncomfortable," Mr. Gore said. "I have assumed up until very recently that the mistakes were rare and unusual."
Mr. Gore, speaking with members of the editorial board, a reporter and editors of The New York Times, chose his words carefully and did not suggest that he was ready to abandon his support for the death penalty. And he said he would not impose on federal capital cases the kind of moratorium that Gov. George Ryan has imposed in Illinois.
Still, he acknowledged that recent events -- including the moratorium in Illinois, a new study from Columbia University that found that two out of three sentences in capital-case appeals were set aside, and the release of some death row inmates who were exonerated through the use of DNA technology -- were prompting a fresh evaluation of the subject, if not by him, then by the country.
"If further investigation shows that the Columbia estimates are correct," he said, "then that will have a major impact on the way the country feels about not necessarily the death penalty itself but certainly the way in which our judicial system is arriving at these conclusions."
Mr. Gore's meeting with the editorial board was part of a daylong media blitz of national news organizations. The sessions coincided with the opening of his three-week "progress and prosperity tour," a concerted effort to get credit for the nation's booming economy as well as to kick-start his campaign into a positive yet aggressive mode before the convention.
The economy was clearly Mr. Gore's message of the day. He even stopped himself short at one point in the interview as he was about to "commit news," as he put it. The first question posed to him concerned his assessment of Mr. Bush as an opponent. In response, he recapped his economic plan in an answer lasting about 15 minutes.
Mr. Gore's comments on the death penalty were his most extensive to date on the topic in this presidential campaign. Despite a handful of votes to the contrary while he was in Congress, he has generally supported the death penalty since he was first elected to the House in 1976, and his support for it was viewed as a political plus in 1992 when Bill Clinton chose him as his running mate.
Still, the death penalty is a topic that Mr. Gore has virtually ignored during this campaign, even as it has swirled around Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, his expected Republican rival. Mr. Bush has presided over 131 executions, the most of any governor since the death penalty was reinstated, although he recently issued a stay of execution.
Aside from the fact that Mr. Gore has never been in the position to sign a death warrant, there appears to be little difference between the two candidates' positions.
And Mr. Gore said yesterday that he was not prepared to criticize Mr. Bush over it.
"I don't know the answer to your question," he said when asked if he would make an issue of it. "If the record shows that he has done a terrible job, then I'm sure that would be a legitimate issue. I haven't reached that conclusion."
Diann Rust-Tierney, director of the capital punishment project for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a telephone interview later that Mr. Gore's comments represented "a higher level of thought and discussion around this issue" than pro-death-penalty candidates have exhibited in the past. "It sounds like he is at least thinking about it," she said. "It sounds like there is some sense of progress in his thinking."
In an apparent attempt to neutralize questions about earlier votes that some have said indicated a change in his position on the death penalty, Mr. Gore volunteered: "There have been a number of cases where proposals came before the House of Representatives and the Senate when I voted against capital punishment. But those votes were the exception rather than the rule. I have insisted upon certain criteria before I'm willing to support the death penalty. But where those criteria are present, I have always supported it."
In the 75-minute interview, Mr. Gore generally refrained from direct criticism of Mr. Bush, saying at one point, "I choose not to attach any elegant epithets to my opponent." But he also said he believed the Republicans, and by implication Mr. Bush, would advance a right-wing agenda if they won the White House.
He said that after Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, the evangelists, had met with Mr. Bush, the two were "happy as clams" and were not saying anything publicly to contradict the impression that Mr. Bush had agreed to appease them.
"I infer from that," Mr. Gore said, "that the basic arrangement is that the agenda per noted in the closing days of the Republican primary contest is still very much the real agenda, at least where the Supreme Court appointments are concerned, and that those who are most interested in that agenda have agreed to be completely silent about it during this period of the campaign."
The vice president suggested that while he would not apply a litmus test -- usually code to refer to a person's stand on abortion rights -- to his judicial nominees, he would seek those who supported abortion rights. "I'm not in favor of specific, narrow litmus tests," he said. "But we all know that there are ways to ascertain with high confidence the general approach that potential justices will take to the Constitution."
Mr. Gore, who said the next president's ability to name three or four Supreme Court justices was one of the top issues in the election, noted in passing that "Governor Bush has said his favorite justice is Antonin Scalia; mine would be Thurgood Marshall." The analogy was perhaps slightly inapt. It was not clear whether Mr. Bush was picking his all-time favorite justice or just those on the bench now, while the late Mr. Marshall is no longer on the bench.
Throughout the interview, Mr. Gore offered an uncharacteristically modest assessment of his grasp of detail. These assertions seemed an attempt to put the brakes on his tendency to veer toward the tutorial and didactic. "You're taking me outside my depths," he said of a discussion on missile technology. "I do not claim expertise," he said of a discussion of the Microsoft case.
And, in response to a question from William Safire, the language authority and New York Times columnist, about choice in matters of privacy, Mr. Gore replied: "Along with roughly 270 million other Americans, I use words more carelessly than Bill Safire, and in choosing the word 'choose,' I did not inform myself of the deeper, more subtle meanings, which I can now see clearly."
He went on to say that consumers should have "absolute protection" of privacy concerning their medical and financial records.
"I do not think that your bank account and your checking -- the history of what checks you write to whom -- ought to be marketable," he said, adding: "I don't think the current law goes far enough in protecting them."
At the same time, he seemed to enjoy showing off his knowledge. At one point, Mr. Gore was asked about his tactical positioning in a question referring to Napoleon's military strategy, and surprised listeners by saying, "Napoleon also invented canned food."
(For the record, Napoleon did not exactly invent canning, but he helped popularize it by offering a reward for anyone who could come up with a way to prevent the spoiling of military food supplies.)
---
IN HIS OWN WORDS Speaking About Prosperity
New York Times
June 14, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/061400wh-gore-text.html
The following is the text of a speech at the New York Historical Society on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, provided by the Gore campaign.
Two decades ago, in the days before his election, Ronald Reagan asked a justly-famous question that deserves to be asked again today:
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Let me go even further: are you better off than you were eight years ago?
For most Americans, I believe the answer is obvious.
Together as a nation, we turned the biggest deficits in our history into the biggest surpluses in our history.
We set our hands to a time of recession and doubt, and built it into a time of pride and plenty: the longest period of economic growth in the entire American record.
For example, together, we turned this great state around: instead of losing 130,000 jobs a year, New York's families have gained almost 120,000 jobs each and every year.
You will find the same success story in almost every part of our country.
Instead of asking, as Americans did eight years ago, "how did we get into this mess?" -- people are asking now: what is the real cause of this economic boom?
The winning formula began with this: the hard work of the American people.
But the American people have always been hard-working.
Certainly they were hard-working in 1991.
The difference? We gave them the tools to build this economy better, so now it's able to blaze on the fuel of their ideas and skill.
Some want to challenge the record of the Clinton administration.
In my view, that record is clear and undeniable.
None of this boom happened by accident.
It happened because, together with the American people, we put in place a brand new economic strategy, one that unlocked the full potential of our people: balancing the budget, paying down the debt, and investing in the best enterprise of all - people. Americans themselves.
It was a winning formula with three elements: fiscal discipline gave us lower interest rates.
Lower interest rates sparked more investment, more jobs, and more growth. And all that has in turn fueled even greater investment in our people and our future.
No serious person can question the achievements of the 1990's. Now we must ask:
Will we be better off still -- in terms of our affluence and in terms of our spirit -- four years from this day?
I intend to win this election on behalf of the American people to see to it that the answer is yes.
I intend to build even higher on the foundation of the Clinton years.
Because this is a turning point for America.
The 1990's were about more than getting rid of America's debt.
They were also about getting rid of America's doubt.
Remember how helpless people felt eight years ago, faced with deficits that were growing so fast, we could barely count them? It seemed as if there were no good choices -- no way to free ourselves - no way to break the shackles of recession and debt.
But together, we have.
We're America. We've proven that we're not afraid of big choices, big decisions, and big dreams.
To those who said our economic plan would fail, that it would destroy jobs and choke off recovery - I say: look around you.
You underestimated what we, the American people, are capable of doing.
To those who say prosperity has achieved its full reach, I say: just watch us.
We will deepen prosperity, and extend it to the homes and hearts of every family - from struggling immigrants who seek a better life for their children; to farmers and factory workers who need more money to pay the bills and more time with their families; to the young Internet geniuses from every background, hungering to transform our world.
To those who say we can't make our public schools the best in the world, I say: just watch us.
We'll give all our kids a chance to learn more and lift themselves higher.
To those who say we can't cure cancer, ease the pain of disease, and give new health and hope to America's children, I say: just watch us.
We'll harness all the wonders of science and discovery. We'll build an America where health is never again decided by wealth.
And to those who say that as America becomes more diverse, discrimination will only get worse, I say: lift your eyes.
See how wide the American horizon has become.
All of us as Americans have had different experiences in the past.
But we all share a common future. Now is the time for decision about what that future will be.
And that is why I want to make this election about the big choices we have to make to secure prosperity and progress for a new American century.
Imagine an America that closes out not just its material debts, but its moral debts as well: where working parents have the help they need to care for their children, and the chance to stay home with their babies if they wish to.
Imagine how we will transform education when all schools become thriving schools; when we give our children the best, and demand the best in return.
Imagine how we will improve human health when all our children can breathe clean air, drink pure water, and grow up with a stable climate in a healthy world.
To achieve this future, we have to make the right choices - in ethics no less than in economics.
Right now, our economy is doing better than anyone expected. Believe it or not, I am here to give you still more good news: we're all learning that the estimates of America's budget surpluses, already the highest ever, are expected to rise yet again -- dramatically -- in the coming weeks.
When the time is right and those numbers are firm, I'll lay out a detailed budget plan. And for the next three weeks, I'll be talking about the specifics of my plans and proposals.
Today, as the size of that surplus begins to come into view, I want to give you an outline of exactly what my plan is, and talk about the principles -- moral and material - that will be my guide.
First and foremost, discipline.
We have to do the right thing - because we can never go back to the days when we spent money we just didn't have.
Having the discipline not to run deficits isn't just materially wise, it is also morally wise.
Living debt-free is an expression of our guiding American ideals of independence, self-reliance, being as good as our word.
If you stand with me, we will have a balanced budget every single year, and targeted tax cuts that we can afford.
Every proposal I have made in this campaign - every proposal I will make -- fits within a balanced budget that lets us save Social Security and Medicare, and also pays down our national debt every single year.
If we do things right, then we can give middle class families the tax cuts they need to put their own values into action.
I am calling for the right kind of tax relief - tax cuts that are specially targeted to help those who need them the most. Tax cuts to let families live their values -- to help you save for college, pay for health insurance, and build additional security for your retirement. And an elimination of the current marriage penalty for working couples, which penalizes commitment to spouse and family, by forcing these couples to pay more in taxes just because they're married.
Here is what I will not do: I won't be profligate with your money.
I won't spend money that we don't yet have on a huge tax cut our economy can't afford, in ways that could end our prosperity and progress.
Remember the children's tale of the goose that laid golden eggs? The moral was one every child can understand: when something works well, don't destroy it.
That same moral applies to our economy.
Bad choices in a single year or a single budget could put prosperity beyond our reach again for a decade or more.
Discipline has been essential to the prosperity we have today.
The wealth of the American spirit, embodied in a dynamic new economy, is what I call real wealth. That's what works. And that is how a Gore administration will work from January of 2001 on.
The second principle -- conscience.
We have to respect the dreams of the next generation. We have to do more than pay down our debt. We have to seize this chance to completely eliminate it for our children.
Paying down the debt is plain, good capitalism.
It frees businesses to invest and innovate. It creates good jobs. It is the foundation of future growth.
But putting an end to debt for the first time in seven generations will give our children the chance to reach for their own dreams instead of dealing with the nightmares that others' irresponsibility can cause.
A conscientious nation owes this to its children.
I believe this is how we reach real maturity and take real responsibility - as parents and as a great nation. No generation should put its own expectations ahead of its children's needs.
To win that moral victory for Americans, we will win this fight.
And in the four years of my term, I will pay off all the debt America accumulated in our first 200 years. Then I will put us on the path to completely eliminating our national debt by the year 2012.
Let us live up to the responsibility of being true parents to our nation's children -- not just individually in our own homes, but as a community in our stewardship of America's finances.
The third principle is decency.
A decent nation honors and protects our mothers and fathers - and safeguards their old age.
I believe we must show the same restraint and foresight as a nation that families must show in their own kitchen-table budgeting.
That means not just living in the moment - and not just paying off our debts - but also seeing our link in the chain of generations.
Decency means living up to our promises.
I propose that we set aside enough of the surplus to strengthen Medicare - and then do for Medicare what we have done for Social Security, by putting the Medicare trust fund off-budget and into in an iron-clad lock-box.
If we do that, then Congress can never try to raid Medicare, or take it away.
We will keep Medicare strong for decades to come. And we will update Medicare to provide a prescription drug benefit for all our seniors.
We have to guarantee that Social Security is there for you when you retire. As President, I will keep that sacred trust.
I will oppose any effort to make Social Security a gamble, instead of a guarantee. I am not going to let anyone take the "security" out of Social Security.
I will oppose the effort to privatize Social Security -- which could take at least a trillion dollars out of the trust fund, and could drive our entire budget back into deficit.
And with Social Security as the unshakeable foundation, people should be able to save and invest more for their retirement without gambling away their Social Security.
I propose a new way to help them do that: "Social Security Plus" - new, tax-free voluntary accounts that let you save, invest, and build on top of the guaranteed foundation of Social Security.
Let me be clear about what this is: this is Social Security plus, it is not Social Security minus.
It doesn't come at the expense of Social Security -- it comes in addition to Social Security. It is the best of both worlds - rather than, as the opposition has proposed, the worst of both worlds. You get the freedom to save more and invest more, but it will not come out of your Social Security. Your Social Security will be there for you to rely upon, no matter how those investments perform.
The fourth principle is boldness.
With our feet planted firmly on the ground -- with discipline, conscience, and decency -- we must also have courage to take bold action, to meet three great challenges: reforming our schools, curing disease and making all of our families healthier than ever before, and protecting the environment that is essential to the fabric of life itself.
For each of these three priorities, I propose that we create a new national trust - to safeguard the investments we need for our future.
With a new education trust, we will make sure we have the new resources to go along with new accountability.
We will invest more in our schools, set higher standards, and treat teachers like the professionals they are.
With a new health care trust, we will make our families stronger by making all families healthier.
We'll invest in new research that will harness the breakthroughs of science for the benefit of our loved ones. We'll move step-by-step toward universal health coverage. We will bring access to fully affordable health coverage to every child in this nation by the end of the next Presidential term. And we'll make health insurance more affordable and accessible for small business.
Finally, the Environment Trust.
We will summon all the ingenuity, all the innovation, all the skill and creativity of our country to protect a national asset: a clean, healthy environment. And we have to protect one of the most precious of all our treasures: the stable seasons God gave us.
From activists to entrepreneurs, from investors to working men and women -- together we will build new, modern, and clean energy, industrial, and transportation systems.
I say to the nation's innovators: If you invest in these new technologies, America will invest in you.
There will be no new bureaucracies; no new agencies or organizations, because not only is the era of big government over, the era of old government is over, too.
We'll measure performance carefully and ensure that we reach our goals with common-sense standards. And through the power of free markets, through good old-fashioned American ingenuity, we will dramatically reduce pollution and reverse the tide of global warming -- while creating more jobs, not fewer jobs, for our people.
* America has done well.
But I'm here today to tell you: you ain't seen nothing yet.
I know America can be anything we want to be - if we do things right.
We have the people.
We have the talent. We have the plan. And best of all, we have the confidence of the American people.
On behalf of those hard-working Americans whose lives have gotten better since we took up the challenge alongside them, I tell you now: we are going to win this fight.
On behalf of our children, whose futures are more secure today than they were eight years ago, I tell you now: we are going to win this fight.
For the sake of our Earth, which does hang in the balance, I tell you now: we will win this fight.
On behalf of the elderly, the vulnerable, the frail, we will not rest; on behalf of those citizen activists who are determined to clean up this democracy and reclaim real, not rhetorical, reform -- we will not rest.
Hear me now: we will take the White House in November for these people. I will let nothing threaten their hard-won prosperity.
I will let nothing threaten their dreams.
If you allow yourselves to believe, without reservation, that we can do what's right, then we will accomplish what we set our minds to do.
Come with me, and we will do the right thing - and we will do it well.
Thank you.
---
Bishop Bars Gore at Church Hospital
New York Times
June 14, 2000 Filed at 6:23 p.m. EDT
By The Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/p/AP-Gore.html
SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) -- A Roman Catholic bishop barred Al Gore from campaigning at a church hospital Wednesday, forcing the Democratic presidential contender to shuffle his schedule and talk up his health care plans at another site.
Shrugging off the snub, which the bishop linked to Gore's abortion-rights stance, the vice president visited a nondenominational facility and promised more money for health care providers.
He also offered quick help for elderly Americans who need prescription drug coverage and accused pharmaceutical companies of having ``too much power'' over drug stores and their customers.
Gore's visit to Pennsylvania's coal country, the second stop on his three-week ``progress and prosperity tour,'' offered an abrupt reminder that courting Catholic voters can be a delicate task.
Shortly before the vice president arrived here Tuesday night, Bishop James C. Timlin sent word that Gore was no longer invited to Mercy Hospital in Scranton.
``The Mercy Hospital has decided not to give Vice President Gore a platform, lest there be any misunderstanding about the hospital's Catholic identity and its commitment to the sanctity of life,'' Timlin said Wednesday.
Gore shifted the health care forum to the corporate offices of a health care company, Allied Services.
The candidate acted as if the snub had never happened, telling the crowd at his backup site, ``It was not an accident that I chose this place for the second of my series of speeches'' on the economy. Several members of the audience carried local newspapers with a headline reading, ``No Mercy for Gore.''
Looking for a positive link between Gore and the church, aides gave Monsignor Andrew McGowan a prominent seat at the address. Positioned behind Gore, the Catholic leader was visible for TV and newspaper photographers.
Catholic voters are being pursued by both Gore and Republican rival George W. Bush. They make up a huge voting bloc in the Midwest, where the race likely will be determined.
Bush was criticized in the GOP primary for visiting an anti-Catholic university in South Carolina, and has shared the stage with dozens of priests ever since.
Catholics are not single-issue voters.
``Catholic voters have historically supported pro-choice candidates if they're right on every other issue,'' said pollster Ed Sarpolus of Michigan, another battleground state loaded with Catholics.
Despite his abortion-rights stance, President Clinton won the Catholic vote in 1992 and 1996. About 40 percent of anti-abortion Catholics voted for Clinton in 1996, Sarpolus said.
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a Catholic on Bush's list of potential vice presidential candidates, supports abortion rights and has butted heads with Catholic leaders, too.
Gore's visit to Pennsylvania started with a minor slip Tuesday night. He praised local Democratic legislative candidate Jim Wansacz, but called him ``John.''
However, the rally had all the trapping of a fall campaign stop: Air Force Two was lit to a glow by portable lighting, a picture-perfect backdrop for an enthusiastic crowd of local Democrats. Two of three local television stations carried the arrival live.
Gore hopes to generate similar coverage throughout the three-week campaign designed to claim some credit for the nation's roaring economy.
Asked by a Harrisburg, Pa., TV station about Clinton's role in the campaign, Gore said, ``He's been the architect of the policies that have ... made the difference in the recent prosperity. As for the campaign, I'm campaigning on my own, on my own vision.''
Gore's focus Wednesday was on health care, and he will promote targeted tax cuts Thursday in Ohio before taking a four-day weekend off.
In Pennsylvania, he reiterated his pledge to protect Medicare surpluses, expand children's health insurance programs and add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.
He promised the drug plan by 2002, moving his deadline up by four years. Gore also pledged to increase funding to health care providers, such as nursing homes, whose federal payments were lowered in the 1997 budget deal.
Earlier, Gore toured a family-owned drug store and questioned why drug companies sometimes charge veterinarians less than pharmacists for the same drugs.
``That tells me the pharmaceutical companies have too much power over the pharmacies and customers,'' Gore said.
Democratic National Committee TV ads now running in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other swing states highlight Gore's position on making prescription drugs available to seniors. The DNC plans to switch to another topic, yet to be determined, this weekend.
Pennsylvania, with 23 electoral votes, and Ohio, with 27, are crucial for both major party presidential campaigns. Polls show Bush with a slight lead in Ohio; the race is tighter still in Pennsylvania.
Ridge, visiting Washington while Gore was in his home state, said the vice president doesn't deserve credit for the economic boom.
``The recovery has everything to do with our entrepreneurs, work force and business and community leaders and has very little to do with people on Pennsylvania Avenue,'' Ridge said in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
---
THE VICE PRESIDENT
Gore Embraces Clinton Economic Record and Vows to Expand on It
New York Times
June 14, 2000
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/061400wh-gore.html
Vice President Al Gore moved yesterday to hitch his presidential campaign to the economic record of President Clinton and called for a new retirement program to supplement Social Security, the elimination of the nation's debt in 12 years, modest tax cuts and systematic increases in spending on education, health care and the environment.
"I intend to build even higher on the foundation of the Clinton years," Mr. Gore declared in a speech in a cramped auditorium at the New-York Historical Society on Manhattan's Upper West Side, standing next to the very symbol of Mr. Clinton's economic policies, Robert E. Rubin, the former secretary of the treasury.
"Are you better off than you were eight years ago?" the vice president asked, offering a positive twist to the piercing inquiry Ronald Reagan presented to President Jimmy Carter in 1980. "For most Americans, I believe the answer is obvious.
Together as a nation, we turned the biggest deficits in our history into the biggest surpluses in our history."
Mr. Gore, speaking in the heart of a New York neighborhood that has long been identified with liberal political thought, urged creation of trust funds that would systematically divert parts of the nation's projected surplus to spending on education, health care and the environment, as well as to eliminate the nation's debt. He called for creation of new tax-free, voluntary retirement accounts that would supplement Social Security benefits.
Mr. Gore's speech was advertised as a major address intended to inaugurate a new thematic chapter in a campaign that many Democrats have come to view as adrift. For the next three weeks, he plans to deliver a series of speeches elaborating on his message of "prosperity and progress," with one of the weeks devoted to environmental issues.
As part of the initiative, Mr. Gore also conducted a round of news interviews in New York, including a meeting with members of the editorial board, a reporter and editors of The New York Times, where he suggested that he was concerned about recent studies that showed high rates of mistakes in death penalty cases.
In his economic speech, Mr. Gore restated his support for a variety of limited tax reductions, including the elimination of the so-called marriage penalty for working couples. And he urged that excess Medicare funds be put into "an ironclad box," preventing Congress from using them for other programs, like the big tax cut being pursued by his Republican opponent, Gov. George W. Bush.
But these presumably complicated proposals were addressed in a few quick and fleeting sentences.
Instead of offering details, Mr. Gore, speaking broadly, sought to wrap himself in the legacy of Mr. Clinton's economic accomplishments, while offering his general views on how the nation should best use the surpluses that are being projected for the years ahead.
"None of this boom happened by accident," he declared, adding: "To those who say prosperity has achieved its full reach, I say: Just watch us. We will deepen prosperity, and extend it to the homes and hearts of every family."
Although he did not mention Mr. Bush by name, he offered clear criticism of Mr. Bush's advocacy for large tax cuts, and for allowing the private investment of some Social Security funds.
Mr. Gore's advisers declined to offer much elaboration on any of the proposals, saying that the vice president would instead seek to stretch out this repackaging of his candidacy by returning to each of these subjects in coming days.
Most of the proposals Mr. Gore said would provide the foundation of his campaign through the summer came as a result of the projected surpluses that have allowed him to advocate new spending without calling for new taxes or cuts in other programs.
His call for new spending on traditionally Democratic issues -- health care, education and the environment -- marked a sharp shift both for the candidate himself, who has spent much of this campaign criticizing Republican initiatives, as well as for Democratic presidential candidates over the past decade, who have refrained from offering the kind of spending programs that might open them to attack from Republicans.
Mr. Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, criticized the speech, describing it as representative of an activist view of government.
"By offering new ways the federal government can gain more control, apparently Al Gore does not trust individual Americans to make decisions regarding their own retirement, health care needs, education, and finances," Mr. Fleischer said. "Just as hard-working Americans deserve credit for our economic prosperity, Governor Bush believes Americans should have more control over saving for their retirement, planning for their children's education."
There were numerous indications of the importance that Mr. Gore and his aides attached to a speech that his campaign hopes will shift the terms of debate in his contest with Mr. Bush. The vice president tinkered with the text until the very last minute, and then read from a Teleprompter, with barely a variation, when delivering it to his invited audience. To make sure that no one missed the point, the stage was festooned with a banner reading "Prosperity and Progress."
His aides arranged for him to spend much of the afternoon giving interviews for the nightly television news. The speech was also taped for possible campaign advertisements.
As has been fairly standard in recent weeks, Mr. Gore avoided mentioning Mr. Bush by name. Which is not to say he was not critical of his opponent.
For one thing, he suggested that the large tax cuts advocated by Mr. Bush would derail the nation's economic recovery. "I won't be profligate with your money," Mr. Gore declared. "I won't spend money that we don't have on a tax cut that our economy can't afford."
Similarly, he criticized Mr. Bush's proposal to allow some private investment of Social Security funds. "I will oppose any effort to make Social security a gamble, instead of a guarantee."
That said, a number of polls have found strong support among voters for Mr. Bush's Social Security plan, and Mr. Gore sought yesterday to counter that with his own plan. "Social Security Plus," as he named it, would allow taxpayers to invest a certain amount of money every year to be used for retirement, beyond the payroll taxes that workers pay for Social Security.
That money, as well as any interest earned on the investment, would be exempt from taxes, though further details on the program, including the amount of annual investment allowed, remained to be worked out, said Mr. Gore's press secretary, Chris Lehane. Traditional I.R.A.'s defer taxes.
Over all, the vice president's speech appeared carefully written to allow him to present himself at once as fiscally conservative and generous in spending. Thus, he called for creation of trust programs under which a specific amount of projected surpluses would go into spending programs.
But there would be no money for such programs if the surplus disappeared.
In some ways, the spending proposals made Mr. Gore sound like a pre-Clinton Democrat as he spoke about "reforming our schools, curing disease and making all of our families healthier than ever before, and protecting the environment." But he also sounded tried and true Republican themes, saying: "We can never go back to the days when we spent money that we just don't have" and describing his plan to pay the debt as "plain good capitalism."
In the past year, Mr. Gore has drifted back and forth in terms of his willingness to align himself with the president. But yesterday, he clearly stood on the Clinton administration's shoulders, arguing that its economic policies account for today's economic prosperity.
"Some want to challenge the record of the Clinton administration," he said. "In my view, that record is clear and undeniable."
---
Gore's Interest in Indians
New York Times
June 14, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/letters/l14gor.html
To the Editor: It is nice to see that Vice President Al Gore seems to be showing an interest in Indian affairs ("At Meeting of Tribal Leaders, Gore Taps a New Font of Cash," news article, June 8). Perhaps he will begin to address the real issues that plague the majority of Indians in this country: staggering unemployment, substandard living conditions and lack of adequate health care, just to name a few.
What many Indians on the reservations need is real help and real change from government agencies -- not an Internet connection, as President Clinton has proposed. How does one get online when (in many cases) one doesn't even have adequate phone service?
DON GOLDBERG Bayside, Queens, June 9, 2000
---
Surprise guest
Washington Times
June 15, 2000
Inside Politics
Greg Pierce News and political dispatches from around the nation.
http://208.246.212.80/national/inpolitics.htm
President Clinton remembers his friends. He surprised many of them - along with some Capitol Hill Republicans - by showing up unannounced and addressing the Arab American Institute's Kahlil Gibran Spirit of Humanity Awards dinner Tuesday night at the Washington Monarch Hotel.
James J. Zogby, the foundation's president and brother of the pollster John Zogby, had invited Mr. Clinton months in advance, but didn't learn until two hours before the event that the president had decided to attend. Mr. Zogby kept the news to himself until he introduced the president to the audience of current and former U.S. and foreign diplomats and House and Senate members of Arab descent.
Mr. Clinton hugged Mr. Zogby, spied Sen. Spencer Abraham at a table in front and, in his best bipartisan mode, saluted the Michigan Republican. Mr. Clinton noted that he is the first president to address an Arab-American audience - at Mr. Zogby's dinner two years ago - and the first to visit Gaza, now under the control of the Palestinian Authority.
Nader vs. Gore
Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader, accepting a labor union endorsement yesterday, said traditional Democrats should welcome the prospect of defeating Vice President Al Gore in November.
Mr. Nader, 66, the self-described consumer advocate, is hoping to get the Green Party on the ballot in all 50 states and raise $5 million for a campaign targeted especially at labor union members upset by Mr. Gore's support of free-trade agreements.
He won the endorsement of the 31,000-member California Nurses Association yesterday and called on major national unions to give his candidacy a careful look, Reuters reports.
Mr. Nader is running at around 4 percent in recent national polls, but is particularly strong in California, where one survey put him as high as 9 percent, and on the East Coast.
Some Democrats fear that in a close race between Mr. Gore and Republican George W. Bush, Mr. Nader could tip the balance in the direction of the Texas governor in the Nov. 7 election.
Asked about that possibility, Mr. Nader responded: "If I was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I'd be happy, because that would give the Democratic Party a four-year cold shower for reconsidering their historical traditions at its highest levels and why it has abandoned these traditions."
Windy nonanswer
Vice President Al Gore met with writers and editors at the New York Times on Tuesday, and "the first question put to him was: How do you assess George W. Bush as a candidate?" columnist Maureen Dowd writes.
"The vice president spoke 1,565 words, really, really slowly, with glacial pauses between each word. He propounded and expounded for more than 15 minutes, touching on such diverse topics as the human genome, the ice-free future of the Arctic Ocean, the 'Star Wars' journey, the climate of New York City, federal entitlements, the climate of Atlanta, embassy security, the climate of Illinois, Individual Development Accounts, the climate of Oklahoma and the state of the U.S. economy in 1835. But despite some prodding, he never did get around to answering," Miss Dowd said.
Education debate
A billionaire financier is offering Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush $500,000 each for their favorite children's charities. The hitch: They must participate in an education debate.
"The idea is, 'Gee whiz, you guys spend huge percentages of your time raising money for your campaigns, and here's a chance to do what you should anyhow while raising money for charity,' " Ted Forstmann said Tuesday in a telephone interview with the Associated Press.
Mr. Forstmann is co-founder of the Children's Scholarship Fund, a philanthropic organization that recently offered $50 million in new, partial scholarships to underprivileged children this fall. He is on a campaign against what he calls the "government monopoly" in elementary and secondary education.
In a letter sent to both campaigns yesterday, Mr. Forstmann proposed a 90-minute education debate between the two major-party candidates.
"Instead of raising money for TV commercials and consultants, you can make sure that $1 million will be devoted to needy children," he wrote.
Greg Pierce can be reached at 202/636-3285 or by e-mail: Pierce@twtmail.com
mailto:Pierce@twtmail.com
---
Poll ties Gore drop to probe memos
Washington Times
June 14, 2000
By Donald Lambro
http://208.246.212.80/national/default-2000614233822.htm
Justice Department memorandums urging that Al Gore be investigated for his role in the Clinton administration's campaign-finance scandal may be hurting his presidential campaign, a new poll suggested yesterday.
The latest voter survey by independent pollster John Zogby showed Mr. Gore's support fell markedly in the past week. The decline followed a weeklong string of internal documents in which Justice Department lawyers and FBI officials said an independent prosecutor should be named to find out if Mr. Gore lied about his role in the 1996 fund-raising scandal.
Mr. Zogby does not directly attribute the sharp 5-point decline in the vice president's earlier polling numbers to the recently released memos, but he suggested they were a factor.
"The conclusion is inescapable. Any bad news on either side will change the numbers. Let's just say it was not a good week for Al Gore," Mr. Zogby said.
His latest poll numbers, released yesterday, showed Mr. Gore running behind Texas Gov. George W. Bush by 39 percent to 47 percent. Mr. Bush's larger 8-point lead represented a dramatic change from a week ago when a Zogby poll showed the two presidential candidates in a virtual dead heat.
The latest numbers also follow an embarrassing public complaint by a couple living on federal disability checks who accused Mr. Gore of being a "slumlord" because he had not fixed broken plumbing in the home they rent from him.
"These stories contribute to questions about who Al Gore really is. They fly in the face of the reformer message and the help-the-little-guy message that the Gore campaign has tried to adopt," said Ray Sullivan, spokesman for the Bush campaign.
The Bush campaign has had little if anything to say about the disclosures in the memorandums, but that did not stop Mr. Bush's surrogates from speaking out in his behalf yesterday.
Sen. Fred Thompson, Tennessee Republican, said Attorney General Janet Reno's refusal to name a special counsel to investigate Mr. Gore had all the earmarks of a cover-up.
"If it's not, it's a pretty good imitation of a cover-up," Mr. Thompson told The Washington Times.
"This was a concentrated effort by the Justice Department to keep the lid on this and make sure that the American people never found out what happened," he said.
"This sort of thing has got to be harmful as things come out. You've got to assume that it's going to have some effect sometime," he said of the public's reaction to the latest revelations in the memos.
Michigan Gov. John Engler, another Bush surrogate, said yesterday that the documents showed that "Al Gore is deep in this stuff, all the way back to the Buddhist Temple fund-raiser. The American people think that the ethics of this administration have been terrible."
But some pollsters said it was impossible to draw any connections between the recent release of the Justice Department documents and Mr. Gore's polls at this point.
"If we try to draw any inference on a week-to-week basis from the polls, we are just misleading ourselves and the public as well," said Andrew Kohut, chief pollster at the Pew Research Center.
"One of Gore's weaknesses is his personal trustworthiness. Some of it stems from his association with Clinton and some of it stems from the allegations being made against Gore" in the campaign-finance scandal, Mr. Kohut said.
The vice president's weakness in the polling data is reflected most strongly in his favorability rating, which asks people what kind of personal impression they have of the candidates.
Last month Mr. Kohut found Mr. Gore had a favorability rating of 50 percent, but an unfavorable score of 48 percent.
"It's pretty high. That's his problem," Mr. Kohut said.
Other Republican pollsters like Neil Newhouse maintained yesterday that "no one is paying attention to the campaign and won't until the conventions."
If the Justice Department memos have had an effect on Mr. Gore's campaign, it is only to "sidetrack Gore off his message," Mr. Newhouse said.
---
Belaboring, Not Bedazzling
New York Times
June 14, 2000
LIBERTIES /
By MAUREEN DOWD
http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/dowd/061400dowd.html
Al Gore met yesterday with Times writers and editors. The first question put to him was: How do you assess George W. Bush as a candidate?
The vice president spoke 1,565 words, really, really slowly, with glacial pauses between each word. He propounded and expounded for more than 15 minutes, touching on such diverse topics as the human genome, the ice-free future of the Arctic Ocean, the "Star Wars" journey, the climate of New York City, federal entitlements, the climate of Atlanta, embassy security, the climate of Illinois, Individual Development Accounts, the climate of Oklahoma and the state of the U.S. economy in 1835. But despite some prodding, he never did get around to answering.
He simply kept exhaustively not answering in that formal voice that sounds as though he has to guide his listeners by the hand, no matter how well they know the subject.
All . . . those . . . drawn . . . out . . . syllables . . .
signifying . . . nothing . . . had . . .
a . . . soporific . . . effect . . . on . . . me. But when I snapped back to attention, I hadn't missed a thing.
The vice president was apologizing for being long-winded and belaboring points, even as he continued to belabor long-winded points.
Once eyes began to glaze, Mr. Gore happily slipped in his new happy maxims: "Prosperity and progress," "Ideas and not insults," the Popeyesque "I am who I am," and, on his lack of appeal to women, "All in due time."
Asked if Governor Bush had made better use of the last two months, Farmer Al sanguinely offered this Chauncey Gardiner moment: "When you plant seeds you don't know what the crop will be like just by the way the planting has occurred."
It was enough to make you miss the old slashing Al.
One editor tried to get past the filibuster by asking: "Well, is campaigning going to be about ideas or is it going to be about mostly personality and character?"
Mr. Gore replied with a treatise on post-World-War-II America and another plug for his plans for clean air, clean energy and health care.
And that's the problem with this race. One guy says a lot but never says anything. The other guy doesn't say a lot and never says anything.
One knows a lot but is afraid to offer opinions that will mar his chance to be president. The other doesn't know a lot so he just lets his brain trust script opinions that will not mar his chance to be president.
An individual who overcalculates versus a group that overcalculates.
Take the death penalty. Mr. Bush opened himself up on the issue by first bragging that all the prisoners executed on his watch in Texas were guilty. Then he issued his first reprieve in a move that seemed politically inspired.
But Mr. Gore is so afraid of reviving the old Democratic label of being soft on capital punishment that he can't capitalize on the issue despite fresh evidence that the administration of the death penalty is seriously flawed. A new Columbia University study found that two of every three death sentences are overturned on appeal.
Asked repeatedly at The Times whether he is comfortable with the death penalty now, Mr. Gore weaved and waffled.
On his way out he was asked by Brent Staples, an editorial writer: What margin of error for mistaken executions could you accept?
That should be easy to answer, even for someone who likes to hedge: Zero. But Mr. Gore simply reiterated that he thought the level of error was low.
One question he answered succinctly and maybe even candidly. After some frustrating exchanges on missile defense and the death penalty, Michael Oreskes, the Washington bureau chief, asked him: "Is it possible for a candidate to be too careful?"
"Yes," Mr. Gore said, adding carefully: "Did my answer sound too careful?"
He was asked if he noticed a "disconnect" between what he was talking about and what Americans are interested in. Napoleon, the questioner said, observed that if you position yourself on the right ground, you win the battle.
"Napoleon," Mr. Gore shot back, "also invented canned food."
At long last, an answer that didn't sound canned.
---
Bush Defends Streamlined Texas Death Penalty System Execution: Faster appeals process, lack of public defenders mark tenure of governor who granted one stay.
Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, June 14, 2000
By MARIA L. La GANGA, Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/updates/lat_bush000614.htm
AUSTIN, Texas--Gov. George W. Bush has helped to fine-tune a capital punishment system that sends inmates to their deaths more efficiently than any other in America and with what critics say are fewer safeguards.
He has vetoed a bill that would have allowed counties to set up a public defender system for indigent suspects and successfully pushed for legislation to streamline the state appeals process.
The presumed Republican presidential nominee has presided over more executions than any other governor in American history and has issued only one 30-day stay of execution in more than five years in office. That stay came 13 days ago, in the middle of a presidential campaign in which he is working to persuade voters of his centrist and compassionate vision.
And, as the Texas death penalty system is being scrutinized in federal court over questions of impropriety, unfairness and competence of counsel, Bush continues to defend it, insisting that all of the 132 men and women executed on his watch were guilty and received due process.
"I know there are some in the country who don't care for the death penalty, but I've said once and I've said a lot that in every case we've adequately answered innocence or guilt," Bush said Sunday in Kennebunkport, Maine, after attending church services near his family retreat. "They've had full access to the courts."
Serious debate about how the death penalty is administered in America has begun to percolate for the first time in years--a newly nuanced discussion that is spilling over into Campaign 2000 and will likely dog Bush's campaign from now until election day.
It has been fueled, in part, by questions of innocence raised by the growing use of DNA evidence and by a study released Monday that says the judicial system in this nation tramples on the rights of the accused in capital cases, and death sentences are reversed more than half the time in 90% of the states. In Texas, 52% of the death sentences that went through the full appeals process by the end of 1995 were reversed, the study said.
In the five months leading up to the November election, 19 more executions are scheduled in Texas. Thomas Wayne Mason, 48, was executed Monday for the shotgun murders of his estranged wife's mother and grandmother. John Burks, 44, was scheduled to die today, although his execution has been thrown into doubt because of court action Tuesday. Paul Nuncio, 31, is set to die by injection Thursday.
A Deadly Year in Texas
If all of these scheduled executions take place, 2000 will be the busiest year in modern history for the Huntsville death chamber, and Bush will have presided over the deaths of 65 inmates from the time he announced his presidential exploratory committee on March 9, 1999, through the election.
"One of the reasons this story will have legs in the general election is we have an unprecedented number of executions scheduled," said Richard Murray, a political scientist and director of the nonpartisan Center for Public Policy at the University of Houston. "We just haven't had a governor running for president that had this as the backdrop of his campaign."
Analysts contend that Bush's stand on capital punishment alone will not likely affect the outcome of the November election. But it does speak to the question of Bush's politics.
Democratic strategist Bill Carrick said that for many swing voters, the death penalty debate is a reminder "that George W. Bush is a conservative Southern governor . . . and is not moderate."
Still, Bush's support for the death penalty is in line with the majority of Americans. Of all 50 governors, only seven oppose capital punishment, whether it is the law in their state or not. Bush's presumed Democratic rival for the White House, Vice President Al Gore, supports the death penalty too.
A Gallup Poll taken earlier this year showed that 66% of Americans supported capital punishment, down from a high of 80% in 1981. That same poll showed that, when given the alternative of life without the possibility of parole, support for the death penalty dropped to 52%. In addition, 91% of those polled believed that at least one innocent person had been sentenced to death in the last 20 years.
But there is a difference between supporting capital punishment for heinous crimes and being chief executive of a state where an inmate is executed every other week on average and where wardens come from around the country to learn lethal injection.
Texas Leads U.S. in Number of Executions
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, Texas has led America in its embrace of executions. In this modern era, 219 inmates have been put to death here; Virginia is next, with 76 executions. Although California is the largest state in the nation and has the largest death row, the state has only executed eight men in the same period. With nearly 20 million residents, Texas is the second-biggest state in America.
In contrast, New York, which is third largest, hasn't executed anyone in this modern era. In the five years that New York has had a death penalty, only five people have even received that stiffest of sentences. In the same period, Texas condemned some 200 convicts.
"Texas still has a kind of frontier justice mentality," said Rudolfo de la Garza, professor of government at the University of Texas. Bush "reflects very clearly the dominant view of the state . . . . Opinion may be changing around him in other states. Opinion is not changing around him in Texas."
By the time Bush was elected, the state had already committed itself to aggressive enforcement of the death penalty, said political scientist Murray. One indication: In 1993, the state created a capital litigation division to fight federal appeals and make sure death sentences are carried out.
"He saw no reason to change that policy [of aggressiveness] and marginally accelerated it," Murray said.
Of the 38 states that have the death penalty, Texas is one of only four that does not offer juries the option of sentencing those convicted of capital crimes to life without the possibility of parole.
Texas is one of 26 states that executes the mentally retarded. It is one of 23 states that executes underage convicts. The minimum age to receive the death penalty in Texas is 17.
A year before Congress passed legislation to speed the federal appeals process, Bush signed a law that streamlined his state's appeals process by having it take place at the same time as habeas corpus review.
Under habeas corpus review, the competence of counsel is examined. Until the law changed, such a review happened only after the outcome of the state appeal was known.
"You don't know about inadequate representation or malpractice until you get to the end of the proceeding and look at it in its totality," said James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. "He rendered habeas corpus in Texas worthless."
Bush's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, successfully pushed for similar legislation, but the Florida Supreme Court rejected the law, charging that it violates inmates' basic rights.
Questions Surround Defense Attorneys
George W. Bush also vetoed a bill last year that would have allowed counties to set up a public defender system, something akin to the one in California, for example, where every county appoints attorneys for those who cannot afford representation.
Critics argue that in Texas, defense lawyers for those charged with capital crimes are picked out of a pool of eligible attorneys by an administrative judge in charge of the court where the suspect will be tried. As a result, they say, such attorneys work as friends of the court, not defenders of the accused.
"The way Texas appoints its defense attorneys makes it very difficult to mount an effective defense at the trial level," said Dennis Longmire, a political science professor at Sam Houston State University. "It undermines the integrity of that first adversarial step in the process."
Bush vetoed the law, said his state spokesman Michael Jones, because he felt that it did not lead to better representation and that it "would have created a whole new layer of unnecessary bureaucracy which would have led to backlog."
In addition, Jones said, the law would have taken "authority to appoint defense counsel away from trial judges and gave it to elected officials, many of whom have no trial experience and are not involved in the criminal justice system."
To Harrington and other critics, people who face execution continue to receive incompetent counsel. And he pointed to two current Texas cases as evidence:
Calvin J. Burdine, whose attorneys argued in a federal appeals court last week that his murder conviction should be overturned because his original defense lawyer slept during his trial. And Victor Hugo Saldana, whose murder conviction was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court the same day, after his state prosecutors conceded that his death sentence stemmed in part from the fact that he is Latino.
Campaigning in Augusta, Ga., the day after the Saldana decision, Bush said that the Supreme Court action is proof that "the system is working . . . that there are safeguards."
Bush says he supports the death penalty for those who commit heinous crimes because he believes it is a deterrent to future brutal offenses and saves lives. It is also the law of his land, he says.
"Of the many thousands of decisions a chief executive makes," he wrote in his autobiography, "A Charge to Keep," "capital punishment decisions are by far the most profound . . . . Each case is major, because each case is life or death."
He also notes that the Texas governor does not exercise that much power over the death penalty process. Unlike many other governors, Bush may grant only one-time, 30-day stays of execution. He can commute sentences entirely with the approval of the state Pardons and Paroles Board. On the other hand, he appoints that board.
"We have lists of governors who execute the most, who seem to be enamored with the punishment," said Anne James of Amnesty International USA's Program to Abolish the Death Penalty. "He's at the top of the list."
North Dakota Gov. Edward T. Schafer, chairman of the Republican Governors Assn., would argue otherwise. Texas "probably is on the parameter edge of executing inmates, but I don't think the governor is. I think he feels very strongly he has a responsibility to deliver the laws of the state."
---
Excerpts From Gore's Remarks About His Opponent and Policy Matters
New York Times
June 14, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/061400wh-death-text.html
Following are excerpts from the interview of Vice President Al Gore yesterday by members of the editorial board and reporters and editors of The New York Times:
Q. Your opponent, not so much on his vulnerability on the issues, but just as a candidate, is he -- do you find that he has strengths you didn't anticipate or is he competitive down to the wire?
A. I think that -- I don't know him very well. And it's possible to assess sort of the campaign team, but as far as him personally I've had such brief exchanges, no more than 10 words back and forth. Now I have, perhaps to excess, challenged him to debate, but I still would like to have a different kind of campaign and have regular debates twice a week, once a week. I would love to do that. I've recommended that the two of us go together to open meetings with undecided voters that both campaigns pick together so that they're not obvious ringers in there, and then just answer their questions. I'd be willing to travel from city to city.
And if we had regular debates I would be able to answer your question a lot better. I don't really have a way of telling you what I think about him as a person. . . . I think that the debate that starts today will say a lot about the way the country looks at the two alternatives before them. We face a brand-new situation that we've never faced in our country's history, the prospect of very large surpluses stretching out as far as the eye can see. . . .
There are two alternative courses of action. Governor Bush already assumed the large increase in the surplus a month ago and used it for his tax-cut proposal and his Social Security-privatization proposal. The estimates of the so-called Star Wars proposal are not even included yet, but before the midsession review is completed, before either the Congress -- Congressional Budget Office or the O.M.B. released a new estimate, Governor Bush's budget proposals have already completely spent all of that and more: 1.6 trillion for the tax cuts and one trillion for Social Security privatization to make up the amount lost to the trust fund in the next 10 years. That does not include all the new defense spending and the new proposals that he's made, but it's clear from his own numbers that his plan, even with the large increase in the surplus, predicted with the new numbers coming out soon, even with them, by his own numbers, he is way over and beyond that amount.
I'm starting today a three-week set of speeches offering my recommendations for what I think the country ought to do with this surplus. I think we should, first of all, do for Medicare what we've done for Social Security and take it off budget. This will have the effect of protecting it against the kind of unwise changes to teaching hospitals, for example, that we saw in the 1997 balanced budget debate. It will also have the effect of paying down our national debt more quickly. I will propose later today that we eliminate the national debt completely by 2012.
The forward movement in reducing debt is, in my opinion, a very sound strategy in an era when we have far more productive uses for capital than locking it up in government paper. . . .
Further, I will propose that we give a new savings incentive to give Americans the option for tax-free, voluntary savings accounts over and above Social Security. And I will call it Social Security Plus, and it will be in sharp contrast to Governor Bush's proposal, which I think can be described as Social Security Minus, because his proposal would come with a price tag of a trillion dollars and with the risk that bad investments would be subtracted from the Social Security foundation. . . .
Third, I want to create three new national trusts to boldly take on the most serious challenges we have for the future. We're in an information age. We need to revolutionize public education. I will propose a national education trust to reduce the size of classes, enhance the quality of our schools, new accountability and new resources, incentives to hire more teachers, tougher standards, all the rest that I have poorly described, but this will give new resources and new certainty to those resources to have the boldest plan ever to dramatically improve our public schools.
Second, a health care trust to position us to take advantage of one of the most important events in the history of humankind, which will occur this summer, perhaps sooner rather than later, and that is the completion of the first rough draft of the human genome. We will be able to unlock the secret codes that diseases use to transmit messages from cell to cell. It is a perfect time to take advantage of this fantastic new era to find cures for diseases and to expand the access of the health care. . . .
Q. We asked you to categorize your opponent. Just drawing on what you've said so far, I think -- how about, are you saying the ant versus the grasshopper here, or are you saying wasteful and profligate versus prudent and cautious? Or what labels -- how would you do it?
A Well, I choose not to attach any elegant epithets to my opponent.
Q. Do you share the conventional wisdom, though, that Governor Bush and his campaign have made better use of the last two months than you and your campaign?
A. No, I don't, because I think it's impossible to make that judgment from day to day. When you plant seeds you don't know what the crop will be like just by the way the planting has occurred. You have to wait to see how the ideas develop.
Q. Mr. Vice President, your references to Star Wars . . . sounded pretty negative. Are you telling us that you would advise President Clinton not to proceed in the decision that awaits him on missile defense?
A. First of all, they're two separate -- they're two separate proposals entirely. The long-term threat that began in 1947 with the arms race still leaves us with thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at the United States and the necessity of protecting our country and our people through the best means available to us. And deterrence has proven to be a durable strategy. Before we discard that strategy we should have a high level of assurance that its successor would be at least as good, if not better.
To base such a decision on ideology rather than tested science and considered strategy would be foolhardy, to say the least. One can wish for a perfect space-based Star Wars shield, but wishing does not make it so. And to draw an ideological line in the sand to say that those who wish it are inherently right is self-delusional. We have been aggressively researching and testing all of the technologies that would have to be used in order to construct such an option.
We have also been giving a lot of thought to the interaction of that hypothetical option with the dynamics, the internal dynamics, of the arms race, which is now more of a static relationship between the United States and Russia. I was one of those who negotiated the removal of all nuclear weapons from Ukraine. We have also removed them from Kazakhstan and from Belarus. They are all now concentrated in Russia. We have been able to transform the nature of the strategic relationship by concentrating on civility, namely by taking away any possible advantage from first strike by either side. . . .
If by introducing a comprehensive space-based Star Wars shield we drove a perception in the Russian high command that they now had to worry about losing the deterrence which has kept things calm all these years, then we would introduce a brand-new and volatile element into the equation, both inside the Russian internal debate and in the U.S.-Russian debate.
Now, I'm sorry to belabor this, there's really no way to do this really quickly. The second system that we have been exploring is designed to counter a very different threat, not the massive strike that has dominated discussions during the cold war, but the prospect that a rogue state, like North Korea -- and, of course, it's welcome news today, the tone of the summit meeting between the two Korean leaders is really very, very positive -- but if a rogue state managed to get a handful of weapons, then the political utility of that small arsenal in the hands of a wild card state would be very estabilizing and dangerous. Is there a very limited system that falls far short of what could moot deterrence? Falls far short of what would destabilize the Russian attitude and Chinese attitude, but would nevertheless give us the chance to stop a handful of missiles in the threat that now is clearly a possibility 10 to 15 years from now? That would be useful to us. And it could be accomplished with relatively small changes to the A.B.M. treaty, whereas the Star Wars space-based shield would require complete scrapping of the treaty.
The discussions in Moscow two weeks ago were characterized in various ways, but I can tell you that the possibility of Russian acquiescence in limited changes to the treaty is still very much there because they, too, face a similar threat 10 to 15 years from now on their southern rim.
I'm sorry to be long-winded about this, but the decision as to how and when to proceed on what course toward that second option has not yet been made, and I'm not going to say something to forestall any of the president's options or the test of the technology coming up soon. And I think that I'm going to hold off on that. . . .
Q. Let's talk a little bit about judicial appointments, the difference in your approach and your opponent, and what are the implications of that?
A. Well, my opponent has had meetings with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and I don't know what went on in the meeting, but I do know that in the aftermath of the discussion both Reverend Falwell and Reverend Robertson said that they were happy as clams about what they heard. And I infer from that that the basic arrangement is that the agenda per noted in the closing days of the Republican primary contest, it's still very much the real agenda. At least where the Supreme Court appointments are concerned, and that those who are most interested in that agenda have agreed to be completely silent about it during this period of the campaign. And that they feel comfortable in doing so because they have heard something that gives them a feeling of assurance that there will be a return to that agenda openly in the event that they're successful in the election. I mean, that's what I infer. . . .
My own philosophy is that this is one of the most important issues in the campaign. The next president will appoint three, perhaps four, justices of the Supreme Court, probably. Governor Bush has said his favorite justice is Antonin Scalia. Mine would be Thurgood Marshall. I think that the appointments by the president will surely determine the way our Constitution is interpreted for the next 30 to 40 years, not only concerning a woman's right to choose but also on issues like privacy, more broadly defined, civil rights, federalism, individual rights, environmental rights. The violence against women act was just struck down on a 5-to-4 vote with all the usual suspects lined up on both sides. And it was reintroduced yesterday, incidentally, to try to reclaim it. Why shouldn't a woman be able to sue in such circumstances? I agree with the four justices who affirmed what the Congress said.
What would the difference be between my appointments and those of my opponent? I think it's very, very clear. I'm not in favor of specific, narrow litmus tests, but we all know that there are ways to ascertain with high confidence the general approach that potential justices will take to the Constitution. I believe it's a living and breathing document, and I don't think it should be narrowly constrained to the meaning of words 200 years ago -- 211 years ago -- as Justice Scalia and, apparently, Governor Bush would. . . .
Q. In your list of issues that could come before the courts in the coming years, conspicuously absent is capital punishment. And it's something that obviously Governor Bush has had to talk about a lot so far this year. You've been largely silent on it. My question is that through a whirlwind, is there any substantive difference between your position on capital punishment and Governor Bush's?
A. I have supported capital punishment. And there have been a number of cases where proposals came before the House of Representatives and the Senate when I voted against capital punishment. But those votes were the exception rather than the rule. I have insisted upon certain criteria before I'm willing to support the death penalty. But where those criteria are present I have always supported it.
There are many who bring an understandable passion to the new debate over capital punishment that arises from their fundamental moral opposition to the penalty itself. I deeply respect that position. I do not share it. And the new debate is a means of reawakening and reinvigorating that old debate on the basic proposition of whether there should be capital punishment in the United States. I do think that that penalty should be available.
Now on the new debate, DNA testing brings into focus the new ways that mistaken convictions can be uncovered. The debate over racial profiling has brought into new focus the long-held belief by many that race has played a role in producing the disproportionate applications of the death penalty to African-Americans and other minorities. And I think those questions are deserving of a full and thorough investigation and hearing. If there were, for example, in the federal courts the kind of record that Governor Ryan found in Illinois, I would support a federal moratorium pending improvements . . .
I do not believe the evidence shows that's the case. Thus, at this point I do not support a federal moratorium.
Now, the Columbia University study of state court judgments around the nation was extremely provocative. And I think there is a very careful continuing analysis. And if it justifies further steps, I have an open mind about it.
Finally, the question of racial disparity is right now being investigated thoroughly within the Justice Department. And I await the findings that they have. I have to believe that the kinds of factors found in the Columbia study -- incompetent defense council, inadequate defenses put forward, clear mistakes prejudicial to the defendant by the prosecution -- are the kinds of mistakes that could conceivably have a connection to racial attitudes in aggregate. . . . I don't think anybody's comfortable with the death penalty, regardless of your position. And if there is a study that shows a large number of mistakes, that has to make you uncomfortable.
---
Gore Gets His Act Together
MSN
Posted Tuesday, June 13, 2000, at 2:54 p.m. PT
By Jacob Weisberg
http://slate.msn.com/code/BallotBox/BallotBox.asp?Show=6/13/00&idMessage=5
NEW YORK, N.Y.--Get ready for the new conventional wisdom about Al Gore's campaign for president: He's finally getting it together.
This view is about to take hold for two reasons, both of which were much in evidence at the launch of Gore's three-week-long "Prosperity and Progress" tour at the New York Historical Society this afternoon. (The Bush campaign has already dubbed it Gore's "I Invented Prosperity" tour.)
The first reason for Gore's pending comeback is that the press is sick to death of writing the story of how his campaign is hopelessly inept, tone-deaf, fractious, micromanaged, irritating, etc. Those assessments have been more than justified by candidate Gore's performance since the end of the primaries in March. It has been shockingly bad in almost every way. But you can write the same story only so many times--the New York Times' recent retakes on the intellectual origins of George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism and the young prepster's happy-go-lucky days at Andover notwithstanding. We journalists are desperate for something new to say about the presidential campaign, and Gore need provide only a few scraps of evidence for us to commence saying it.
This media dynamic aside, the second reason everyone is about to start saying Gore is doing better as a candidate is that Gore really is doing somewhat better as a candidate. In the past couple of weeks, the vice president seems to have corrected, or at least begun correcting, two of the three things that were most obviously wrong with his campaign.
The first was his intensely negative tone about George W. Bush. Gore's unremitting daily attacks on every word out of Bush's mouth were having approximately no effect whatsoever on Bush's standing. Meanwhile, they were taking a big toll on Gore himself, who looked nasty, negative, and unfair. Gore's advisers had been debating whether the candidate should let up on his opponent for some time. Finally, in late May, according to a Richard Berke story in the New York Times, the candidate himself put his foot down and said enough. Gore has quit his assault addiction cold turkey, not even mentioning Bush's name for the past two weeks or so. As a matter of political choreography, this change was excessively abrupt--the gears of the Gore campaign always grind too loudly--but it's an improvement nonetheless. Instead of leading the attack on Bush by himself, Gore has enlisted various surrogates, or as his campaign calls them, "validators." The job of these people, such as Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh and John Kerry, is to say nice things about the Democratic nominee while stomping on Gov. Bush and his policies.
A second thing that seemed clearly misjudged about Gore's campaign was the candidate's strange failure to do more to associate himself with boom economic times. Gore has made fleeting stabs at taking credit for the country's current prosperity, but it hasn't been a major theme of his campaign--until now. Today's event began with an introduction by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who credited Gore with being "deeply involved in every major economic decision we made." His credentials thus established, Gore began his own speech with a paraphrase of Ronald Reagan's classic formulation: Are you better off than you were four years ago? "For most Americans," Gore said, answering his own rhetorical question, "I believe the answer is obvious." Gore needs to convince the voters that he is as responsible for what he called "the strongest economy in history" as Clinton, Rubin, and Greenspan. With today's speech, he began the process of doing just that. "None of this happened by accident," Gore declared. "It happened because together with the American people we put into place a brand-new economic strategy." He would do well to repeat the phrase "not an accident" as many times as he has accused Bush of supporting "risky schemes."
Gore's campaign isn't out of turnaround yet. Though the speech today lacked the candidate's signature shrillness, it was full of windy rhetoric and portentous perorations: "Hear me now. ... Come with me, and we will do the right thing." Gore still sounds pompous and pedantic as often as not. He's never going to be an impressive orator or someone who "connects" with the crowd, because he just isn't talented in that way.
But I think Gore may rise above his lack of charm if he takes steps to remedy the third, remaining major problem of his campaign: its curious tilt to the left. In order to cash in his incumbent's advantage on the economy, Gore needs to position himself at the center of the body politic in more or less the way that George W. Bush has been doing. Bush has been successful in casting himself as a moderate despite legitimate doubts about whether he really is one. Yet Gore, who by history and inclination is a man of the center, persists in pitching his campaign more to the Democratic Party's interest-group base than to the independents and swing voters who elected Bill Clinton twice and will decide the 2000 election.
You could read today's speech as a step in the right direction. Gore's emphasis on fiscal discipline, balanced budgets, and accelerated repayment of the national debt is hardly the pitch of a stereotypical liberal. But on social issues like education, Medicare, and Social Security reform, Gore still sounds more like a doctrinaire old Democrat than he does like a new Democrat. But if he can reorient himself as Bush has, Gore will be in solid shape--at least until we journalists all get tired of writing that same old story about his brilliant campaign.
---
Campaign Briefing THE REPUBLICANS
New York Times
June 14, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/061400campaign-briefings.html
MATING RUNNING MATES The speculation started two weeks ago with a report in Time that Gov. George W. Bush was giving serious consideration to former Senator John C. Danforth of Missouri as his running mate. Mr. Danforth, who retired from the Senate in 1994 and is now leading the special investigation into the Branch Davidian incident in Texas, declined to comment. So did Mr. Bush, except to insist that despite all the rumors in the air, only his wife and his vice-presidential search adviser knew what he was thinking. Whereupon the rumors picked up speed. By the end of last week, Mr. Danforth ranked 15th on the "Veepstakes Scoreboard," the tally the Hotline political tipsheet keeps of how often possible vice-presidential choices merit a major media mention. Mr. Danforth had 10 mentions, compared with 49 for Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, No. 1 on the 53-name list. On Monday, Mr. Danforth made a move, telling The St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he had told Mr. Bush that the idea was "very tempting," but that the six years since he left Washington and politics had been the best of his life. So wherever Mr. Danforth stood on the rumor list, was he ever really on the Bush list? No comment from Mr. Bush. (NYT)
THE PRIMARIES
VIRGINIANS CHOOSE NOMINEE Republicans in the First Congressional District, in southeastern Virginia, chose Delegate Jo Ann Davis yesterday as their nominee to replace Representative Hebert H. Bateman, who is retiring. Ms. Davis defeated Paul Jost, a businessman who spent nearly $1 million of his own money in the race. With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Ms. Davis had 35 percent of the vote to Mr. Jost's 30 percent. She will face former Mayor Lawrence Davies of Fredericksburg, a Democrat, in November. (AP)
THE REFORM PARTY
BUCHANAN ON ARIZONA BALLOT Patrick J. Buchanan, the probable Reform Party presidential nominee, filed for a spot on the Arizona ballot on Monday, pressing to extend his candidacy to all 50 states. So far, there is a Reform line on ballots in 21 states. Mr. Buchanan was in Phoenix to file, telling 20 supporters at the secretary of state's office that if he became president, he would stop the flow of illegal immigrants across the country's "bleeding" borders. "They are coming to America and taking our jobs when they have no right to be here," he said, calling for a doubling of Border Patrol presence in Arizona and the enlistment of the military in the fight.
To qualify for the Arizona ballot, Mr. Buchanan needed 14,000 petition signatures. He turned in 21,567. Most national preference polls have him pulling less than 5 percent of the vote, not as much as he received in earlier runs but perhaps enough to make him a factor in a close contest, especially if his conservative pitch eats into support for Gov. George W. Bush. (AP)
THE POLLS
A new national presidential preference poll has Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore locked in a race too close to call. But as in most recent presidential preference polls, this one, conducted for ABC News and The Washington Post, shows Mr. Bush with a slight edge, 49 percent to 45 percent. A month ago, an ABC/Post poll gave Mr. Bush a five-point edge; two months ago, Mr. Gore had a one-point edge. The latest poll covered 1,204 registered voters, was conducted June 8 to 11 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three points. Asked about Social Security and the economy, two of the main, campaign issues, poll respondents gave Mr. Gore the edge in protecting Social Security, 43 percent to 40 percent, but said Mr. Bush would be better at handling the economy, 46 percent to 41 percent. (NYT)
TODAY'S SCHEDULES
GEORGE W. BUSH Kennebunkport, Me.
AL GORE Scranton, Pa., and New York
---
McCain offered speaking role at convention
USA Today
06/14/00- Updated 06:53 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/e98/e2056.htm
KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (AP) - George W. Bush, moving to decide major campaign questions, has sent questionnaires to his top running-mate choices and has offered John McCain a prime-time speaking role at the Republican convention, officials said Wednesday. Colin Powell also is likely to star at the convention.
McCain's Tuesday speech at the convention will be part of a night dedicated to honoring the ''strength of America,'' the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Other speakers that night are expected to include Condoleeza Rice, Bush's foreign policy adviser.
The Bush campaign is discussing a Monday night speech for Powell, the popular former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but those plans are not final. Laura Bush may also have a role that same evening at the convention where her husband will be nominated.
Arizona Sen. McCain, Bush's vanquished rival, had been hoping for a prominent role in the Republican convention in Philadelphia this summer in order to maintain his visibility and future political prospects. He won't be delivering the keynote address, and indeed it was unclear whether the convention would have one, officials said.
The offer was made to McCain on Wednesday, one day after Bush met with top aides to finalize some details of the July 31-Aug. 3 convention.
Each of the four nights will have a theme and there will be prominent recognition of the former GOP presidents, including Bush's father. On each theme topic, the Bush team would contrast his policies with those of his Democratic rival, Vice President Al Gore.
On the question of a running mate, Bush has begun weighing the timing for making his choice public - before the convention or during it to create more interest.
A spokesman for Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating said Wednesday that Keating had received one of the questionnaires for potential running mates and had filled it out and sent it back.
The questions covered family background, public policy views, past employment and personal tax information, said John Cox. ''It was rather extensive. It took him about a week to complete it,'' the spokesman said.
Other possible contenders, including Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson and Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel declined to comment amid reports that one criterion Bush will use in making his selection is discretion.
''Any information about whether I'm on any list will be disclosed by Governor Bush, not by yours truly,'' Ridge said in response to a question after a speech in Washington to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
''The senator is not commenting on anything regarding the vice presidential process,'' said Hagel spokeswoman Deb Fiddelke.
Bush has said he is actively considering ''a couple dozen'' people.
Since Bush's own nomination is certain, ''the biggest surprise of convention week or the biggest speculation frequently about convention week is who will be the vice president'' if there is no announcement in advance, Bush spokeswoman Karen Hughes said.
She commented as Bush wrapped up five days of relaxation and strategy meetings at his family's summer home.
Presidential nominees in the past dozen years have faced the same timing decisions as Bush and Gore.
The 1996 Republican nominee, Bob Dole, announced Jack Kemp as his running mate the weekend before the party convention, while Bill Clinton chose Gore as his partner a few days before the 1992 Democratic convention in New York.
Hanging over the Bush selection is the memory of 1988, when the Texas governor's father, former President Bush, announced his selection of Dan Quayle after arriving in New Orleans for the convention.
The Indiana senator was not well known nationally, and he and the campaign were all but overwhelmed with questions about his background, especially his service in the National Guard during Vietnam. The issue of his preparedness for the vice presidency lasted through his term in office - and lingers still.
Hughes said there has not been any group discussion of a running mate, although Bush left one meeting to take a phone call from Dick Cheney, the former defense secretary who is heading his search.
While saying she had not talked with the governor about it, Hughes speculated that Bush would spend a significant amount of time with the finalists before making his selection.
''I would think he would want them to come and visit with them,'' she said.
Asked about the timing of an announcement, Hughes said an early announcement would give Bush and his choice an opportunity to campaign together and build excitement for the convention. Alternatively, waiting would create an air of curiosity.
---
Gore favors DNA tests on death row
USA Today
06/13/00- Updated 09:21 PM ET
By Laurence McQuillan, USA TODAY
http://usatoday.com/news/e98/e2055.htm
NEW YORK - In his first extensive interview on the death penalty, Vice President Gore said those sentenced to die should have the benefit of DNA tests to clear them, and states with high rates of mistaken convictions should impose a moratorium.
In an interview Tuesday, Gore declined to comment specifically on the death cases at the center of a controversy for Texas Gov. George W. Bush, his Republican rival.
He said that society has the right to use the death penalty as a deterrent to violent crime. He said, however, that he favors efforts to pass a federal law to ensure that any person on death row has the right to DNA tests. "Should we use the new tools like DNA evidence to improve the criminal justice system? Of course," Gore said. "Should we be troubled if the new evidence indicates a high rate of false convictions? You bet."
He said false convictions are troubling, "not only because of the rank injustice it imposes but also because it means there are some criminals, including murderers, who are out there walking around not convicted ."
High rates of mistaken convictions in a state would provide grounds for a moratorium, he said. Gore noted that the state of Illinois had suspended executions because of such evidence. But a national moratorium isn't justified yet, he said.
On May 31, Bush pardoned a prisoner convicted of rape after his lawyer obtained DNA evidence showing that his client had not committed the crime.
Opponents of the death penalty have called for a moratorium until all prisoners have access to DNA evidence. Some have complained that Gore has not embraced a bill sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that would require the testing of biological evidence in cases where DNA testing had not been conducted.
"I do support the Leahy bill, except for the provisions which eliminate the federal death penalty in many cases around the country," Gore said.
---
Financier makes debate offer
USA Today
06/14/00- Updated 02:02 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/e98/e2060.htm
NEW YORK (AP) - A billionaire financier is offering Al Gore and George W. Bush $500,000 each for their favorite children's charities. The hitch: participate in an education debate.
''The idea is, Gee whiz, you guys spend huge percentages of your time raising money for your campaigns and here's a chance to do what you should anyhow while raising money for charity,'' Ted Forstmann said Tuesday in a telephone interview.
Forstmann is co-founder of the Children's Scholarship Fund, a philanthropic organization that recently offered $50 million in new, partial scholarships to underprivileged children this fall. He is on a campaign against what he calls the ''government monopoly'' in elementary and secondary education.
In a letter sent to both campaigns Wednesday, Forstmann proposed a 90-minute education debate between the two major-party candidates.
''Instead of raising money for TV commercials and consultants, you can make sure that $1 million will be devoted to needy children,'' he wrote.
A bipartisan commission has proposed three fall debates, none of which are dedicated to a single topic. Gore, who has challenged Bush to twice-weekly debates, said he knew nothing about Forstmann's proposal but added that that ''it wouldn't take money'' to get him to debate the Texas governor and presumptive GOP nominee.
Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said Wednesday, ''Governor Bush looks forward to debating Al Gore in the fall on education. It's his top domestic priority. And he also hopes that Ted Forstmann will continue to use his resources to help children who are trapped in failed schools find alternative places to receive an education.''
---
Report: Danforth says no to VP bid
USA Today
06/13/00- Updated 12:30 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/e98/e2045.htm
ST. LOUIS (AP) - Former Sen. John Danforth has withdrawn his name from the list of potential running mates for George W. Bush, according to a published report.
Danforth said the idea of running for vice president ''very tempting'' and ''would have been a dream.'' But, after mulling it over for two weeks, he said he and his wife Sally decided they didn't want to give up living in Missouri and their close contact with family here.
''We didn't want politics to totally define who we were,'' Danforth told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in a story for Tuesday's paper. ''The last six years have been the best years of our lives.
Danforth, who retired from the Senate in 1994 after three terms, is now the special counsel overseeing an investigation in the Waco standoff and fire.
Recent reports placed him on a short list of vice presidential prospects for Bush, the likely Republican presidential nominee.
Danforth said he called Bush and former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, who heads Bush's vice presidential search team, last week about his decision.
He said he made up his mind after waking up in the middle of the night with the memory of a visit by then-Secretary of State George Shultz when Danforth was in the Senate.
''There were a couple of Secret Service people standing in our back yard in the dark, and I remembered that,'' Danforth said. ''It's the fact that if you do that (high-level of a) job, it crowds out everything else in your life.''
Bush campaign press secretary Mindy Tucker declined to comment Monday.
---
McCain still not interested in #2 spot
USA Today
06/13/00- Updated 10:57 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/e98/e2043.htm
WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain of Arizona repeated that he would not consider being a running mate with Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush. "I've made it very clear I don't want to be considered, and I don't want to be vice president of the United States, and I will not be," McCain said. He said Bush "is honoring my request not to be considered for vice president."
One reason McCain's name might have resurfaced is that many in the GOP believe he would strengthen the ticket and add excitement to the campaign.
---
Potential VPs say no in advance
USA Today
06/13/00- Updated 03:58 PM ET
http://usatoday.com/news/e98/e2049.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) - So John Danforth is out of the running for vice president on Gov. George W. Bush's Republican ticket. He was an improbable choice anyhow, and withdrawing serves at least as a reminder that he'd been mentioned as a prospect.
It's part of the political gamesmanship at this point on the campaign calendar. Bush and Vice President Al Gore are nominees in waiting, looking at No. 2 names, the more the better to flatter party figures whose help they'll need when the contest intensifies after the national conventions.
Gore went so far as to say that he might consider a Republican running mate which, of course, he won't. ''It's most unlikely,'' Gore said, squelching the idea after raising it.
For Danforth, a three-term Republican senator from Missouri before he retired in 1994, it was a matter of squelching speculation Bush had said was no more than ''total gossip.''
There's a lot of that in the season of speculation about vice presidents, the only major question left to be answered, at or before the national party conventions nominate the rival tickets in August.
Float a name and it is contagious - one mention puts the prospect on the speculative lists. Bush said only his wife and his vice presidential search adviser know who he's thinking about. ''That's it, period,'' he said.
But the names of the top prospects in both parties are obvious, a sort of who's who of governors, members of Congress, Cabinet members, and veterans of leadership roles. So the guess lists grow.
Bush and Gore both have senior advisers working on talent searches, and vetting possible candidates to check their closets for skeletons. That's been standard since the undoing of the Democratic ticket in 1972 after it was disclosed that the vice presidential nominee had undergone shock treatments for depression.
No one is saying who they're checking for ticket-worthiness.
But after published reports that his name was on the Bush list, Danforth announced he wanted it withdrawn. His office confirmed that he called Bush and Dick Cheney, the former White House chief of staff and defense secretary who is conducting the GOP vice presidential search, to tell them.
Danforth, now overseeing a Justice Department investigation into the 1993 Waco siege, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he didn't want to go back to politics. He said the idea of running for vice president was a tempting dream, but not one he wanted to pursue.
So whether or not he might have been in, he's out.
Colin Powell almost certainly would have been in, at least as a finalist for the Bush ticket, but he has repeatedly taken himself out, for 2000 as he did for 1996. ''I do not seek elective office and so I'm not a candidate for vice president and I am not seeking it,'' he said, appearing with Bush in Austin on May 25. Bush said he wasn't considering people who didn't want to be considered.
He said the same rule applied to Sen. John McCain, the primary election rival who asked not to be considered for vice president when he endorsed Bush six weeks ago. McCain speculation cranked up again this week after columnist Robert Novak reported the senator had said he'd do it if the Republicans would lose without him. McCain then put it down again.
Actually, vice presidential nominees seldom make or break elections. It happens, as when Lyndon B. Johnson boosted John F. Kennedy in the South, especially in crucial Texas, in 1960. But not often. Richard M. Nixon once observed that the important thing in picking a vice president was to make sure the nominee wouldn't hurt the ticket.
Danforth is not the only longshot to say no. Retiring Republican Sen. Connie Mack of Florida did. So did Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, although he then recanted.
But the question is hypothetical until the presidential nominee calls. When he does, not many politicians tell him to call elsewhere.
Some have.
Ronald Reagan got a commitment that President Ford wouldn't ask him to join the 1976 ticket before he'd meet with the man who had just edged him at the Republican National Convention.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's vice presidential no to Sen. George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee, led to the mess over that ticket. McGovern held out for one last try after his own nomination. When Kennedy said no again, McGovern went on a hurried search for a running mate.
It led him to Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton of Missouri, who was forced off the ticket after the disclosure that he had twice undergone shock treatments. McGovern ran, and lost overwhelmingly, with Sargent Shriver, the Kennedy in-law who had run the Peace Corps and Johnson's war on poverty.
A footnote: McGovern had considered Shriver as a first choice, but he was traveling in Moscow, and couldn't be reached when the nominee needed an answer in a hurry.
---
Lunch plan would feed world's children, Clinton's legacy
Washington Times
June 14, 2000
By Joyce Howard Price
http://208.246.212.80/national/default-2000614223838.htm
President Clinton wants to be remembered for being a leading force in the creation of a multibillion-dollar international school lunch program like the federal program that subsidizes meals in U.S. schools.
"The president gave us the green light to go out and develop this program," Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced at a nutrition summit last month, co-sponsored by his department and the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Glickman's comments received scant media attention at the time.
Said former Sen. George McGovern, a liberal Democrat who pitched the idea of a global school lunch program to Mr. Clinton and senior administration officials at a May 26 meeting in Washington:
"It was clear the president and his staff were very impressed with the idea. . . . I think we'll get a positive affirmation [from the White House] next month."
Contrary to initial press reports, the worldwide lunch program would be run by the United Nations, not the United States, Mr. McGovern, U.S. ambassador to U.N. agencies in Rome, said in a telephone interview last week.
As for its cost, he said, "Anything the U.N. does, the U.S. pays 25 percent. I estimate this program will cost a total of $3 billion for the first two years, so we'd pay $750 million."
"That's not chump change. That's a lot of money," said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican.
The U.S. contribution for the proposed international school lunch program "would come largely in the form of commodities" the government would purchase from farm surpluses for shipment overseas to Third World nations, said Mr. McGovern, a former U.S. senator from South Dakota and unsuccessful 1972 Democratic presidential nominee.
Mr. Feehery wonders if the proposed global school lunch program won't duplicate funding efforts already in existence.
"We already have a program that sends [farm] commodities to those countries" where hunger is rampant, he said.
In fiscal 2000, Mr. Feehery said, the Agency for International Development's budget included $56.5 million for a school feeding program that provided food commodities to 21 different countries.
Apparently fearful Congress might be resistant to providing free lunches to much of the world, Mr. Clinton asked Mr. Glickman at last month's meeting if he is "authorized to buy surplus commodities in the market without congressional approval," Mr. McGovern recalled.
He said the president was told Mr. Glickman could approve some purchases without the approval of Congress.
Said Mr. Feehery: "The president obviously wants to spend a lot of taxpayers' money. Congress has a constitutional role to oversee it . . . we're trying to keep our budgets balanced."
Mary Beth Schultheis, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, insists that the department is merely "taking a look" at the McGovern proposal, and that the examination is "very much at a preliminary stage." She says no decisions have been reached as to the cost or feasibility of the program, although she acknowledges the department is "seriously considering it."
Asked if he believes the cost of the global program will ever exceed the $6 billion the federal government spent last year for subsidized lunches for 27 million U.S. schoolchildren, Mr. McGovern said, "it's possible," but not likely.
"School lunches in developing countries cost 12 to 15 cents a meal, while U.S. school lunches cost a little over $1.20 a meal," said the U.S. ambassador, who is a representative to the World Food Program, the U.N. agency that would be responsible for distributing the free or reduced-price food.
Mr. McGovern said the United Nations has determined that 300 million school-age children throughout the world are chronically hungry.
"About 130 million of those children are not in school, and most of them are girls," he said.
He believes school attendance will increase sharply in Third World nations once children learn they will be fed in school. The greatest needs are in Asia and Africa, he said.
Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican and chairman of the Agriculture Committee, also believes the idea "has merit" but needs to find out more about it.
Paying for it is also a key concern of other Republicans on the committee, such as Sen. Larry E. Craig of Idaho and Sen. Paul Coverdell of Georgia.
"We really have to look at the cost . . . and how on earth we would foot the bill for something of this magnitude," said Donna King, spokeswoman for Mr. Coverdell.
-------- us politics
Green Party's Nader Tells Gore, 'Slumber on Al'
By Alan Elsner, Political Correspondent
Wednesday June 14 4:54 PM ET
From: Winston Weeks - wweeks@mail.aros.net
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader, accepting a labor union endorsement on Wednesday, said traditional Democrats should welcome the prospect of defeating Vice President Al Gore in November.
Nader, 66, a well-known consumer rights advocate, is hoping to get the Green Party on the ballot in all 50 states and raise $5 million for a campaign targeted especially at labor union members upset by Gore's support of free trade agreements.
He won the endorsement of the 31,000-member California Nurses Association on Wednesday and called on major national unions to give his candidacy a careful look.
Nader is running at around 4 percent in recent national polls but is particularly strong in California, where one survey put him as high as 9 percent, and on the East Coast.
Some Democrats fear in a close race between their candidate Gore and Republican George W. Bush, Nader could tip the balance in the direction of the Texas governor in the Nov. 7 election.
Asked about that possibility, Nader responded: ``If I was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I'd be happy because that would give the Democratic Party a four-year cold shower for reconsidering their historical traditions at its highest levels and why it has abandoned these traditions.''
He acknowledged that most of his support would come out of Gore's hide, but said Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan would drain votes from Bush on the other side of the political spectrum.
Help Democrats In Congress
Additionally, Nader argued his campaign could mobilize voters to help Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives, where Republicans only have a six-seat edge.
``Since there are very few Green Party candidates running for the House or for the Senate, the millions of votes that we're going to get ... will more likely vote for the Democratic candidates for the House and Senate and in that respect help the Democrats gain control of the Congress,'' he said.
Nader is expected to formally win the Green Party endorsement at the party's convention in Denver next week. He ran for the White House in 1996 but made little effort to campaign or raise funds and won few votes.
Gore campaign officials profess to be unconcerned by Nader, saying most of the labor union and pro-environment voters he is courting will eventually unite behind the Democratic ticket.
``The Gore campaign has responded by saying they're not losing any sleep about this campaign. To which I reply, 'Slumber on, Al, slumber on,''' Nader said.
A big question for Gore is whether he underestimates the depth of genuine anger among some union members about his and President Clinton's support for a series of free trade agreements, capped by a House vote last month to grant permanent normal trade relations to China.
Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California nurses, predicted: ``A lot of organized labor will vote for Ralph Nader.''
Gore has been endorsed by the AFL-CIO labor federation and many unions but the United Auto Workers and the Teamsters among others have withheld their support.
The UAW said recently they were considering backing Nader, an ironic development considering that he made his regulation in the 1960s attacking the safety record of the U.S. automobile giants. Nader said the UAW might end up not endorsing anyone.
----
NEW WARHEADS? NUCLEAR TESTING UNDER A BUSH ADMINISTRATION?
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "there they go again...."
New nuclear weapons are on the minds of a small, but powerful cadre of Congressional members. As The Washington Post reports in it June 12 edition (see below), Senate Republicans have put a provision in the FY 2001 defense authorization bill (see below) that specifically requires the secretaries of Defense and Energy to undertake a study to develop a new "low-yield" nuclear weapon that can destroy deeply buried targets and permits the nuclear labs to conduct limited research and development that may be necessary to complete the study.
The legislation, which still must be conferenced with the House version of the bill, encroaches on -- but does not overturn -- a 1994 law advanced by Congresswoman Elisabeth Furse that prohibits research and development of "mini-nukes" [low-yield nuclear weapons]. If it becomes law, it could also provide a rationale for resuming nuclear testing to confirm the new warhead design. Interesingly, the proponents of the study on a new earth-penatrating nuclear warhead claim that the B-61 Mod. 11 earth-penetrating warhead, introduced and certified into the arsenal in the mid-90s without nuclear test explosions, cannot do the job, and they ignore the fact that there is has been no military requirement for "new warhead production" since 1992.
According to George Bush's foreign policy adviser Condoleeza Rice, any resumption of testing in the near future would be based on questions relating to "reliability and safety" of existing weapons. As for developing new weapons, she said Bush is "reserving judgement ... It has not come up, but it is not inconceivable." She also restated Bush's view that the he opposes the CTBT but has supported a moratorium on testing "because it gives more flexibility." The Rice comments seem to raise more questions that they answer.
2. NIF CRITICISED BY COMPETING LABS
The National Ignition Facility is suffering from cost overruns and construction delays and is now being criticised by lab officials from Sandia. Tom Hunter, Sandia's senior vice president for defense programs, directly challenged Energy Secretary Bill Richardson's decision to proceed with the so-called NIF facility as currently planned-despite a near doubling of the project's official cost estimate, from $1.2 billion to $2.1 billion. (See related articles below.)
The Senate's uncertainty about maintaining the nuclear arsenal in the absence of nuclear testing is due, in part, to the laboratory directors' emphasis on the "importance" of costly, cutting-edge experimental stockpile stewardship projects like the National Ignition Facility. While NIF will allow weapons scientists to experiment with advanced design concepts, NIF is not essential for maintenance of the existing U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, which can and is being addressed through stockpile surveillance and remanufacturing capabilities.
For more information on NIF, see the Natural Resources Defense Council's National Ignition Facility and Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship Resource Page at http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nif/nifinx.asp
3. TEST BAN VERIFICATION MYTHS EXPLODED
In an article in the latest edition of the FAS Public Interest Report titled: "False and Misleading Claims about Verification during the Senate Debate on the CTBT," Dr. Lynn Sykes knocks down claims about "credible evasion scenarios," including "de-coupling." See http://www.fas.org/faspir/v53n3.htm. He writes:
"Lack of verifiability and concern about the Stockpile Stewardship Program were cited repeatedly in the U.S. Senate debate about ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) last October.
Concerns about verifiability as well as the reliability of weapons in the U.S. stockpile, in fact, have long served as proxies for the larger issues of what best ensures our national security and prevents nuclear war. Several claims that were either wrong or inflated about lack of verifiability, which were not challenged during the very abbreviated testimony and debate of October 1999, are examined here. I argue that U. S. verification goals can be met. I then propose several things that might be done to move the Senate closer to ratifying the Treaty."
In addition, the American Geophysical Union devoted a lengthy panel session at its recent annual meeting to the subject of test ban treaty verification and monitoring. Presentations were delivered by Richard Garwin, Greg van der Vink, Terry Wallace, Lynn Sykes, and others. Abstracts are available at http://www.agu.org.
4. OPPOSITION WATCH
Also of note, in a recent series of articles in the Spring issue of The Washington Quarterly, James Schlesinger offers his analysis of what's wrong with arms control and the CTBT. Also in that issue, Harold Brown addresses the status of arms control and the CTBT; Thomas Graham considers how to strengthen nuclear arms control; John Steinbruner explores the renovation of arms control; Stephen Cambone looks at lessons learned from the test ban vote; and Brad Roberts examines the road ahead. Attached below is the text of the Schlesinger article.
On June 5, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) spoke at a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace "Proliferation Roundtable" on "Why the Senate Rejected the CTBT and the Implications of Its Demise." See http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/KylRoundtable060500.htm . Kyl's critique of the CTBT contained little new material, but it does signify his continuing and active opposition to the CTBT.
For altenative views on Kyl's anti-CTBT pitch, see:
"Tall Tales of the Test Ban Opposition: A Reply to the September 1999 Letter to Senator Lott from CTBT Opponents," by Christopher Paine, Natural Resources Defense Council, October 6, 1999 http://www.clw.org/coalition/nrdctalltales1099.htm
"What Went Wrong: Repairing the Damage to the CTBT," by Daryl Kimball, Arms Control Today, December 1999.http://www.clw.org/coalition/ACTdk1299.htm
Remarks by General John Shalikashvili on the CTBT at the Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference, March 16, 2000 http://www.clw.org/coalition/shali031600.htm
Finally, you may be interested in the short article from October 1999 in The Arizona Republic (attached below) which reports that Sen. Jon Kyl's approval rating in Arizona dipped to its lowest level in a year in the immediate aftermath of the Senate vote on the CTBT.
5) 2000 NPT RevCon REINFORCES IMPORTANCE OF CTBT
The final 2000 NPT Review Conference document http://www.usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/stories/finaldoc.htm reaffirms the international community's support for the existing Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In the face of the active diplomacy of the New Agenda Coalition and strong pressure from the majority of the world's non-nuclear nations, the Conference agreed to the following CTBT-related items:
"Article VI and preambular paragraphs 8 to 12
4. The Conference reaffirms that the cessation of all nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions will contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects, to the process of nuclear disarmament leading to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and, therefore, to the further enhancement of international peace and security.
5. The Conference welcomes the adoption by the General Assembly and subsequent opening for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in New York on 24 September 1996, and notes that 155 States have signed it and that 56 of them, including 28 whose ratification is necessary for its entry into force, have deposited their instruments of ratification. The Conference welcomes the ratifications by France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the recent decision by the Duma of the Russian Federation to ratify the Treaty. The Conference calls upon all States, in particular on those 16 States whose ratification is a prerequisite for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, to continue their efforts to ensure the early entry into force of the Treaty.
6. The Conference welcomes the final declaration adopted at the Conference on facilitating the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, convened in Vienna in October 1999, in accordance with Article XIV of the Convention.
15. The Conference agrees on the following practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and paragraphs 3 and 4(c) of the 1995 Decision on "Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament":
1. The importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.
2. A moratorium on nuclear-weapon-test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending entry into force of that Treaty.
16. Regional issues
South Asia and other regional issues:
12. With respect to the nuclear explosions carried out by India and then byPakistan in May 1998, the Conference recalls Security Council Resolution 1172 (1998), adopted unanimously on 6 June 1998, and calls upon both States to take all of the measures set out therein. Notwithstanding their nuclear tests, India and Pakistan do not have the status of nuclear-weapon States.
14. The Conference notes that India and Pakistan have declared moratoriums on further testing and their willingness to enter into legal commitments not to conduct any further nuclear testing by signing and ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The Conference urges both States to sign the Treaty, in accordance with their pledges to do so."
Proposals for stronger language on CTBT-related issues were rejected by the U.S. and other nuclear weapon states. Specificaly, the nuclear weapon states rejected language that would have called "upon all States not to conduct [non-explosive] tests for the further development and modernisation of nuclear weapons." Such a commitment would have been valuable and important given the fact that the U.S. has been able to develop and deploy of a modified versions of previously tested weapons, such as the B-61 Mod 11 (which has earth penetrating capabilities designed to make it more usable against underground bunkers) without the aid of nuclear test explosions. These activities are contrary to goals of the CTBT as described in its Preamble.
CONTENTS:
"STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP"
"Senate Bill Requires Study Of New Nuclear Weapon," By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, June 12, 2000
Senate Defense Authorization bill requirement for nuclear posture review and study on nuclear warhead designs to defeat hardened targets
"Nuclear Stockpile Guardians Squabble Over Cost Of Project," by James Glanz, The New York Times, May 26, 2000
VERIFICATION
"False and Misleading Claims about Verification during the Senate Debate on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty," by Lynn R. Sykes, Federation of American Scientists, Public Interest Report, May/June 2000 http://www.fas.org/faspir/v53n3.htm
THE CTBT OPPOSITION
"The Demise of Arms Control?" by James Schlesinger, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2000
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC, October 27, 1999 on Sen. Kyl's approval rating
----
"Senate Bill Requires Study Of New Nuclear Weapon"
Washington Post June 12, 2000 Pg. 2
By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39420-2000Jun11.html
The Senate has paved the way for the Energy Department's nuclear weapons laboratories to aid Pentagon research into a new low-yield nuclear weapon that could destroy hardened and deeply buried targets by penetrating far into the ground before exploding.
The purpose of the study is to develop "a deep penetrator that could hold at risk a rogue state's deeply buried weapons or Saddam Hussein's bunker without torching Baghdad," said one former senior Pentagon official who is still involved in government military and intelligence research.
The most recent modernization of a U.S. strategic nuclear weapon, the B-61 thermonuclear bomb, took place in the early 1990s. At that time the bomb, which has a variety of yields above 50 kilotons (or 50,000 tons of TNT, more than three times the power of the Hiroshima bomb), was given an earth-penetrating capability great enough to destroy "a garden variety underground bunker, 100 meters into solid rock," the former official said.
"What's needed now is something that can threaten a bunker tunneled under 300 meters of granite without killing the surrounding civilian population," he said.
Last year, a Pentagon effort to get assistance from Energy's weapons labs in researching the options for such a weapon was blocked when Energy lawyers said a 1994 provision in the law prohibited the government's nuclear laboratories from "all research and development which could lead to a precision, low-yield nuclear weapon," according to a senior Energy official who asked not to be identified.
To overcome that roadblock, Senate Republicans this year put a provision in the fiscal 2001 defense authorization bill that specifically requires the secretaries of Defense and Energy to undertake such a study and permits the nuclear labs to "conduct any limited research and development that may be necessary" to complete it, according to a Senate Armed Services Committee report.
The measure is expected to pass the Senate this week and eventually be approved by a House-Senate conference, according to its supporters.
Supporters of this new low-yield nuclear weapon include a small group of senior Republican senators and some top officials within the nuclear weapons community who, in the wake of Senate defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty last October, believe the United States may soon need to resume underground testing to design new warheads and maintain old ones.
"The United States will eventually need a new, low-yield nuclear weapon" because the explosive power of silo-busting thermonuclear warheads designed for the Cold War "are too high" to deter small nations in today's multipolar world, said Paul Robinson, the head of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories, one of the nation's leading weapons labs.
Without building such a new weapon, "we would end up being self-deterred," Robinson said at a forum in New Mexico last March.
Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services strategic subcommittee, sponsored the defense bill amendment because, as he said at a May 23 committee meeting, the legislative language from 1994 prohibited Energy's nuclear laboratories "from conducting any research related to the design of a new low-yield nuclear warhead."
"I understand the attorneys have blocked the Energy weapons labs from conducting any studies or research to support the Defense Department in assessing options for addressing current or future threats because of this 1994 provision," Allard said.
Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) said at the May 23 hearing: "I do not believe that, in the foreseeable future, we're going to see the abolishment totally of nuclear weaponry. . . . And, therefore, we've got to maintain a capability in the United States for a future president or presidents to initiate a program, to build a new warhead."
In a recent telephone interview, Warner said, "The next president has got to put this on top of his agenda." He added, "We should do research and analysis" that could lead to new weapons because "there is a dwindling industrial base and dwindling category of capable people to build weapons."
Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the presumptive GOP presidential candidate, who opposed approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, has supported a moratorium on testing because it gives more flexibility," said Condoleezza Rice, Bush's foreign policy adviser and a member of the National Security Council staff during his father's administration.
Bush foresees any resumption of testing in the near future as being based on "questions of reliability and safety" of current weapons, Rice said in a telephone interview. As for developing new weapons, Bush is "reserving judgment. . . . It has not come up, but it is not inconceivable," she said.
Bush, in a May 23 speech, said that "America should rethink the requirements . . . for nuclear deterrence and a new security environment." He said that if elected president, he would get his defense secretary "to conduct an assessment of our nuclear force posture."
The last full Pentagon nuclear posture review was in 1994, with an update in 1997 before the Helsinki summit between President Clinton and Russia's Boris Yeltsin. The current Senate version of the fiscal 2001 defense authorization bill not only permits research on the new low-yield weapons but also calls for the secretary of defense, "in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to prepare a plan for the long-term sustainment and modernization of U.S. strategic forces."
That nuclear posture study, the panel said, "would look beyond current efforts to modernize existing systems and lay out a comprehensive vision for the maintenance of deterrent forces."
-----
Calendar No. 543 106TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. 2549 [Report No. 106-292]
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MAY 12, 2000
SEC. 1018. REPORT ON THE DEFEAT OF HARDENED AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGETS. (a) STUDY.The Secretary of Defense shall, in conjunction with the Secretary of Energy, conduct a study relating to the defeat of hardened and deeply buried targets. Under the study, the Secretaries shall:
(1) review the requirements and current and future plans for hardened and deeply buried targets and agent defeat weapons concepts and activities; (2) determine if those plans adequately address all requirements; (3) identify potential future hardened and deeply buried targets and other related targets; (4) determine what resources and research and development efforts are needed to defeat the targets identified under paragraph (3) as well as other agent defeat requirements; (5) assess both current and future options to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets as well as agent defeat weapons concepts, including any limited research and development that may be necessary to conduct such assessment; and (6) determine the capability and cost of each option.
(b) REPORT. The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the results of the study required by subsection (a) not later than July 1, 2001.
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 REPORT [TO ACCOMPANY S. 2549] ON AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
SUBTITLE C--STRATEGIC FORCES
Revised nuclear posture review (sec. 1015)
Six years have passed since the nuclear posture review of fiscal year 1994. The committee believes that a new nuclear posture review is overdue and should be completed in the near future. Although Presidential Decision Directive 60, signed in November 1997, reaffirmed and updated U.S. nuclear weapons employment policy guidance, there has not been an end-to-end review of U.S. nuclear weapons strategy, requirements, and posture since fiscal year 1994.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to conduct a comprehensive nuclear posture review that looks out five to ten years. The review would include:
(1) the role of nuclear forces in United States military strategy, planning, and programming; (2) the policy requirements and objectives for the United States to maintain a safe, reliable and credible nuclear deterrence posture; (3) the relationship between U.S. nuclear deterrence policy, targeting strategy, and arms control objectives; (4) the levels and composition of nuclear delivery systems that will be required to implement the U.S. national and military strategy, including any plans for replacing or modifying warheads. The provision would also require that, concurrently with the Quadrennial Defense Review due in December 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report, in unclassified and classified forms as necessary, on the nuclear posture review. Finally, the provision expresses the sense of Congress that a revised nuclear posture review should be used as the basis for establishing future arms control objectives and negotiating positions.
Plan for the long-term sustainment and modernization of United States strategic nuclear forces (sec. 1016)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to prepare a plan for the long-term sustainment and modernization of U.S. strategic forces. The committee expects that the plan would look beyond current efforts to modernize existing systems and lay out a comprehensive vision for the maintenance of deterrent forces.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy may not be adequately planning for United States strategic nuclear forces in the long term. The committee supports current efforts to provide for continued sustainment of existing strategic delivery systems and warheads, but is concerned that there appears to be no long-range vision of how the United States should preserve strategic deterrent forces. The committee believes that the United States will require such forces beyond the date when existing systems become obsolete.
Study and report on hardened and deeply buried targets (sec. 1018)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to assess requirements and options for defeating hardened and deeply buried targets. The provision would expressly authorize the Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct any limited research and development that may be necessary to complete such assessments.
The committee notes that a recent legal interpretation of existing law raised questions regarding whether DOE could participate in or otherwise support certain Department of Defense (DOD) studies and options assessments for defeating hardened and deeply buried targets. This provision removes any uncertainty and expressly allows DOE to assist the DOD with a review of these targets and the options for defeating such targets. The committee believes that DOE should provide information and all other assistance required to help DOD make informed decisions on whether:
(1) to proceed with a new method of defeating hardened and deeply buried targets and; (2) to seek any necessary modifications to existing law.
The committee is concerned that the ability to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets will continue to be a significant challenge for the foreseeable future.
------
"Nuclear Stockpile Guardians Squabble Over Cost Of Project"
The New York Times
May 26, 2000
By James Glanz
In an unusually public display of acrimony among the caretakers of the nation's nuclear stockpile, Sandia National Laboratories has charged that cost overruns on a giant laser at another federal laboratory may disrupt the program to ensure that the stockpile remains safe and reliable.
The laser, the National Ignition Facility, is designed to mimic some conditions at the heart of an exploding hydrogen bomb. But its expected construction costs at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have doubled to $2.1 billion, and critics in Congress have begun to wonder aloud if the project is worthwhile.
Since 1992, when the United States abandoned nuclear tests, the national laboratories have vied to devise ways to simulate nuclear explosions in hopes that these methods will allow them to determine whether stockpiled warheads are still usable.
Officials at the Energy Department, which runs both Sandia in Albuquerque and Lawrence Livermore in Livermore, Calif., publicly rebuked Sandia, saying its criticism was inaccurate and, in any event, should not have been made in public.
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said the Sandia criticism was "totally out of line and inconsistent with the nation's stockpile stewardship policies."
Mr. Richardson said the cost overruns would be handled with money from defense programs, and largely within Livermore's existing budget.
"The labs are very competitive with each other, and this outburst is typical lab belly-aching that is sometimes aimed at jockeying for appropriations at the expense of each other," he said. "While we have contained the rivalries in the past, it seems that N.I.F. is too big a pot to ignore."
Under pressure, Sandia tempered its stance late yesterday, issuing a more conciliatory statement on the project.
But opponents of the laser seized on the original statement to advance their argument that the project was unworkable.
"The objections have been echoing around the weapons complex for the last couple of years," said Christopher Paine, a senior researcher at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "They're now being publicly stated."
The National Ignition Facility would consist of 192 individual laser beams converging on a tiny pellet of nuclear fuel to generate fusion energy -- a vastly scaled-down version of one element of a hydrogen bomb.
The laser, like other parts of the stockpile stewardship program at Sandia, Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratory, would allow scientists to approach the harsh conditions in bombs for study. But the project, which has been under construction since 1997, has encountered a series of problems, including the resignation of its director, construction delays and ballooning costs.
Those problems led to the critical statement on Tuesday from Tom Hunter, a senior vice president for defense programs at Sandia.
Delays and overruns at the laser project "will disrupt the investment needed to be made at the other laboratories," Mr. Hunter said. "This causes us to question what is a reasonable additional investment in the N.I.F."
Even though Sandia had contacted reporters with those criticisms, the statement today called their release inadvertent. Mr. Hunter is quoted in the release as saying that "public divisiveness is not helpful in finding good solutions," but he did not directly contradict the criticisms.
Rod Geer, a Sandia spokesman, said "the concern still exists" on how the various parts of the stockpile stewardship program will fit together financially.
Clay Sell, a staff member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the cost overruns were placing the project in jeopardy.
"Absolutely, it's in danger as a program," Mr. Sell said.
Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who is a member of the committee, said, "The project's costs appear to be rising sky-high," adding that "Congress needs to take more decisive action to prevent further money down the drain."
Mr. Richardson said, "We believe N.I.F. is important. And I have made the necessary management and structural changes to make it viable. The last thing we need is the Congress to try to decimate the project on the basis of their own local priorities."
------
"The Demise of Arms Control?"
The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The Washington Quarterly,
2000 Spring
by James Schlesinger, a counselor and trustee at CSIS. He is also senior adviser to Lehman Brothers and chairman of the MITRE corporation. He was secretary of defense from 1973 to 1975 and secretary of energy from 1977 to 1979.
Is arms control dead? -- certainly not if its proponents recognize and adapt to the altered world in which we now live. Alternatively, if we fail to adapt and instead pursue arms control objectives derived from a bipolar world or reflecting naive, Universalist assumptions, arms control will be useless and, at times, counterproductive.
The proper objective for arms control is to increase international stability and, more directly, the security of the United States and its allies. It should not be, as its most eager supporters advocate, simply to reduce armaments.
The central feature of classic arms control agreements was that the United States and the Soviet Union could enhance mutual stability and thus their own security by agreeing to limit certain categories of (destabilizing) armaments, providing such agreements could be verified. Thus, overall international stability would be enhanced. The risk, of course, was that achieving or preserving the agreement might become an end in itself and that such painful questions as compliance or whether the agreement actually enhanced stability would be overlooked.
Even during the Cold War, the presupposition of bipolarity was pressed by some further than it should have been, as if the United States and the Soviet Union were alone in the world. Some advocates, for example, tended to forget the simple fact that U.S. forces provided extended deterrence for U.S. allies in Europe -- and, in a somewhat more benign context, in northeast Asia. Thus, the generally bipolar world was complicated by the need to take third parties into account. In that bipolar world, many arms control issues could be viewed in terms of duopoly -- in that only the United States and the Soviet Union had significant capabilities, and thus the task was one of negotiating with, and scrutinizing the behavior of, one's principal adversary.
But the Cold War is now over; the Soviet Union is gone. Advanced weapons capabilities have spread and will further spread to other parties. Thus, the analogy for arms control has now shifted from duopoly to cartel -- in which the behavior of numerous other parties must be watched and preferably controlled. This is a far more demanding task. History teaches us that smaller participants in cartel agreements frequently enter those agreements with no intention to comply in the long run (and frequently not even in the short run). They enter into the cartel agreement to restrict the behavior of others, to draw advantages for themselves, and with every intention, to put it bluntly, to cheat early. In the history of cartels, incidentally, it has normally been the leader that has born the principal burden of complying with the agreement. For that reason, it is particularly incumbent upon the leader to be wary at the outset regarding the details of the agreement.
Consider the goal of nonproliferation. What we have seen in the last half-century is that proliferation cannot be prevented -- but it can successfully be slowed. Indeed, compared with the fears expressed in the 1950s and 1960s, the spread of nuclear weapons has been remarkably slow. (It might have been even slower if the United States, priding itself on its openness and its eagerness for declassification, had not so generously spread around information on how to design and produce nuclear weapons).
Given the metaphor of the cartel, the necessary target for arms control is to constrain those who desire to acquire nuclear weapons. A Luxembourg or even a Germany may have no inclination to exploit an arms control agreement as a cover for cheating, but others will have that simple objective. A general agreement imposes no restraint on a North Korea or an Iraq. They will be constrained by direct pressure or by direct action, if they are to be constrained at all. For rather different reasons, an India or an Israel is not going to be constrained by a general agreement. To believe otherwise is to embrace the quixotic notions of the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
Thus the question of enforceability becomes more difficult as it becomes more central. Sometimes, difficult tradeoffs must be made. In 1994, the United States chose to ignore the clear violations of North Korea and its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to the International Atomic Energy Agency -- in the hope that it might be able to "freeze" North Korea's nuclear development. Sometimes, arms control agreements are little more than pious hopes with little capacity (or even intent) to achieve enforcement. Today there are 10 to 15 nations aggressively seeking chemical or biological weapons, many of them unconstrained by their obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention or Biological Weapons Convention. Detection or verification is simply too difficult. Indeed, in the case of the Biological Weapons Convention there simply is no enforcement mechanism.
The upshot is that we fool ourselves if we believe that general agreements impose substantial barriers to those determined to acquire new capabilities. But arms control objectives can be obtained through direct pressure -- rather than through a general agreement -- or, as the case of Israel and the Osirak reactor may suggest, through direct action. For those who would argue that, in a world of sovereign equals, such action violates national sovereignty, one should point to the recent rhetoric regarding Serbia. If we have embraced the right to trample on sovereignty in the name of human rights, surely we must be prepared to consider similar action to prevent a rogue nation from acquiring a nuclear capability (something that is detectable).
Of course, the issue of sovereignty goes to the heart of the presumption of universalism that forms the basis of many recent arms-control agreements. That all sovereign nations are equal is an axiom among international lawyers -- if not among practicing politicians. Nonetheless, this legal concept should not be allowed to obscure fundamental realities.
The fiction of equality among sovereign nations underlays the recent controversy over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The negotiators of that treaty sought to be faithful to the principle of equal treatment of all nations, but could do so only by ignoring the basic realities. Thus, they presumed that the testing regime should be the same for both weapon states and non-weapon states. In the quest to constrain weapons development, it is presumed that the testing regime should be the same for the United States and, for example, Luxembourg. Thus, the testing regime becomes the same for nations that have no nuclear weapons, for those that have nuclear weapons but are most unlikely to have to envisage circumstances in which they must be used, and for states that must maintain the readiness of their nuclear arsenal. Such a regime might be acceptable to the last category of states for an extended period, but cannot be accepted in perpetuity. n1 For a number of reasons, too lengthy to be developed here, complicated devices like nuclear weapons, composed of thousands of parts, cannot remain untested for extended periods -- without confidence in the reliability of those weapons diminishing. Thus, over time, the total cessation of testing implies gambling with the effectiveness of the deterrent. Computer modeling -- even good computer modeling -- is no substitute for testing. (For many, the inevitability of the decline of the reliability of the nuclear stockpile was a bonus and possibly an objective of a test ban).
When presented with the CTBT, all members of the Senate would have to judge for themselves how much risk over time they were prepared to accept. The majority of the Senate ultimately concluded -- quite properly in my judgment -- that gambling with the efficacy of the U.S. deterrent was not something that they were prepared to ratify, given the unique position of the United States in the world today. Not knowing how the strategic scene might change over 20, 30, or 40 years, the majority were unwilling to gamble with the reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
Perhaps a regime of no testing would have been acceptable if the United States were a normal country with a normal foreign policy. But the United States has drifted to, been pushed to, or seized the role of international sheriff and arbiter. So long as it accepts the heavy commitments that role implies and so long as uncertainties regarding the longer-run strategic scene exist, the United States cannot accept the same testing regime as nations prepared to forego the acquisition of nuclear weapons or nations whose deterrents are essentially there for show.
The quixotic pursuit of universality, which ignored both the long-run necessity of testing for serious nuclear weapon states and the distinct role that the United States plays in the world, has meant that the opportunity was lost to craft a testing regime that would have imposed some restraint on proliferation without imposing a long-run decline in the reliability of crucial nuclear weapons stockpiles.
The conclusion is simple. General arms-control agreements, if they are to be successful, must be grounded in the realities -- including the reality of different roles and requirements for different states. Otherwise, such agreements will come apart on a Procrustean bed, which essentially denies that such differences exist -- and must be dealt with. Thus, the future of arms control will depend on the willingness of our negotiators to shed obsolescent ideas -- and to find more imaginative ways for limiting the spread of arms in a greatly altered environment.
Note
1. When questioned on the test ban by the White House in 1993, I indicated that, while I was not a fan of the test ban, the two ingredients that could not be part of such a ban were permanence of the treaty and zero yield. It is perhaps unnecessary to remind this audience that those two features were ultimately included in the proposed treaty presented to the Senate.
---
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC
October 27, 1999 Wednesday,
Sen. Jon Kyl's approval rating in Arizona has dipped to its lowest level in a year, according to a Rocky Mountain poll released Tuesday.
Of 502 registered voters surveyed by the Behavior Research Center on Oct. 13-17, 38 percent felt Kyl was doing a good to excellent job. In July, according to the same pollster, Kyl enjoyed a 43 percent performance rating of good to excellent.
The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points, found that 26 percent of respondents said Kyl was doing a 'fair' job, and 9 percent thought he was doing a poor to very poor job.
Kyl is facing re-election next year but has no announced major-party opponent. Pollster Earl de Berge said, "A factor that may have contributed to the decline is that, just prior to the survey, the senator led a successful effort to defeat Senate ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty."
Kyl's approval rating in this poll has been as low as 33 percent. That was in 1996. The 43 percent in July was the highest rating.
The survey also found that Gov. Jane Hull and Sen. John McCain continue to enjoy solid ratings, at 55 percent and 59 percent respectively, but the differences in their ratings from earlier surveys were not significant because they lay well within the poll's margin of error.
----
http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri-res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/5/30/3.text.1
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release
May 27, 2000
VICE PRESIDENT GORE OUTLINES VISION TO STRENGTHEN AMERICA'S MILITARY FORCE
West Point, NY--Drawing on his own military experience today at West Point's commencement ceremony, Vice President Gore outlined the challenges the next generation of leaders will face in a Global Era. The Vice President used his address to reassert the need for improving the quality of life for soldiers and advancing the U.S. arms control agenda.
"The new contours of this Global Age are a another great force that will affect your careers. And as you lead our armed forces, you deserve a clear strategic vision that is suited for a new time," Vice President Gore said. "In the Global Age, even the most distant problems can arrive on our doorstep. New forces can challenge the international order, raise issues of peace and war, and affect the basic safety and security of Americans at home and abroad."
In his remarks to students, parents, and teachers, Vice President Gore reaffirmed his commitment to the Administration's efforts to increase pay and improve the quality of life of soldiers, while modernizing equipment and advancing war-fighting doctrines of men and women serving in America's armed forces.
"Our Armed Forces will always be the power behind America's promise. You will be the ones to open the new avenues to peace, and close the gates against war," Vice President Gore said. "I know that you are more than equal to that high standard and will lead with strength, with bravery, and with a tireless will to defend the land you love."
-------- activists
Howard Henry Baker's latest conflict of interest
From: easlavin@aol.com
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:19:16 EDT
To hbaker@bdbc.com
Dear Mr. Baker:
Your recent hiring to investigate DOE security lapses is a conflict of interest. Your law firm clients have included DOE contractors like Lockheed Martin, whose security lapses are notorious. Your law firm has spent DOE money on a SLAPP suit against the Department of Labor. Martin Marietta Energy Systems v. Martin, 909 F.Supp. 528 (D.C. Tenn. 1993). This was improper. You are not independent of DOE. You have a conflict of interest. See United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 548 (1961)(the "Dixon-Yates case"), with the Supreme Court relying on Matthew 6:24 and expressing the view that prevention of conflicts of interest is aimed "not only at dishonor but at conduct that tempts dishonor." Your appointment "tempts dishonor." I suggest that in the light of wisdom and experience that you decline the proffered appointment as presenting at least the appearance of an impropriety. Herein faileth not.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Edward A. Slavin, Jr.
Box 3084
St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3084
(904) 471-7023 (904) 471-9918 (fax)
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.