Government Executive - Authors - Mike Nartker

Los Alamos scientists develop new method to detect smuggled nukes

Mike Nartker — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0500

The technique involves the use of muons, which are produced when cosmic radiation decays as it hits the Earth. Los Alamos researchers have developed a system that uses muon radiography to detect uranium, plutonium or other dense materials. A suspect object, such as a cargo container, is passed through two pairs of detectors - one set above the object and one below - that record muons' paths before and after they pass through the object. Analysis of the energy and trajectory of the muons results in a three-dimensional map of the inside of the suspect object, according to a Los Alamos release.

"If we measure the muon's path and energy with two detectors going in and two coming out, we have a straight line on either side that tells us how much the target deflects the muon, and we can locate the highly dense objects, as well as distinguishing between materials," Los Alamos researcher Larry Schultz said in the release.

The detector is capable of spotting nuclear materials even through heavy shielding, such as lead, the release says.

Scientists have been able to "train the system to spot objects of interest with a rate of false positives and false negatives that is less than 3 percent," Rick Chartrand of the laboratory's Theoretical Division said in the release. "We think we can continue to improve that."

Los Alamos researchers described their efforts to develop a nuclear detector using muon radiography during a presentation in Washington at this year's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The Bush administration has placed a new focus on combating the smuggling of nuclear and radioactive materials, requesting funds in its proposed fiscal 2006 budget to create an office of domestic nuclear detection within the Homeland Security Department. The new office reportedly would include representatives from several governmental agencies, including the Defense, Energy and State departments, and would focus on activities such as developing new detection techniques and increasing training in their use.

Muon radiography has several advantages over detectors now deployed at U.S. borders, which use either X-rays or gamma rays, according to the laboratory. For example, gamma-ray detectors are less penetrating than those using muons, produce results that require additional interpretation and require the use of hazardous material such as cobalt.

Los Alamos scientists are now working to develop a set of muon radiography detectors large enough to scan large metal objects within 60 seconds. As the process develops, inspectors using the detectors may be able to clear a vehicle within about 20 seconds of muon exposure, the laboratory release says.

"We believe we've worked through all of the major obstacles to building a prototype system for a range of security issues," Chris Morris of the laboratory's Physics Division said in the release.

]]>

Homeland Security to build Maryland biological defense center

Mike Nartker — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Federal Register.

As a result, the department has decided to move forward with construction of the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) at the U.S. Army's Fort Detrick in Frederick. Construction is set to begin in summer 2006 and is expected to be completed in 2008. The facility is expected to cost about $130 million, according to reports.

"The NBACC facility will provide the nation with a much needed biocontainment laboratory space for biological threat characterization and bioforensic research," the Homeland Security Department said in a fact sheet separately released this week.

The planned facility would house the National Bioforensic Analysis Center, which is intended to help authorities identify the perpetrators of biological attacks, and the Biological Threat Characterization Center, which would conduct research to guide the development of countermeasures against current and future biological threats, according to the departmental fact sheet.

The new center is expected to be about 160,000 square feet in size, consisting in part of Biosafety Level-2, -3 and -4 laboratory spaces. About 120 researchers and support staff are expected to work at the center.

The Homeland Security Department decided to proceed with the new facility on Jan. 26, following an eight-month review of potential environmental impacts and public comment periods.

In the record of decision issued today, the department said the center would pose little negative impact on the surrounding environment and the health of workers and area residents, and would "allow DHS to address a critical national shortage in BSL-4 [Biosafety Level 4] facilities." What little health risk exists can be mitigated through application of existing safety guidelines, the notice says.

Several alternatives, such as constructing the facility on either private- or government-owned land outside of Fort Detrick, were rejected as "unreasonable," the notice says.

]]>

Departing DOE chief describes improvements to nuclear weapons complex

Mike Nartker — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0500

"My philosophy on security has been quite simple," Abraham told departmental security personnel Tuesday. "When it comes to the security of a department with the responsibilities ours has - of maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, providing nuclear propulsion for the Navy and coordinating global nonproliferation efforts - there is no room for error."

Among the accomplishments listed by Abraham was an increase in annual spending for security-related activities from less than $1 billion to almost $2 billion. "We have, almost literally, doubled our efforts to make the department's facilities safe and secure," he said.

Abraham also noted the two major revisions to the department's Design Basis Threat (DBT) conducted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - once in May 2003 and again in October 2004. While specific details of the threat assessment are classified, it is generally considered to represent the type of terrorist threat facility guard forces must be able to defend against.

"These adjustments in the DBT represented significant increases in the level of protection afforded to our most sensitive national security assets," he said.

In contrast, Abraham said that the Design Basis Threat in place just prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, which was approved in 1995, "was at its lowest level since its initial inception, and paled in comparison to [threat] levels played out in the 9/11 attacks."

He blamed cost concerns, in part, to the lower assumed threat to nuclear sites prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. "In essence, the lower the threat, the lower the security posture to defeat the threat, thereby the lower the routine operational cost to implement."

The Energy Department has also made "substantial progress" in consolidating the number of sites that possess nuclear materials in order to reduce possible terrorist targets, Abraham said. As part of that effort, the department began moving materials last fall from a site at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to a more secure facility at the Nevada Test Site.

So far, the department has been able to close three sites that formerly housed nuclear materials, and has identified at least another four to be decommissioned, including facilities at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and the Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee, according to Abraham.

In his remarks, Abraham said continued efforts were needed to improve the quality of departmental security forces to become "an elite fighting force." He also said that he has organized a commission on examining new security technologies for possible use by the department.

The Energy Department is also considering whether site security forces should be federalized, managed by one contractor with individual contracts for each site or by one contractor with a single contract for all sites, Abraham said.

Peter Stockton, a senior investigator with the Project on Government Oversight watchdog group, today praised the emphasis Abraham and his retiring deputy, Kyle McSlarrow, have placed on security during their tenure.

"They're as good as I've ever seen," he said.

Stockton called on President George W. Bush's nominee to replace Abraham, Samuel Bodman, to continue once he takes office with many of the efforts launched by his predecessor, including the further consolidation of nuclear materials.

"That'd be a huge plus to the complex," Stockton said.

]]>

DOE weighs random polygraph tests for employees

Mike Nartker — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Those who could be subject to the random tests include personnel with access to classified nuclear weapons-related information, according to a notice published Jan. 7 in the Federal Register.

One of the main goals of the random tests is "deterrence" against "damaging disclosures" by employees whose level of access to sensitive information did not warrant mandatory polygraph testing, the department said.

Noting that the number of workers expected to be subject to random tests is "small," the Energy Department said it plans to create a random test program that would be applied to the "minimum" number of people while still serving the deterrence goal.

The proposed regulations would also result in a dramatic reduction in the number of employees who would be subject to mandatory screening, from potentially 20,000 to about 4,500, according to the Energy Department. The reduction would be achieved, the department said, by the narrowing the range of information that would require mandatory screening prior to being accessed.

The Energy Department first began polygraph testing in the wake of the 1999 Wen Ho Lee controversy, which involved a Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist accused of mishandling nuclear weapons codes. In late 2001, though, Congress ordered the department to create new polygraph regulations, taking into account the results of a study being conducted at the time by the National Academy of Sciences.

That study, released in 2002, said polygraph tests were ineffective as a screening tool for potential security risks, warning of both "false positive" and "false negative" results.

"Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice," the study found. "Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

Opposition to polygraph testing has been greater at the U.S. national laboratories than in any other government sector, according to Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. Scientists at the laboratories, he said yesterday, view polygraph tests as "idiotic, unfounded and degrading."

In its notice, the Energy Department said that polygraph testing is intended as a possible "trigger," the result of which could lead to further investigation of potential security risks posed by an employee. As a result, the department said, the proposed regulations would maintain policies against taking "adverse" action or limiting information access based solely on polygraph results.

"In every case of an adverse personnel action, it is DOE policy that such an action or decision is based on other information as well," the notice says.

The proposed regulations would also provide for the creation of a review board, convened by the agency's director of the counterintelligence office, to consider the results of positive evaluations.

Aftergood said the proposed regulations are "a big step in the right direction," as they acknowledge concerns over problems with polygraph testing.

The Energy Department plans to accept public comment on the proposed regulations until March 8, after which final regulations will be released.

]]>

Senate homeland security panel to add staff

Mike Nartker — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0500

In a written response to Global Security Newswire, committee staff said that the additional personnel would be hired from across "the public and private sectors." They declined to comment, though, as to how many new staff members would be hired or when they would be in place.

Previously, a wide array of Senate panels had oversight over the various Homeland Security Department agencies, including the Armed Services, Energy and Natural Resources and Foreign Relations committees. Oversight was consolidated, though, with the approval last fall of a Senate resolution that added a homeland security aspect to the Governmental Affairs Committee.

The resolution was prepared following the release this summer of the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, which included a call for improved congressional oversight of homeland security-related issues through the creation of permanent homeland security committees in each house of Congress.

Prior to assuming oversight over most of the Homeland Security Department, the panel had experience with security-related issues, such as nuclear export policies, through its international security subcommittee, committee staff members said.

]]>

Biological attack likely by 2020, report warns

Mike Nartker — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Over the next 15 years, successes in the global war on terrorism and advances in information technology are likely to result in an increasingly "decentralized" terrorist threat, consisting of an "eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals," says the report, prepared by the National Intelligence Council.

While influenced by al-Qaeda, such smaller groups are expected to overshadow the terrorist organization by 2020 and could recruit new members through the war in Iraq and other possible conflicts, the report says.

Acts of bioterrorism would be "particularly suited" to these smaller and better-informed terrorist groups, the report says.

"Indeed, the bioterrorist's laboratory could well be the size of a household kitchen, and the weapon built there could be smaller than a toaster. Terrorist use of biological agents is therefore likely, and the range of options will grow," it says.

The report also warns that while it is "less likely" terrorists would obtain a nuclear weapon; they are expected to continue to attempt to do so over the next 15 years through theft or purchase, "particularly in Russia or Pakistan." The likelihood that a terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon occurs before 2020 "cannot be ruled out," it adds.

Even so, the report says that most terrorist attacks in the future are expected to continue to involve conventional weapons, though with "new twists to keep counterterrorist planners off balance." Among such possible new strategies are the use of simultaneous attacks in widely separated areas, the use of advanced explosives and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and possible cyber attacks against computer systems and information networks.

The United States and its interests will continue to be "prime terrorist targets," but increasingly attacks may also focus on Western Europe and other Middle East countries, the report says.

The report is the third to be released by the National Intelligence Council, with previous reports covering periods through 2010 and 2015. It is based on discussions held with more than 1,000 independent experts over the past year, according to reports.

"Mindful that there are many possible 'futures,' our report offers a range of possibilities and potential discontinuities, as a way of opening our minds to developments we might otherwise miss," council Chairman Robert Hutchings said in an introductory letter.

Along with terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction, the report warns that a number of countries will continue to seek, and in some cases "enhance," their own such armaments. Nuclear weapons states are expected over the next 15 years to improve the survivability of their forces, to improve their nuclear delivery systems and to develop the capability to penetrate missile defense systems, the report says.

In an apparent reference to the suspected nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea, the report also says that other non-nuclear countries, especially in the Middle East and Northeastern Asia, may choose to develop atomic weapons "as it becomes clear that their neighbors and regional rivals are already doing so." Those efforts may be accelerated through proliferators like the former associates of Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who has confessed to transferring nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

The concern that the nuclear efforts of Iran and North Korea may prompt others to follow suit has been "widely held" among proliferation experts for years, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.

"It doesn't take a national intelligence expert to figure that out," he said.

Countries are expected to continue to hide biological and chemical weapons production capabilities through incorporation into legitimate commercial infrastructures and are expected to be less reliant on foreign suppliers, the report says. It also warns of the development of advanced biological weapons agents and the possible development of chemical agents intended to circumvent the verification regime of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Kimball said that "not too much is being done" to address the advancing biological weapons threat. As countermeasures, he recommended increasing efforts to have private industry self-regulate biological research, to have government oversight of some research and the development of a verification regime for the Biological Weapons Convention. "Nothing of substance" is being done now on such measures, Kimball said.

Countries are also expected to continue development of improved ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles, over the next 15 years, according to the report. By 2010, several countries of concern will probably acquire land-attack cruise missiles and North Korea and Iran are almost certain to have developed ICBM capabilities, it says. In additional, several other countries are likely by 2010 to have developed space launch vehicles, which can be used to aid ICBM development, the report adds.

There is also increasing concern that organized crime groups may increasingly deal in weapons of mass destruction over the next 15 years if countries "lose control of their inventories," the report says.

]]>

Bush reiterates support for intelligence bill

Mike Nartker — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:00:00 -0500

"Let's see if I can say it as plainly as I can - I am for the intelligence bill," Bush said during a press conference in Ottawa with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

The bill, reached after weeks of work by House and Senate negotiators, has been in limbo after House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., refused to hold a vote last month due to the opposition of House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. Hunter has opposed the bill, in large part, due to concerns that the national intelligence director position created by the bill could jeopardize the ability of military commanders to receive battlefield intelligence. Sensenbrenner's opposition has centered on a lack of provisions in the compromise bill concerning illegal immigration.

The White House has faced repeated calls by supporters of the reform bill both inside and outside of Congress to do more to secure its passage. Bush said Tuesday that he planned to talk by the end of the week with Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., "to express to them" his support for the measure.

Bush also said that Vice President Dick Cheney met with the former members of the Sept. 11 commission, which included a call for the creation of a national intelligence director in a set of recommendations it released this summer. Speaking before the meeting, former commission Chairman Thomas Kean said the purpose of the session was to help "coordinate efforts" on the bill's passage.

"We want to find out from him [Cheney] what we can be doing that we're not doing, perhaps. We may have some suggestions for him as to ways we think he might be helpful. And we think he's a very important player in this," Kean said.

Last month, Cheney reportedly personally contacted Hunter in an unsuccessful effort to seek his support for the intelligence reform bill.

Kean also said that he believed Bush's support for the bill was genuine and that the president would do "everything he can" to see it approved.

"This is a president who means what he says and says what he means. People recognize that. He said he'd support this bill in the campaign, he's said it since, and I don't have any doubt about that," Kean said. "So I do believe that his support is going to be important and I believe vital as we get this bill through."

Lawmakers are expected to again consider the bill when they return to Washington for a two-day session beginning Dec. 6. Hastert has reportedly indicated, though, that he will not hold a vote on the bill without the support of a majority of House Republicans and the backing of Hunter and Sensenbrenner.

Kean and other former members of the Sept. 11 commission called again on lawmakers to approve the bill next week, expressing concern that "momentum" for intelligence reform may be lost if lawmakers wait until when Congress formally reconvenes in January to address the issue.

"The choice is between this bill and the status quo," Kean said. "The status quo failed us. The status quo does not provide our leaders with the information they require to keep the American people safe. Reform is an urgent matter, and reform simply must not wait until after the next attack."

While noting the executive orders signed by Bush this summer that increased the authority of the director of central intelligence, former Sept. 11 Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said Tuesday that such measures did not go far enough in implementing effective intelligence reform.

"We think one of the key points here is that these changes have to be institutionalized and made permanent, and they are … not done that way unless you have legislation passed," Hamilton said.

"Executive orders come and they go. Policy-makers come and they go. This is a great big complicated government, and it is necessary to put into place the permanent institutional changes if you want to strengthen and enhance the intelligence community," he added.

]]>

Nuclear plants meet deadline for security improvements

Mike Nartker — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:00:00 -0500

The main trade organization for the U.S. nuclear industry announced Friday that all 103 U.S. nuclear power plants have implemented increased security measures in response to changes made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as to the type of terrorist threat plants must be able to defend against.

There are concerns, though, regarding the commission's ability to review the new security plans in place at U.S. nuclear plants and regarding plans by the nuclear industry to use private contractors to conduct mock attacks to evaluate security efforts.

In April 2003, the NRC ordered that all U.S. nuclear plants have in place by Oct. 29, 2004 new security plans to reflect changes made by the commission to the Design Basis Threat - the size and type of a potential terrorist force nuclear plants must be able to defend against. While details of the new DBT are classified, NRC spokesman Dave McIntyre said Monday that the threat was revised to reflect the new security threat following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Over the past 18 months, U.S. nuclear plants have implemented a number of new security measures, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, such as increased guard forces and training, "substantial" physical improvements to defend against car bombs and the creation of a "rigorous" mock attack regime to evaluate security plans. Since 2001, the U.S. nuclear industry has spent more than $1 billion on efforts to improve security, the institute said in a press release.

"These security enhancements will continue to make nuclear power plants the most secure industrial facilities in America," NEI Chief Nuclear Office Marvin Fertel said in a statement.

In September, however, the Government Accountability Office raised concerns over the NRC's ability to adequately evaluate the new security plans in place at nuclear power plants.

In testimony before a House Government Reform subcommittee, senior GAO official Jim Wells described the commission's efforts to evaluate new plant security plans as largely a "paper review" that was not detailed enough to adequately determine whether the plans could defend against the new design basis threat. For example, Wells told lawmakers that GAO officials found that plant security plans were often based on a template and lacked site-specific information.

McIntyre dismissed GAO's criticisms of the commission's security review efforts, saying they were "way off the mark."

"It's a hand's on, day-in, day-out inspection process," he said.

Concerns also have been raised over the NRC's plans to rely on mock attack exercises to evaluate the new security plans, with the GAO saying in September that it will take three years for such exercises to be conducted at all plants.

NEI also came under fire this summer for its decision to hire the Wackenhut Corp. security company to train and manage two permanent adversarial teams that would be used in the mock attack exercises because the company also provides security personnel for about half of U.S. nuclear plants.

Both the NRC and NEI have defended plans to use Wackenhut personnel in the mock attack exercises, noting the experience the company has in providing nuclear plant security and the strict scrutiny to which the exercises will be subjected.

In its statement Friday, NEI called for increased focus to be placed on efforts to integrate police and emergency responders with nuclear plant security forces. To help such efforts, a Nuclear Sector Government Coordinating Council, consisting of industry and government officials, has been created and held its first meeting earlier this month, NEI said.

]]>

U.S., Russia, upgrade security at Russian nuclear weapons bases

Mike Nartker — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0400

Upgrades at two Russian military bases are part of an effort by the National Nuclear Security Administration to improve security at 17 sites controlled by the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces. Work at the pilot projects, which were those Moscow felt "comfortable with starting off with," began in late-summer 2003, the Energy Department official said.

The NNSA program, set to be completed by fiscal 2008, involves installing "rapid" and "comprehensive" security upgrades at some of Russia's "most sensitive" nuclear weapons sites, according to the Energy Department official. The official refused to provide detail on what the upgrades entailed, describing them in general terms as "physical protection" improvements.

Russian contractors and NNSA teams design the security upgrade for a particular site; the measures are installed by Russian contractors and take about 28 months to complete, according to the Energy Department. Once the upgrade is complete, NNSA contracts with Russian firms for preventive maintenance, repairs and personnel training. Cost estimates for work at each of the 17 sites range from $10 million to $15 million "to do a complete job," the official said.

The Energy Department official said a "very positive working relationship" was established with Moscow in the program's early stages.

"We haven't experienced any difficulties," the official said. "I can't see any hurdles in the process."

All of the 17 sites where security upgrades are to be installed have been selected by Moscow, the Energy Department official said. No effort has been made to prioritize work at the sites, the official said, adding that the security level was "pretty uniform."

According to a report released in May by Harvard University's Project on Managing the Atom, U.S.-funded efforts to date have installed rapid security upgrades at about 50 percent of Russian sites containing nuclear weapons and comprehensive security upgrades at about 5 percent of those sites.

One of the report's authors, Matthew Bunn, said that the pilot projects were "a very promising development" and that they demonstrated that "a genuinely cooperative approach … can get the job done."

While noting that "on average," security at Russian nuclear warhead sites was considered better than security at sites housing nuclear materials, Bunn said that it was "very urgent" to install security upgrades at warhead-related sites. He added that Russian officials have confirmed that terrorists groups have conducted reconnaissance missions on such sites. Russian officials have not specified whether such sites included those controlled by the Strategic Rocket Forces, Bunn added.

The Energy Department official said that negotiations are under way on contracts to conduct security upgrades at Strategic Rocket Forces sites beyond the initial 17. In addition to Energy Department efforts, the U.S. Defense Department is conducting work at one Strategic Rocket Forces site, the official said. The official declined to say how many sites exist in Russia.

The work to improve security at Russian Strategic Rocket Forces sites builds on the "success" achieved in a U.S.-funded effort to install security upgrades at about 50 Russian Navy-related sites, the Energy Department official said. NNSA began work at Russian Navy sites in the late 1990s and is set to complete final security upgrades by fiscal 2006, according to the Energy Department.

]]>

Senate approves Governmental Affairs overhaul

Mike Nartker — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:00:00 -0400

In addition to overhauling the Senate Intelligence Committee by reducing the number of panel members from 17 to 15 and removing term limits, the resolution would also add an intelligence subcommittee to the Appropriations Committee and would change the Governmental Affairs Committee to a permanent homeland security committee.

The resolution was based on recommendations made by a bipartisan Senate working group led by Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"I applaud my colleagues for approving this critical reform, which will enable Congress to better monitor and support the executive agencies tasked with keeping America safe," McConnell said in a statement.

The resolution came under fire during debate Friday by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who charged that it did not do enough to change congressional oversight. McCain failed last week to amend the resolution to consolidate appropriations and authorization authority within the Senate intelligence committee - a move called for by the Sept. 11 commission.

"Have we embraced comprehensive change? No, we haven't. We haven't even embraced a modicum of change. We have said that the status quo is fine with us, and as far as the Senate is concerned, Sept. 11 never happened," McCain said.

]]>

Senators differ over Pentagon control of intelligence agencies

Mike Nartker — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0400

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the committee, Friday proposed that during times of war, the planned national intelligence director and the defense secretary should be given equal roles in the management of the intelligence agencies controlled by the Pentagon -- the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office. In the event of disputes between the two officials, the matter would be resolved by the National Security Council and the president.

Rockefeller's proposal was one of a number of intelligence reform measures outlined in a letter sent to Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the committee. The Governmental Affairs Committee is responsible for preparing legislation implementing intelligence reform.

In his letter, Rockefeller stressed the need to maintain a balance between national intelligence needs and the tactical intelligence requirements of battlefield commanders -- a concern often raised by Pentagon officials during congressional hearings on intelligence reform held over the past several weeks.

"Striking this balance requires, as it does now, close coordination between the Pentagon and the intelligence community," Rockefeller wrote. Rockefeller's proposal contrasts sharply with one unveiled earlier this week by the Senate intelligence committee's chairman, Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who would transfer direct control of the NSA, NGA and the DIA human intelligence service from the Pentagon to a deputy national intelligence director. Unlike Rockefeller, Roberts has also proposed converting the three main directorates of the CIA into separate, independent agencies and placing them under the national intelligence director.

Administration officials and lawmakers have met Roberts' proposal with reactions ranging from cool to hostile. Sept. 11 commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, however, said this week there are a "number of areas" of agreement between the panel and Roberts, such as the creation of national intelligence director with full budgetary and personnel authority. While there are some differences, Hamilton said in an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, "they are matters of less importance, probably, than the things we agree on."

Rockefeller, who has been critical of Roberts' proposal, reiterated his opposition Friday.

"While certain aspects of the Roberts legislation have merit, the heart of the proposal is flawed," Rockefeller wrote. "I would suggest that while the intelligence community is plainly in need of significant reform, it is not so fundamentally broken that the current structure be abandoned altogether."

In his letter, Rockefeller also supported giving the new national intelligence director full budgetary and personnel authority over all national intelligence agencies; separating the national intelligence director from the management of the CIA; and the creation of three deputy directors who would also serve as CIA director, defense undersecretary for intelligence and FBI intelligence director.

In addition, Rockefeller supported the creation of a National Counterterrorism Center, as well as national intelligence centers that would be responsible for both collection and analysis on issues such as proliferation -- both of which were recommended by the Sept. 11 commission. Rockefeller also proposed the creation of an intelligence community ombudsman similar to one in place at the CIA, who would address complaints concerning alleged politicization of intelligence; the creation of a "red team" under the national intelligence director to test assumptions made in analyses; and the creation of an intelligence community inspector general's office.

To help improve congressional oversight of intelligence, as called for by the Sept. 11 commission, Rockefeller offered support for providing the Senate and House intelligence committees with both funding appropriation and authorization authority. He also proposed eliminating term limits for intelligence committee members, but opposed reducing membership to between seven to nine lawmakers, as the Sept. 11 panel has suggested.

Noting that the Senate intelligence committee now has 17 members, Rockefeller wrote that "reducing the size of our committee by half would hinder not help oversee what are complex and secretive organizations."

This week, the Senate formed a 22-member working group to examine proposals on improving intelligence and homeland security oversight.

]]>

Lawmakers question security of DOE shipment of plutonium to France

Mike Nartker — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0400

The Energy Department is expected next month to ship 140 kilograms of plutonium to France to be converted into mixed-oxide fuel for use in testing at a U.S. nuclear power plant for possible future energy generation. The project is intended to help advance a U.S.-Russian nonproliferation program to eliminate a combined total of almost 70 tons of plutonium.

Antinuclear activists such as Greenpeace have long opposed the shipment, arguing that such transports could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. To demonstrate, Greenpeace activists last year were able to stop and chain themselves to a truck carrying a plutonium shipment as it traveled from a site in northern France to a facility in the south. French activists have also posted online information on the time and location of three plutonium shipments that occurred over the last two weeks, Tom Clements of Greenpeace International said today.

In an Aug. 12 letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham released Wednesday, Rep. Jim Turner, D-Texas, requested information on the department's efforts to ensure that the security of the plutonium shipment would be equal to that given to shipments of nuclear material conducted within the United States. Turner also requested information on how much control the United States would relinquish over the plutonium once it leaves the country, who would assume liability in the event of an accident and whether the recent elevation of the U.S. terrorist threat level influenced security preparations for the shipment.

"The consequences of the theft of this plutonium -- enough for over 20 nuclear weapons -- would be catastrophic," wrote Turner, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Turner's letter was prompted by the findings of a Government Accountability Office investigation into security measures for the plutonium shipment that he requested in June. A spokeswoman for Turner said Wednesday that the Energy Department has yet to reply to his letter.

In addition, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a leading critic of U.S. nuclear energy officials, Tuesday sent letters to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Homeland Security Department requesting security-related information by Sept. 10 on the plutonium shipment.

"It appears to me that an attack on the American plutonium that will soon be shipped to France would not pose much of a challenge, since publicly available materials suggest the trucks previously have been very easily identified, followed and filmed while traveling along highways in France, and were only lightly guarded," Markey said yesterday in a statement.

The Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration did not respond to calls for comment.

NRC spokesman David McIntyre refused to comment directly on Markey's letter, referring security-related questions concerning the plutonium shipment to the Energy Department.

McIntyre did say, though, that the physical security and protection of the shipment was a "very important" consideration in the commission's decision in June to approve the export of the plutonium to France. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is familiar with French practices, McIntyre said, and is "confident" that security arrangements for the plutonium once it reaches France will be "adequate."

]]>

Intelligence reform proposal finds little outright support

Mike Nartker — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0400

The most radical aspect of Roberts' proposal, which is supported by other Republican members of the Senate intelligence panel, would convert the three main directorates of the CIA into separate agencies and place them under the control of a national intelligence director. The new director would also be given control over some intelligence agencies and operations currently controlled by the Defense Department - the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the human intelligence service of the Defense Intelligence Agency. In addition, the national intelligence director would have full budgetary and personnel authority over the intelligence units of other Cabinet-level departments and the remaining DIA analytical elements.

Roberts' proposal is the latest move in a debate on intelligence reform set off by the release last month of the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, one of which was the creation of a national intelligence director to oversee the entire U.S. intelligence community. Most of the discussion on the proposed position has focused on what level of budgetary and personnel authority the new director should have.

U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday did not comment directly on the merits of Roberts' proposal, saying instead that the White House is "looking at all options."

"Senator Roberts is a good, thoughtful guy who came up with an idea, and … we'll look at it. … We'll take a look at it, determine, you know, whether or not it works or not. But there's going to be a lot of other ideas, too, as this debate goes forward," Bush said following a meeting with defense officials at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

While supportive of the creation of a national intelligence director, Bush said that he did not want the new director to stand between "me and my line operators, like the secretary of defense."

"In other words, once intelligence is in place and once we've … come up with a decision as to how to act, I want to make sure the person responsible for the action has a direct report to me," he said.

The White House may now attempt to "recapture the initiative" in the intelligence reform debate, possibly by releasing a set of executive orders implementing reform measures, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy.

The White House wants to show that "it's leading the debate, not following others," he said Tuesday.

The most hostile and vocal criticism of Roberts' proposal has come from current and former intelligence officials. Former CIA Director George Tenet was quoted Tuesday by the Washington Post as saying that the proposal would "gut the CIA."

"Senator Roberts' proposal is yet another episode in the mad rush to rearrange wiring diagrams in an attempt to be seen as doing something," Tenet said. "It is time for someone to slam the brakes on before the politics of the moment drives the security of the American people off a cliff."

Agence France-Presse Tuesday quoted Tenet's acting replacement, John McLaughlin, as calling Roberts' proposal "a step backward."

The U.S. Defense Department, which has urged caution throughout the intelligence reform debate, plans to examine Roberts' proposal, a Pentagon official said Tuesday. The official added that it was "too premature" to comment on the plan's merits.

"They key thing … is to entertain any and all proposals at this point," especially those coming from "an experienced hand like the senator," the Pentagon official said.

Lawmakers' Reactions

In Congress, Roberts' proposal was met with criticism by Senator Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee. While saying Sunday that he had not seen the details of the proposal, Rockefeller said that any action to disband the CIA while the United States was engaged in the war on terrorism would be a "severe mistake."

Rockefeller and other Democratic members of the Senate intelligence panel have also criticized the proposal for being developed by Republican senators without their input.

A spokesman for Senate Armed Services Committee John Warner, R-Va., said on Monday that while the senator has not been briefed on Roberts' proposal, he has "concerns" about any move to transfer Pentagon intelligence assets and to limit the defense secretary's budgetary and personnel authority "during wartime."

"There are legislative steps that can be taken now to strengthen our intelligence community without causing disruption during wartime, and Chairman Warner intends to work with other senators over the next few weeks to craft them," Warner spokesman John Ullyot said in a statement.

Warner previously suggested enhancing the stature and authority of the director of central intelligence as a reform measure.

Roberts on Monday sought to respond to critics of his proposal, citing as an example of successful change the 1947 National Security Act, which converted the U.S. Army Air Corps into the U.S. Air Force.

"Did the change of uniform, leadership and name 'gut' our air power capabilities? Absolutely not. In less than three years from its creation, the Air Force transitioned from the propeller age to the jet age and successfully engaged the North Koreans in both air interdiction and air superiority campaigns during the Korean War," he said in a statement.

The leaders of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman D-Conn., on Monday "thanked" Roberts for his proposal, but also did not comment on its specifics. The committee is responsible for submitting intelligence reform legislation to the full Senate by Oct. 1.

"We thank Senator Roberts for his response to our request for input on these issues and value the recommendations as we draft legislation to reorganize our country's intelligence agencies, with the ultimate goal of strengthening the intelligence system to make our country safer," Collins and Lieberman said in a joint statement.

"We also welcome the opinions and proposals of others who have expertise in this area, as we proceed with this important undertaking," they added.

Representative Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking member on the House intelligence committee, said that she welcomed news that Republicans on the Senate intelligence panel "favor major structural reform."

The office of Representative Porter Goss, R-Fla., who Bush has named as his choice for CIA director, did not return calls for comment. Goss has served for the past eight years as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

]]>

Senate chairman unveils intelligence reform proposal

Mike Nartker — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0400

As described by the senator on CBS's "Face the Nation" and in media reports Monday, Roberts' proposal envisions a national intelligence director that would oversee all 15 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community. The new director would have full budgetary and personnel authority for the agencies, including the ability to reprogram and transfer funding and line item budget authority.

Roberts has also proposed that the director lead a new National Intelligence Service, which would be made up of existing sections of the CIA and several intelligence agencies controlled by the Pentagon. Four deputy directors would be directly in charge of collection, analysis, military support and research and technology branches, according to reports.

The three main directorates of the CIA - Operations, which is responsible for information collection and covert operations; Intelligence, which handles analysis; and Science and Technology - would be converted into separate agencies and placed into their respective branches of the new intelligence service. From the Pentagon, the National Security Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency's human intelligence program would be placed under the military support deputy director, according to reports.

Roberts' proposal, contained in the 9/11 National Security Protection Act, would go far beyond the national intelligence director recommended by the Sept. 11 commission and supported, in part, by the White House. Much of the debate between the commission and the White House and the discussions in Congress over the new national intelligence director have mainly focused on what levels of budgetary and personnel authority to provide to the position.

In addition, Pentagon officials have expressed concern in recent congressional hearings that a national intelligence director could hinder the ability of battlefield commanders to receive necessary information.

"We just sort of stepped back from the trees, and instead of worrying about boxes and agencies and turf, just said, what would you put together now that really represents an answer to what the 9/11 commission has recommended, and what our Senate report has indicated, what is right for our national security, what is real reform?" Roberts said on "Face the Nation."

Roberts said that his bill has the support of the other Republican members of the Senate intelligence panel and that reactions from several members of the Sept. 11 committee have been "positive." He added that he planned to share his proposal with the White House and the National Security Council and that he expected the Sept. 11 commission to decide as a whole whether to endorse the plan by the end of the week.

"I'm trying to build a consensus around something that is very different. It's very major. It's very bold. But let's get it out on the table and let's talk about it," Roberts said.

He also anticipated criticism.

"It's not a tablet written in stone. If anybody wants to make changes, or if anybody wants to lob a brickbat or two, we're perfectly ready," Roberts said.

In response, a senior intelligence official Monday said Roberts' proposal is "reckless" and "makes no sense."

"Rather than bringing disciplines together," the official said, "it smashes them apart."

"Having brickbats lobbed at it is not an adequate response to this proposal. It deserves a wrecking ball," the official told Global Security Newswire.

The proposal also came under fire from the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence panel, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia.

"It evidently would do away with the Central Intelligence Agency as we know it at a time when the agency is leading a global fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Having not seen the details of the Roberts proposal, my reaction is that disbanding and scattering the Central Intelligence Agency at such a crucial time would be a severe mistake," Rockefeller said Sunday in a press statement.

Rockefeller and other Democratic members of the Senate intelligence panel also complained of having little input in the proposal.

"It's much, much better that we proceed on a bipartisan basis," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said on "Face the Nation."

Rand Beers, national security adviser for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry , said in a statement that Roberts' proposal was "very similar" to the intelligence reform measures supported by Kerry. The proposal, though, "needs to become bipartisan to be fully successful," Beers said.

He also called on the Bush administration to fully define its own vision for the new national intelligence director.

"Nothing will happen until President [George W.] Bush steps up to show leadership in this effort. So far, this has been severely lacking," Beers said.

]]>

Democrats should focus more on intelligence reform, legislator says

Mike Nartker — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0400

"I think that to get stuck in a fight about Porter Goss, after tough questions have been answered by Porter Goss, is not where we ought to be this fall. We ought to be implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission," Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said on NBC's Meet the Press. President Bush last week publicly announced his choice of Goss, who previously chaired the House Intelligence Committee, to head the CIA. Many Senate Democrats afterward did not comment directly on the merits of Goss' nomination, saying instead that they would use his confirmation hearings to discuss broader intelligence reform issues.

The president's choice has been most opposed, though, by the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence panel, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, W.Va. Even prior the official nomination, Rockefeller criticized Goss as being too "political" of a choice. The senator continued his criticisms after Bush's announcement last week, calling Goss's nomination a "mistake."

There are concerns, though, that Democrats could pay a political price during the November elections if they oppose Goss' nomination too vigorously. During the 2000 elections, Republicans were able to use then-Sen. Max Cleland's, D-Ga., opposition to the White House's stance on the creation of a Homeland Security Department in their successful effort to unseat him.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said Sunday on Meet the Press that while Rockefeller may oppose Goss' nomination, he has agreed to "expedite" his confirmation hearings. Saying that he believed Goss would be confirmed, Roberts defended Bush's choice.

"I understand that people have differences. I have differences all the time, but it doesn't mean that that person couldn't serve in a very fine capacity regardless of what the president tried to simply appoint them to," Roberts said.

Harman agreed that Goss would probably be confirmed. She described his nomination, though, as a "missed opportunity" for the White House to detail its stance on reforming the intelligence community.

Once confirmed, Goss would probably remain as CIA director regardless of who wins the November presidential election, be it the incumbent Bush or challenger Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Roberts said.

"You can't find anybody that's been a military intelligence officer, also a Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officer, and the chairman, understanding the politics of this, of the House Intelligence Committee. He's a good man," Roberts said.

A number of committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate this week are scheduled to continue with hearings on intelligence reform and the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, such as the creation of national intelligence director. On the Senate side, Roberts said Sunday that legislation implementing intelligence reform would be ready by early October. He added that the politics surrounding the November election should not be allowed to affect reform efforts.

"I think we can get this done, and I hope we can get it done on a bipartisan basis. Yes, it's happening during an election year, but this issue transcends politics, and the terrorist does not wait. This year we have to move, and we have to move now," Roberts said.

Harman criticized the pace at which the House is moving on intelligence reform, reiterating her calls for markup hearings on reform legislation that has already been introduced.

"The House is way behind the Senate in terms of bipartisan reform," she said.

]]>

Intelligence officials deny lack of imagination

Mike Nartker — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0400

In its report released last month, the commission said that a lack of imagination in understanding the threat posed by al-Qaeda had been "the most important failure" in preventing the attacks.

"Though top officials all told us that they understood the danger, we believe there was uncertainty among them as to whether this was just a new and especially venomous version of the ordinary terrorist threat the United States had lived with for decades, or it was indeed radically new, posing a threat beyond any yet experienced," the commission said.

In testimony before lawmakers yesterday, though, senior intelligence officials from the CIA, FBI and State Department stressed the changes that had been made in their respective departments since the attacks to improve analysis of terrorism-related information.

"The intelligence community that exists today is far removed from the one that existed on Sept. 11. That older community, however, seems to be preserved in amber in a series of reports that do not reflect the changes we have made," CIA Assistant Director for Analysis and Production Mark Lowenthal told the House intelligence committee.

One such change is the creation within the CIA of National Intelligence Collection Boards, which bring together senior managers of all national intelligence collection agencies, CIA Assistant Director for Collection Charles Allen told the committee. Such boards are used to help organize intelligence collection efforts against "specific" threats, he said.

The CIA is also examining ways to improve the training of analysts, such as the creation of a national intelligence university similar to the various war colleges in the U.S. military, Lowenthal said.

In addition, the agency is pursuing more "imaginative" measures, such as by having analysts meet with science fiction writers and Hollywood directors and screenwriters - "people who are known for developing the summer blockbusters or hit TV shows that often have a terrorism theme," CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence Jami Miscik said.

"It was an attempt to see beyond the intelligence report and into a world of plot development," Miscik said.

The intelligence officials also told the committee of the need to foster an environment conducive to analytic risk-tasking within the various intelligence agencies.

"To truly nurture creativity, you have to cherish your contrarians, and you have to give them the opportunities to run free. Leaders in the analytic community must avoid trying to make everyone meet a preconceived notion of the intelligence community's equivalent of the man in the gray flannel suit," Miscik said.

Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon testified that improved "red teaming" exercises were needed to help analysts determine the shape and scope of possible future terrorist attacks. Such an improved capability, he said, would help prevent too much of a focus on either conventional attacks or "the next incredibly outlandish attack," he said.

Yesterday's House intelligence committee hearing was the latest in a series of sessions by both House and Senate committees this month to examine the intelligence reform measures included in the Sept. 11 commission's report with the aim of producing legislation by the end of the year. President Bush has publicly come out in favor of the two key intelligence-reform measures put forth by the commission - the creation of a national director of intelligence and the creation of a national counterterrorism center.

During yesterday's hearing, Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, complained that the panel was moving too slow in implementing reform. She noted that there were already two intelligence reform bills before the committee - one sponsored by Democrats and one by Republicans - and called for markup hearings and votes to be held on the existing legislation.

"We've had 62 hearings just this year on topics that are relevant to marking up legislation. So why isn't our committee moving faster?" Harman said. "This committee is behind the curve, and we owe it to the 9/11 families and the country to catch up," she added.

Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., suggested that the existing intelligence reform bills may undergo markup hearings before the end of the month.

In an internal message sent yesterday to CIA employees, acting agency Director John McLaughlin said that it would take time to finalize the details on the new intelligence director, according to the Associated Press.

"As always in our business, the devil is in the details and the truth is that many of these have yet to be worked out," McLaughlin was quoted by AP as having written.

Some committee Republicans yesterday warned against acting too quickly to implement the commission's recommendations.

"Now, we're all applauding the outstanding work of the 9/11 commission … but we've got to be thoughtful as we go forward, and in the meantime we've got to continue the action already under way to significantly improve intelligence," Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York said. James Carafano, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, also agreed on the need to move slowly, in part, to ward off criticism once reforms are in place.

"If we rush and do this before the election, we will have poisoned the baby, because the criticism will always be that we rushed to do this, whether it's a fair criticism or not. And we will have a hard time getting this off the ground because people will be saying we threw this together even if it's to true," he said.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, rejected the idea that the committee would be "rushing" to act, noting that proposals to create a national intelligence director have been debated since the mid-1970s.

"So the notion that this is rushing to consider and do something about that, I think, would not be reflecting what recommendations and debates have gone on on Capitol Hill and other places for the last 30 years. So I don't think that can be constituted as rushing," Reyes said.

]]>

Kerry calls for Sept. 11 commission to continue work

Mike Nartker — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 -0400

The commission is set to disband Aug. 28. During a campaign stop in Norfolk, Va., Kerry called for the body to instead continue to work for an additional 18 months. The commission should also issue status reports every six months, beginning in December, on the progress made in implementing the recommendations included in its final report released last week, Kerry said.

The commission proposed a number of measures to help improve U.S. intelligence, counterterrorism and homeland security efforts. Among the recommendations were proposals to change the structure of the U.S. intelligence community through the creation of a national director of intelligence and National Counterterrorism Center, as well as proposals to help improve congressional oversight of intelligence and homeland security.

"The stakes are too high to treat this commission's report as something to just go away. The threat will not just go away. The commission's recommendation should not just go away," Kerry said.

The White House said yesterday that a Cabinet-level task force is examining the commission's recommendations and that President Bush may act soon to implement some proposals through executive order. In addition, a number of committees in both houses of Congress are set to hold hearings on the issue over the summer recess with the aim of producing legislation proposals by the end of the year.

Kerry yesterday called on both Bush and Congress to act quickly on the commission's recommendations.

"We simply must act, not as partisans, but as patriots, not to win an argument about what was done or not done in the past, but to win a war upon which our future depends," he said.

According to reports, members of the commission plan to make a number of public appearances in support of their findings. The commission did not return calls for comment today on Kerry's proposal.

Intelligence experts told Global Security Newswire this week that the devastating impact of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the work of the Sept. 11 commission have resulted in growing momentum for implementing intelligence reform.

"Politics dictate you have to do something," said Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the CATO Institute. "You can't flat out ignore it," he said.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he expects "a great debate" on the report. "I don't agree with absolutely everything that's in it," he said, according to Reuters.

The commission's report has "reinvigorated" prospects for reform, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy.

"A lot of things seem possible that were out of reach before," Aftergood said, adding that if reform is not possible now, "then it will never be."

One important test, according to Aftergood, is if action is taken on the commission's recommendation to declassify the overall funding provided to the various intelligence agencies. While the CIA has "stubbornly resisted" such a move, it would help to improve oversight of the intelligence community, he said.

"Nobody should have any illusions," Pena said. "This isn't going to happen overnight," he said of reform.

Some experts have warned that the CIA could resist reform efforts, noting recent speeches by former CIA Director George Tenet and acting agency chief John McLaughlin. In his farewell address to CIA employees earlier this month, Tenet noted the progress made in improving intelligence during his tenure as director, adding, "If people or leaders want to take you back in a different direction -- then it is your voices that must be heard to say -- we know better and we're not going to put up with it."

In addition, McLaughlin has publicly stated several times his opposition to the creation of a national director of intelligence, which the commission has recommended would be separate from CIA director. Congressional approval would be needed for such a move, but the position would only add needless bureaucracy, McLaughlin argues.

According to experts, though, the CIA may have little say in how the Sept. 11 commission's proposals are implemented.

"It's not really up to the CIA anymore," Aftergood said.

]]>

Americans will recognize CIA successes, Tenet says

Mike Nartker — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:00:00 -0400

In a farewell address to CIA employees, Tenet said the agency's record would ultimately be vindicated and called on lawmakers to be fair in their assessment.

"In the end, the American people will weigh and assess our record - where intelligence has done well, and where we have fallen short. And, aware of the difficulties and limitations that we face, they will recognize and honor your service. My only wish is that those whose job it is to help us do better show the same balance and care: in recognizing how far we have come, in recognizing how bold we have been, in recognizing what the full balance sheet says," he said.

The Senate intelligence committee Friday released a report criticizing the U.S. intelligence community's gathering and assessment of intelligence on Iraq's alleged prewar WMD efforts. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said that his panel's inquiry found that a "global intelligence failure" led to the widespread belief that prewar Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, none of which have yet been found, according to the Associated Press.

Roberts was quoted last week as saying that the report's findings "literally beg for changes in the intelligence community." The New York Times reported Thursday that the Senate intelligence panel is now set to begin work on crafting recommendations for intelligence reform. One oft-proposed recommendation has been the creation of a national director of intelligence to oversee the entire U.S. intelligence community - a proposal that has been opposed by some senior intelligence officials.

In his remarks Thursday, Tenet defended the improvements made over his seven-year tenure as CIA director and seemingly rejected outside attempts at reform.

"If people or leaders want to take you back in a different direction, then it is your voices that must be heard to say we know better and we're not going to put up with it," he told agency employees.

Tenet, whose resignation formally takes effect Sunday, has said that he is leaving the CIA for personal reasons, but some experts have said that his decision may have been influenced by the controversies surrounding intelligence operations and prewar Iraq. Tenet will be replaced by agency Deputy Director John McLaughlin, who will serve as acting director until a permanent replacement is named and approved.

In separate remarks yesterday, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called on the Bush administration to appoint a "nonpolitical" choice to help quicken the confirmation process.

"If they nominate somebody who clearly is nonpolitical, someone who clearly is able to call the shots in an objective way and not to respond to what the administration's policies are with the intelligence which is shaped to support that policy; if the person who is nominated … has that kind of a background - that kind of a backbone as well as a background, then I would think that there could be a fairly speedy and prompt … confirmation process," Levin said.

He rejected as too political the potential selection of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., a former CIA officer who has been the subject of speculation as a possible White House choice to replace Tenet.

"I think Porter Goss just goes in as too political, just automatically would be too political a person going in. I like him; I have a lot of respect for him, but that's not the issue here. The issue is you've got to restore public confidence in the CIA as being able to provide thoroughly objective, unvarnished, unshaped intelligence," Levin said.

]]>

Powell: Erroneous terrorism report 'very embarrassing'

Mike Nartker — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:00:00 -0400

The State Department in April released its 2003 "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report, which claimed that the number of terrorist incidents has been on the decline over the past three years and that last's years count, 190, represented the lowest reported total since 1969. U.S. officials at the time trumpeted the report as evidence that the United States was winning the war on terrorism.

Late last month, however, two U.S. academics published an opinion piece in The Washington Post criticizing the State Department for mischaracterizing the information in the report. The only verifiable information in the report shows that the number of terrorist incidents has instead increased annually over the past few years, according to Princeton University economics professor Alan Krueger and Stanford University political science professor David Laitin.

The State Department acknowledged last week that it had underreported the number of terrorist incidents that occurred in 2003 and announced plans to soon release an updated version of the terrorism report. In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday, Powell went even further and said that the report was "very embarrassing."

"I am not a happy camper over this. We were wrong," Powell said.

He denied any "political" motivations behind the incorrect numbers in the report, and instead blamed the error on poor "data collecting and reporting" procedures.

"I don't think there was anything political or policy-driven about it. It was just data that was incorrect or it wasn't properly measured compared to the way it was measured in previous years," Powell said.

During an appearance on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," though, Powell seemingly defended the main thrust of the report - that terrorism still poses a threat to international security.

"If you read the report, though, the report makes it clear that terror is a continuing problem. We didn't say it had gone away," he said.

Powell also said yesterday on "Meet The Press" that he is set to meet today with officials from a number of agencies involved in the preparation of the report, including the State Department, CIA and the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to discuss how the errors occurred.

"They are working all weekend long and they will have a big meeting … to figure out where the errors crept in, why they crept in, and we're going to correct this report as quickly as possible," Powell said on "This Week."

]]>

NIH official touts progress on biological defenses

Mike Nartker — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:00:00 -0400

Institute Director Anthony Fauci described the progress in developing new biological defenses during an interview with GSN on the sidelines of this year's summit of the Group of Eight global economic powers, being held at Sea Island, Ga. The G-8 nations -- Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States -- yesterday approved a nonproliferation action plan that calls for several measures against bioterrorism, including new surveillance capabilities, improved protection and response capabilities and strengthened efforts to protect the global food supply.

A new smallpox vaccine that poses less risk from side effects than the current inoculation has entered Phase 1 safety trials after having been found to provide protection in monkeys and mice, Fauci said. The new vaccine, which is being jointly developed by the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies, could be introduced into the national pharmaceutical stockpile by the end of next year.

Progress has also been made in developing a more advanced vaccine against anthrax, Fauci said. He said that a contract is likely to be awarded by the end of the summer to produce 75 million doses of the new vaccine, enough to vaccinate 25 million people since it requires only three doses instead of the current vaccine, which requires six inoculations. Fauci refused to say, however, what companies are being considered for the anthrax vaccine contract.

In addition, a new Ebola vaccine is set to undergo Phase 1 safety trials, Fauci said. He also said the Bush administration is seeking to develop at least two treatments against every Level A pathogen as classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Such agents include smallpox, anthrax, botulism toxin, tularemia and hemorrhagic viruses.

While some researchers have complained that the Bush administration's massive funding of biological defenses has hurt other scientific efforts, such as HIV/AIDS and cancer research, Fauci yesterday defended the outlay, which he said was the largest ever spent on a single research issue by the National Institutes of Health.

In addition to providing new treatments and vaccines against biological weapons, the Bush administration's biological research efforts have also provided valuable information on other types of infectious diseases, Fauci said. For example, basic microbial and host response research conducted as part of biological defense efforts have also aided research into new treatments against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, he said. Such additional benefits, however, receive less media attention and are less appreciated, Fauci added.

]]>

International terrorist activity down, State Department says

Mike Nartker — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:00:00 -0400

State Department report released Thursday.

Last year, a total of 190 terrorist attacks were conducted throughout the world, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks reported in 2002 and a 45-percent decrease from the 346 incidents reported in 2001, according to the report, entitled Patterns of Global Terrorism. The 2003 total represents the lowest number of terrorist incidents since 1969, the report says.

The number of fatalities and casualties suffered through terrorist attacks also continued to decline last year, according to the report. In 2003, 307 people were killed and 1,593 people were injured in terrorist attacks - compared to the 725 killed and 2,013 people injured in attacks in 2002. In 2001, 3,295 fatalities occurred as a result of terrorist attacks, with the bulk of those occurring during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, according to the 2003 version of the report.

This year's terrorism report provides "clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight" against terrorism, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said during a State Department press briefing.

State Department counterterrorism coordinator Cofer Black attributed the decline in terrorist attacks to increased international cooperation against what he described as a "common scourge."

"We're in this together. We have a commonality of interest. We're in the business of saving each other's people and citizens. The accepted objective is to protect innocent men, women and children. We're just doing a better job of it, and I think that's reflected in these numbers," Black said.

Black also said that he expected the number of terrorist attacks to continue to decline in the future. "It's my view that the trend line would continue, would still be positive," he said.

Black warned, though, of the continued threat of terrorism and of that posed by al-Qaeda.

"There is every indication that al-Qaeda continues to plan mass casualty attacks against American and other targets worldwide. Although the group poses as the defender of a great faith, they have hijacked Islam as a cover for their violence. Numerous Muslims have died in al-Qaeda attacks and much of the Islamic world stands with the United States in fighting this great evil," he said.

While there is evidence that state sponsorship of terrorist groups also decreased last year, the issue remains one of concern, according to the State Department.

"State sponsorship remains an unprecedented advantage for terrorists and enables them to acquire the weapons, training and logistical support they need to commit terrorist atrocities, and afterwards to enjoy safe haven and freedom from the prosecution of their crimes," Black said.

Of the seven nations listed by the State Department as sponsors of terrorism - Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria and Sudan - Libya and Sudan "most notably" increased their cooperation in the war on terrorism, according to the State Department report. The report noted that Libya last year provided terrorism-related intelligence to Western countries; took responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in the 1980s; and made a "historic decision" to dismantle its WMD efforts.

]]>

Energy Department restructures efforts to recover foreign uranium

Mike Nartker — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:00:00 -0400

In February, Energy's inspector general released a report critical of the agency's "takeback" policy, which allows foreign research reactors that use U.S. uranium fuel to return the spent material to the United States for disposal. As of 1993, 51 countries possessed more than 17,500 kilograms of U.S. highly enriched uranium, of which about 5,200 kilograms was eligible to be returned to the United States, according to the report.

The inspector general's report warned that the United States was likely to only recover about half of the eligible material, in part because of the takeback policy's voluntary nature.

Wednesday, Energy announced that the effort would be shifted from the Environmental Management Office to its National Nuclear Security Administration, which has a "proven track record in nonproliferation."

"This consolidation will refocus and strengthen our international campaign to deny terrorists opportunities to seize nuclear materials and will also increase our effectiveness in achieving the reduction and eventual elimination of the use of weapons-usable materials in civil commerce worldwide," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in a press statement.

Abraham said that he ordered NNSA to develop a "threat-based prioritization" for the recovery of those materials eligible to be returned to the United States. In addition, the office has been ordered to work with the State Department to improve the diplomatic strategy to encourage full participation in the effort. According to the inspector general's report, 12 of the 33 countries with U.S. materials have chosen not to participate in the takeback effort, including countries of proliferation concern to the United States such as Iran and Pakistan.

Abraham also said in his statement that he instructed his department to begin work on extending the deadline for the takeback policy, which is set to effectively expire in 2006. Some experts have said that extending the policy could make other countries more likely to convert their research reactors to use proliferation-resistant fuels, while other experts argued an extension could actually discourage the conversion of research reactors to use low enriched uranium fuel.

Matthew Bunn of Harvard University's Project on Managing the Atom praised the transfer of the takeback program, calling the move a "welcome and overdue" step. He told Global Security Newswire that it had originally been a "mistake" to place the effort under the control of the Environmental Management Office, which has a domestic focus.

Bunn also said, though, that the Energy Department has yet to announce an effort to place all HEU recovery activities under the control of one agency. The February DOE inspector general's report warned that the Energy Department lacked an effort to recover the more than 12,000 kilograms of U.S.-origin highly enriched uranium not included in the takeback policy.

A "task force" is needed, Bunn said, to travel to the most high-risk sites throughout the world and recover the highly enriched uranium "as quickly as possible" to prevent its theft or diversion.

Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced legislation that would create such a task force under the control of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Feinstein's bill calls for the use of "tailored" and "flexible" incentives to secure host-country cooperation in the removal of nuclear materials and would allocate $40 million in fiscal 2005 for the task force's efforts.

"This legislation will give our government the direction, tools and resources necessary to remove nuclear materials from vulnerable sites around the world in an expeditious manner. We have little time to spare," Feinstein said.

]]>

White House strikes back at former counterterrorism adviser

Mike Nartker — Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:00:00 -0500

In an interview with CBS' 60 Minutes broadcast on the eve of the release of his book Against All Enemies, Clarke accused the Bush administration of failing to adequately consider the threat posed by al-Qaeda after taking office. As an example, Clark said that he sent a memo in January 2001 to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice requesting a Cabinet-level meeting to discuss the al-Qaeda threat, but no meeting was held until April, and then only with deputy-level officials in various relevant departments.

Clarke also described White House meetings held soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to determine an appropriate military response - meetings that Clarke said he had expected to focus on al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, but instead involved discussions on attacking Iraq. In addition, Clarke said that President George W. Bush personally directed him "in a very intimidating way" to examine whether former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had any connections to the attacks.

The White House launched an aggressive defensive yesterday, with Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney conducting several media interviews regarding the allegations.

In a radio interview with conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, Cheney criticized Clarke for failing to stop several al-Qaeda attacks against U.S. interests during the 1990s while working as a White House counterterrorism adviser during the Clinton administration.

"He was here throughout those eight years, going back to 1993, and the first attack on the World Trade Center; and '98, when the embassies were hit in East Africa; in 2000, when the USS Cole was hit. And the question that ought to be asked is, what were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?" Cheney said.

The criticism of Clarke's counterterrorism record continued yesterday on the floor of the Senate.

"For him [Clarke] to have the gall or the nerve to start pointing a finger at President Bush saying he did not do enough in fighting the war on terrorism when Mr. Clarke was actually in a position to really do something for two or three years during the Clinton administration, I find unbelievable," Senator Don Nickles, R-Okla., said.

While denying that the White House focused solely on Iraq as being responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, Rice said yesterday that it had been a "logical question" to consider whether Hussein might have had some involvement.

"It makes perfectly good sense that when you're thinking about against whom are you going to retaliate, that you keep an open mind. And the president asked about Iraq. It was a logical question, given our history with Iraq. But I can tell you … that when we got to Camp David on Sept. 15, it was a map of Afghanistan that was spread out on the table," Rice said in an interview with CBS' "Early Show."

In her appearances yesterday, Rice also responded to Clarke's criticism of the administration's response to his efforts to brief officials on the threat posed by al-Qaeda soon after the inauguration. At that time, she said, Clarke was told that such a briefing was not needed and was instead asked to provide proposals to attack al-Qaeda. Rice also said that several of Clarke's proposals had been "tried by the Clinton administration."

"The key here was not to have a meeting. The key was to have a strategy. We needed a broad and comprehensive strategy that would not roll back al-Qaeda, which had been the strategy of the past, but would eliminate al-Qaeda," Rice told NBC's Today.

In several instances yesterday, the White House also said there were personal biases behind Clarke's criticisms. For example, White House press secretary Scott McClellan accused Clarke of criticizing the creation of the Homeland Security Department only after failing to obtain the deputy homeland security secretary position.

"If someone is going to make these kind of serious allegations, it's important to look back at his past comments and his past actions and compare that with what his current rhetoric is," McClellan said.

In his interview with Rush Limbaugh, Cheney also suggested Clarke might have personal reasons for criticizing Rice. "I've worked with a lot of them over the years. I suppose he may have a grudge to bear there since he wanted a more prominent position than she was prepared to give him," Cheney said.

McClellan yesterday also accused Clarke of having political motivations behind his criticisms, saying Clarke's "best buddy" was Rand Beers, a foreign policy adviser to the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.

"Why all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is 1 1/2 years after he left the administration. And now all of a sudden he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had," McClellan said. "And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book, and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book," McClellan added.

In an interview today with ABC's "Good Morning America," Clarke said he was not surprised by the criticism leveled at him by the White House.

"They've got lots of people, on taxpayers' dollars by the way, out refuting these charges. But they're not really going after the main charge," Clarke said. "They're throwing lots of things up in the air - flak - to divert me, and to divert other people, to, you know, basically personal attacks. And I don't think we should be involved in that sort of personal attack and trivia," he added.

Clarke also denied that personal or political reasons were behind his accusations.

"I'm not doing this because I'm disgruntled. I'm doing this because I think the American people need to know the truth. And if someone else had told the truth, if the story had already been out there, I wouldn't be doing this. But I think the American people, this year especially, need to know all the facts. That's why I'm doing it," he said.

The White House's quick and aggressive response to Clark may be indicative as to how serious the administration views his claims, according to Charles Pena, director of defense polices studies at the CATO Institute in Washington. Pena compared the reaction Clarke's book received to the relatively milder response garnered earlier this year by a book written by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, which also criticized the Bush administration for its focus on Iraq. Clarke's book is "much more damning" than O'Neill's, Pena said, because of Clarke's former position as a top White House counterterrorism adviser.

The White House, though, may also have felt that an aggressive response was needed to repudiate what it saw as false allegations, Pena told Global Security Newswire Tuesday. "If you are innocent, you are much more vocal about being innocent," he said.

]]>

White House urged to order staffers to cooperate with CIA leak probe

Mike Nartker — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 -0500

The Justice Department is investigating the leak of the identity and CIA status of the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson. This summer, Wilson publicly criticized evidence offered by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. Soon after Wilson aired his criticism, his wife's name and status as an undercover CIA operative was made public in a column by Robert Novak - a move Wilson has alleged was meant as an intimidation tactic.

Last week, NBC News reported that investigators in the case have asked Bush administration officials to sign a waiver releasing journalists from any promises of confidentiality they made to their sources. NBC News cited legal experts who said that the purpose of the forms would be to push journalists into revealing the identity of Novak's sources.

Earlier this week, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to say under repeated questioning whether White House employees would be directed to sign the waiver, instead saying that President George W. Bush expected White House staffers to "cooperate fully" with the investigation.

"The president has directed the White House to cooperate fully with the career officials who are leading this investigation. And that's exactly what he expects the White House to continue doing. We have been and we will continue to do so. I think also in the spirit of cooperating fully with the career officials who are investigating this matter, it's important that we do everything we can to preserve the integrity of the investigation and not compromise it," McClellan said.

Tuesday, however, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card calling on the White House to order its employees to sign the waivers.

"'Full cooperation' requires freeing these journalists from their obligations to protect their sources. I hope you will do so as soon as possible," Schumer wrote.

In a press statement, Schumer, who has been a strong advocate of an investigation into the leak of Wilson's wife's identity and a frequent critic of the Justice Department's efforts, noted the previous decision by the White House Counsel's office to set a deadline for complying with a Justice Department request for phone and e-mail records.

"It took long enough to get the Justice Department to do the right thing with regard to this case, we shouldn't have to keep pestering the White House to cooperate," Schumer said.

A Justice Department spokesman yesterday was unable to comment on the White House's cooperation with the waiver request or with the leak investigation overall.

While reaffirming the White House's cooperation yesterday, McClellan offered veiled criticism of Schumer's efforts.

"It would be unfortunate if people are seeking to politicize a serious matter, like leaking classified information, for partisan gain," he said.

Even if the White House compels its staff to sign the waivers, though, they may have little use in the investigation. According to Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, states that have dealt with the issue of reporters' privilege have determined that the privilege rests with the journalists and not their sources.

The waivers "will have no effect on the journalists' behavior whatsoever," she told Global Security Newswire.

Instead of being an effective investigative measure, Dalglish said that the waivers were more likely intended to get "political mileage" by shifting the blame for lack of progress in the case to a lack of cooperation by journalists.

Throughout the course of the investigation, both Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has since recused himself from the case, have publicly suggested that the media would play a role in its success or failure.

"I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers," Bush said during an October press conference.

]]>

Brentwood postal facility in Washington to reopen Friday

Mike Nartker — Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Global Security Newswire Tuesday.

Administrative employees are scheduled to return to the facility Friday, the spokeswoman said, adding that the building has been renamed in honor of the two employees who were killed by anthrax. The facility was initially set to reopen by the end of last month, but the move was delayed because of the Thanksgiving holiday, said Deborah Yackley. She also said that the facility's return to full operation was expected within the "next few months."

Employees who worked at the Brentwood Road facility prior to the anthrax attacks were given the option of either returning to work at the facility once it was successfully decontaminated or being transferred to another site. Yackley said that "a small percentage" of the 2,000 facility employees have opted not to return.

"We're being very understanding about the issue," she said.

Modified operating procedures at the facility will require fewer personnel than was needed prior to the anthrax attacks, Yackley said. While the Brentwood Road facility previously handled mail both to and from Washington, it will now handle outgoing mail only, she said.

In addition, progress is also being made in decontaminating a mail facility in Hamilton, N.J., that was also affected by the anthrax attacks, Yackley said. She said the facility had been treated with chlorine dioxide to kill any lingering anthrax spores and that Postal Service officials were now awaiting the results of thousands of test strips placed inside the facility to determine if the effort had been successful.

]]>