U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher yesterday announced that sanctions had been imposed against a number of foreign entities for allegedly aiding Iranian WMD and missile programs (U.S. State Department photo). United States Imposes Sanctions on 14 Entities for Allegedly Aiding Iranian WMD, Missile Efforts By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States announced yesterday that sanctions have been imposed on 14 entities from a number of countries, including China, India and Spain, for allegedly aiding Iranian WMD and ballistic missile efforts (see GSN, April 5). The entities were sanctioned for violating the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 by transferring items to Iran since 1999 that are controlled under a multilateral export control regime or otherwise have the potential “to make a material contribution” to an Iranian WMD, ballistic missile or cruise missile program, according to a notice published yesterday in the Federal Register. U.S. officials have refused to describe what types of items the various entities may have transferred...Full Story

Concerned About New U.S. Incident-Management System, Emergency Responders Seek More Support By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States is moving too fast in implementing a new system for standardizing the response to terrorist attacks and other disasters, top emergency responders told a House of Representatives subcommittee yesterday...Full Story

More Realistic Missile-Defense Testing Should Occur Before Deployments, U.S. Congressmen Say By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The next U.S. president should defer future deployments of national missile defense interceptors and order more aggressive and realistic testing of the system the Bush administration plans to activate this year, two senior congressmen said yesterday...Full Story

	Thursday, September 30, 2004

Concerned About New U.S. Incident-Management System, Emergency Responders Seek More Support By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States is moving too fast in implementing a new system for standardizing the response to terrorist attacks and other disasters, top emergency responders told a House of Representatives subcommittee yesterday. State and local emergency agencies receiving federal Homeland Security Department (DHS) funding could be required within two years to implement the new National Incident Management System (NIMS), which was created March 1 under a Feb. 28 directive from President George W. Bush. The system lacks clarity, however, and does not provide for enough training or funding for personnel, according to emergency responders who testified before the Select Committee on Homeland Security’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Subcommittee. “The start of fiscal year 2006 is too soon to begin to tie the receipt of federal terrorism-response grant funding to NIMS implementation,” Los Angeles County Fire Chief Michael Freeman told the subcommittee. “The NIMS has 518 measurable requirements. It is unclear to us whether DHS will require implementation of all 518 or whether a percentage will be required or whether there will be a top 10,” Freeman said. “Implementing all 518 requirements within the next year will be a Herculean and perhaps unreasonable task.” Freeman’s reference to 518 requirements appeared to stem from the National Incident Management System Compliance Assurance Support Tool, notice of which was published in early June in the Federal Register. A Homeland Security official said today that the tool, which initially contained more than 500 questions intended to aid state and local agencies in assessing their compliance with the new system, is still under development and has already been shortened considerably. In any case, the official said, the tool should not be seen as a checklist against which Homeland Security will measure compliance. Compliance to be Mandatory but Remains Undefined In his February directive, Bush ordered the creation of “a single, comprehensive approach to domestic incident management … to ensure that all levels of government across the nation have the capability to work efficiently and effectively together.” Two days later, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge issued the National Incident Management System, placing the widely used Incident Command System (ICS) at its center. The system establishes “standardized incident management processes, protocols and procedures” for incident command organization, communications and preparedness, Homeland Security said in a March fact sheet. The effort is intended to allow first responders from different jurisdictions and disciplines to better coordinate responses to natural and unnatural disasters. Both Bush and Ridge said at the time of the system’s launch that adopting the new system would be a condition for all federal emergency-preparedness grants starting in fiscal 2005. The approach appears to enjoy wide support. The federal Sept. 11 commission endorsed linking Homeland Security grants to Incident Command System compliance, and, in a “report card” on the Republican House bill to implement the commission’s recommendations, Select Committee on Homeland Security Democrats yesterday praised a provision calling for such a link. Ridge told governors in a Sept. 8 letter, however, that in fiscal 2005, federal grants need only be “leveraged” to support the new incident-management system’s approach. Deputy Associate Director David Kaufman of Homeland Security’s Office for Domestic Preparedness, which administers the bulk of the department’s emergency-response grants, said in an interview today that the National Incident Management System Integration Center’s determination of “what implementation and compliance means and all the rest” will take time. As a result, Kaufman said, “We can’t exactly require that compliance this month.” Senior subcommittee Democrat Bennie Thompson (Miss.) said at yesterday’s hearing that Homeland Security has left unclear both what grants will be affected and how compliance will be determined and is imposing “unfunded mandates” on states and municipalities. “DHS expects the states to incorporate NIMS into their emergency operations plans, coordinate and provide technical assistance to local entities regarding NIMS and institutionalize the use of the Incident Command System,” Thompson said, citing Ridge’s Sept. 8 letter. “I am concerned that DHS is not providing additional grant funds to achieve these goals and that they are unfunded mandates. For example, I am not aware of any additional funding for state and local governments to train personnel on the NIMS, nor am I aware of any funding to revise and publish new emergency operations plans that are consistent with NIMS,” Thompson said. A Homeland Security official confirmed today in an interview that no dedicated grants are planned for National Incident Management System implementation, saying the costs will vary so widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction that such grants would be difficult to administer. “It appears,” Thompson said yesterday, “that DHS expects the states to leverage their general ODP grant funds for this purpose and choose between implementing NIMS and other equally pressing needs like specialized equipment, training, terrorism exercises and enhanced security at critical infrastructure sites.” Kaufman today portrayed the incident-management system as a constant that should run through all emergency-preparedness efforts, rather than a separate program to be addressed as such. “What we’re saying is we’re giving out billions of dollars,” he said. “You can’t be enhancing your preparedness adequately if you are not addressing NIMS implementation.” The integration center’s acting chief, Gil Jamieson, stressed at yesterday’s hearing that various training programs are being offered to help state and local agencies implement the new system. Jamieson also sought to clarify the timeline for implementation. “To the maximum extent possible, states, territories, tribes and local entities are encouraged to achieve full NIMS implementation and institutionalization across the entire response system during FY 2005,” Jamieson said. “Applicants will be required to certify as part of their FY 2006 grant applications that they have met the FY 2005 NIMS requirements.” “To the extent that full implementation is not possible during FY 2005, federal preparedness assistance will be leveraged to complete NIMS implementation by FY 2006. By FY 2007, receipt of federal preparedness assistance will be conditioned upon full compliance with the NIMS,” Jamieson said. Police, Firefighters, Doctors Harbor Special Concerns Mindful of the deadlines Jamieson outlined, Freeman and other witnesses involved in emergency response stressed the obstacles their colleagues will face in implementing the new system. The medical field’s concerns were not sufficiently taken into account in development of the documents governing the incident-management system, said George Washington University professor Joseph Barbera, co-director of the university’s Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management. Barbera said the new system is based on firefighting procedures and was altered to address police and firefighter, but not medical, concerns. “For many medical professionals reading NIMS, the language, concepts and inherent value are not intuitively obvious or clearly presented,” he said. “The decision to establish a National Incident Management System must be applauded,” Barbera said. “The development process used in creating the NIMS document, however, was not as open to professional input as many of us would have preferred. It is particularly unclear whether the NIMS development process provided a full hearing for the concerns and issues of acute-care medical and hospital professionals.” Barbera participated in the responses to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and was chairman of the District of Columbia Hospital Association Emergency Preparedness Committee at the time of the 2001 anthrax mailings. He said the latter incident showed the need for the National Incident Management System. “The anthrax incident demonstrated that the capabilities to effectively manage a large-scale, complex and rapidly moving health event were lacking, especially compared with the management success at an equally complex Pentagon response a month earlier,” Barbera said. “The central feature in the failures of the 2001 anthrax incident in the national capital area, in my professional opinion, was the absence of effective national incident-management systems at the local, state and federal levels,” Barbera said. “The adoption of the National Incident Management System, NIMS, if properly managed, will address this important gap in medical and public-health preparedness.” Police would be at a disadvantage relative to fire and medical personnel, since the latter are both better equipped and more familiar with overarching incident-command systems, said National Director of Legislative Affairs Steve Lenkart of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. Lenkart called for more money for police departments to help bridge the gap. “The federal preparedness grant system should expect to spend money on these deficiencies, perhaps disproportionately to other entities, and allow extra time to incorporate the principles of NIMS and ICS into their procedures,” Lenkart said. “It serves no purpose to involve police officers in a system where they will be handicapped by a lower level of training and equipment, backed up by deficient policies and a lack of funding.” Back to top       U.S. Senators Reject Attempt to Expand Authority of Planned National Intelligence Director By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. senators yesterday rejected an attempt to transfer direct management of several U.S. intelligence agencies now under the Defense Department to a planned national director of intelligence (see GSN, Sept. 29). The Senate voted 78-19 against an amendment offered by Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) that would have given the planned national intelligence director authority over the Pentagon-controlled National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency involved in national intelligence collection activities.  The amendment was one of a number that have been offered to a Senate intelligence reform bill that would restructure the U.S. intelligence community by creating a national intelligence director. The bill, authored by Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine) and top committee Democrat Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), would create a director with a strong degree of budgetary and personnel authority over the various U.S. intelligence agencies. The legislation, unanimously approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee and largely supported by the White House, is intended to implement the intelligence reform recommendations made this summer by the Sept. 11 commission. The House of Representatives is holding markup hearings this week on similar intelligence reform legislation, though the House bill would provide the national intelligence director with more limited budgetary and personnel authority than the Senate version. According to reports today, attempts to replace the bill prepared by the House Republican leadership with a version more similar to the Senate intelligence reform legislation were blocked by several House committee chairmen Supporters had argued that the Specter amendment was necessary to prevent the heads of the various intelligence agencies from experiencing “divided loyalties” between the defense secretary and the national intelligence director. During debate Tuesday, though, Collins said that her bill as written “strikes the right balance” between the new director and the Pentagon. The Senate also voted 93-4 to reject a second amendment offered by Specter that would have established a one-time, 10-year term for the national intelligence director. Both the Senate and House bills would establish open-ended terms of service for the new director — a position supported by the White House. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) yesterday offered an amendment that would establish a renewable five-year term for the national intelligence director. No action was taken on the amendment. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said yesterday that voting sessions on the various amendments being offered to the intelligence reform bill would be extended into early next week. Up to 300 amendments may be offered to the bill, reports indicate. The Senate leadership has expressed a desire to complete work on the intelligence reform bill before Congress goes into recess, which is scheduled to occur at the end of next week. Also during yesterday’s Senate session, the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), expressed his opposition to the intelligence reform bill. Among Stevens’ concerns was that the creation of the national intelligence director would result in “a new level of bureaucracy” — a view also expressed this week by the White House. “An NID [national intelligence director] is needed, but that type of bureaucracy that is set up by this bill is just overwhelming,” Stevens said. Back to top       U.K. to Increase Antiterrorism Spending Next Year The British government announced plans yesterday to spend an additional $162 million next year on antiterrorism efforts and equipment, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, March 29). Part of the extra funding is set to be used to buy more biological, chemical and nuclear protection suits for police (Associated Press, Sept. 29). Back to top

United States Imposes Sanctions on 14 Entities for Allegedly Aiding Iranian WMD, Missile Efforts By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States announced yesterday that sanctions have been imposed on 14 entities from a number of countries, including China, India and Spain, for allegedly aiding Iranian WMD and ballistic missile efforts (see GSN, April 5). The entities were sanctioned for violating the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 by transferring items to Iran since 1999 that are controlled under a multilateral export control regime or otherwise have the potential “to make a material contribution” to an Iranian WMD, ballistic missile or cruise missile program, according to a notice published yesterday in the Federal Register. U.S. officials have refused to describe what types of items the various entities may have transferred. Those sanctioned include seven Chinese entities — the Beijing Institute of Aerodynamics, the Beijing Institute of Opto-Electronic Technology, the China Great Wall Industry Corp., the China North Industries Corp. (NORINCO), the LIMMT Economic and Trade Co., the Oriental Scientific Instruments Corp. and the South Industries Science and Technology Corp.  The sanctioned entities also include the Belarusian company Belarus Belvneshpromservice, two Indian nationals identified as “Dr. C. Surendar” and “Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad,” the North Korean firm Changgwang Sinyong Corp., the Russian firm Khazra Trading, the Spanish company Telstar and the Ukrainian Zaporizhzhya Regional Foreign Economic Association. Under the two-year sanctions, which went into effect last week, the entities are prohibited from entering into contracts with, or receiving aid from, the U.S. government. In addition, the sanctions prohibit new licenses from being approved, and they suspend existing licenses, for U.S. exports of controlled, high-technology and military items to the entities. The sanctions only apply to the entities themselves and not to their respective governments. With the exception of North Korea, the nations have been formally notified of the sanctions, according to a U.S. State Department official. During a press conference yesterday here, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher defended the move to impose sanctions against a company located in Spain, a noted U.S. ally. “This law applies internationally and globally,” Boucher said. “If we find somebody in whatever place that’s violating the law, shipping equipment and technology … then we apply the law.” Five of the sanctioned entities were previously sanctioned in April for violating the Iran Nonproliferation Act — Belarus Belvneshpromservice, the Beijing Institute of Opto-Electronic Technology, NORINCO, Oriental Scientific Instruments Corp. and Changgwang Sinyong.  The State Department official today said that NORINCO and Changgwang Sinyong have developed reputations as “serial proliferators,” noting that the United States has imposed sanctions against both companies numerous times. The “main effect” of repeating sanctions on a particular entity is to extend their duration, Boucher said.  “Somebody who has been doing something more recently deserves to suffer the consequences for a longer period of time, so it sort of makes sense that if you impose the same sanctions again and again you’re basically extending the period of penalty for an extension of the period of activity,” he said. Back to top

Israel Considering “All Options” to Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapon, Defense Minister Says A senior Israeli official said that his country was considering “all options” to stop Iran in its suspected nuclear weapons drive, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 29). “The question is what will happen first: nuclear capability or a change in the regime,” Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot. “The important point is to prevent the present regime from reaching a nuclear option,” he added, saying, “all options for preventing this will be considered.” (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Sept. 29). Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said yesterday that Iran’s nuclear development was peaceful and that his country was prepared to negotiate with European nations to assuage fears that it was seeking a nuclear weapons capability. “Nobody has the right to deny Iran its right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” he said. “We are ready to negotiate with them on any instrument or mechanism that would remove the concern of others.” Kharazi said no new meeting with the European countries had been scheduled, according to the New York Times. Kharazi said the Nov. 2 U.S. elections offered opportunities for improvement in relations with the United States. “A president in office for a second term becomes more realistic,” he said. “But let’s wait and see who comes to office first (Susan Chira, New York Times, Sept. 30). Elsewhere, South African officials yesterday supported Iran’s pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology, AFP reported. South Africa “believes that a confrontation should be avoided and a solution should be sought urgently,” Abdul Minty, South Africa’s representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a statement. His country would “be interacting intensively with all parties concerned and work for a satisfactory solution,” Minty pledged. South African President Thabo Mbeki met yesterday with Iranian national security adviser Hassan Rohani in Cape Town for about an hour to discuss the nuclear standoff, said presidential spokesman Bheki Khumalo (AFP/SpaceWar.com, Sept. 29). Back to top       North Korea Will Not Benefit by Stalling Six-Nation Nuclear Talks, Armitage Says North Korea would not improve its options by waiting to resume six-party talks until after the Nov. 2 U.S. elections, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 29). “If the North Koreans have come to the conclusion they want to wait for the result of the election, fine, let them do so,” Armitage said. “If North Koreans have come to the conclusion they want to wait to see if they can get a better deal, that is a big miscalculation for them.” Armitage said Tuesday that President George W. Bush was “very patient” on resolving the standoff through the multilateral negotiations. “They are still important, they are important today, they will be important Nov. 3,” he said (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Sept. 29). North Korea’s postponement of talks would slow agreements on a multilateral security guarantee and aid for the communist nation, Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday. “I think what they are also delaying is an opportunity for the international community to give them what they’ve asked for: a security agreement and to provide them assistance with their internal economic needs, whether it’s in the form of fuel from some of the countries initially or other economic assistance,” he said. “All of that, I think, is put into abeyance,” he added (Matthew Lee, Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Sept. 29). Meanwhile, North Korea announced today it was bolstering its defenses in response to what it described as increased U.S. air and naval presence in South Korea, United Press International reported. Pyongyang would strengthen its “self-defense capability,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency announced (United Press International/Washington Times, Sept. 30). Back to top       United States Opposes Third Term for IAEA Chief The United States would oppose a third term for the head of the international nuclear watchdog, but would do so based only on a two-term principle, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 27). Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is expected to seek a third term at the helm of the Vienna-based institution. The United States, however, supports the “Geneva rule,” Powell said — a position taken by the top 10 funding contributors to international organizations that heads of such agencies should not serve more than two terms. “We think the Geneva rule is a good rule: two terms,” Powell said. “It’s not been followed in the past on many occasions, more often than not, but we still think it’s a good, useful rule. But we will make our judgment on specific cases when the time comes” “I’ve told him that, Mohamed knows, we’ve talked about it,” Powell added. “It’s a good rule (but) he’s free to offer his candidacy” (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Sept. 29). Back to top       Pakistan Denies Access to Khan, IAEA Says Pakistan has refused to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency with direct access to top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who has confessed to transferring nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said today (see GSN, Sept. 23). “The Pakistanis have made it clear that while they will provide the IAEA all information available to them, direct access to Mr. Khan would not be possible,” Gwozdecky said. The agency has repeatedly asked Pakistan for access to Khan to aid its investigation into the nuclear network revealed by the scientist, according to Agence France-Presse. Gwozdecky said that today’s statement was the first public acknowledgement by the agency that Pakistan has refused access to Khan. “From the beginning, we have made it clear to the Pakistani authorities that we would like the maximum amount of information on the Khan network, including access to any person with such knowledge,” Gwozdecky said (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Sept. 30). Back to top       Official U.S. Team to Look for Long-Lost U.S. Bomb A team of 20 scientists from the U.S. Defense Department and the Energy Department’s national laboratories met yesterday with a retired Air Force officer as part of a new effort to recover a hydrogen bomb lost off the coast of Georgia in 1958, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Sept. 14). The scientists met with retired Air Force Lt. Col. Derek Duke, who has searched for the missing weapon for the past several years. The bomb was lost when a B-47 bomber collided with a fighter jet during a training flight, according to AP. Duke has said that he has detected unusual radiation levels in Wassaw Sound near Tybee Island. The team is expected today to go “to Wassaw Sound where Mr. Duke believes he knows where the bomb is located,” said Air Force Lt. Col. Frank Smolinsky. “They will take radiation readings and samples back to the national labs ... and see if they can confirm or not confirm the possible presence of the bomb in that location.” The bomb is one of 11 reported U.S. “Broken Arrows,” nuclear bombs that were lost and never recovered (Associated Press/Washington Times, Sept. 30). Back to top

Maryland Man Charged With Possessing Ricin A federal grand jury in Maryland yesterday indicted a man on a charge of possessing weaponized ricin, among other crimes, the Washington Post reported. Myron Tereshchuk, 42, could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted, prosecutors said. Federal agents discovered the ricin, along with nicotine sulfate — a regulated chemical used in pesticides — and at least eight hand grenades during a search of Tereshchuk’s suburban Maryland home in March, according to FBI court filings. Agents had been investigating a $17 million extortion plot that Tereshchuk directed against a business competitor, charges to which he pleaded guilty in Virginia in June. Court documents do not indicate how much ricin Tereshchuk possessed or in what fashion it was weaponized, the Post reported. Marcia Murphy, a spokeswoman for Maryland U.S. Attorney Thomas DiBiagio, declined to say how Tereshchuk allegedly planned to use the toxins or whether investigators suspect that he is connected to a terrorist group, according to the Post (Eric Rich, Washington Post, Sept. 30). Back to top

More Realistic Missile-Defense Testing Should Occur Before Deployments, U.S. Congressmen Say By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The next U.S. president should defer future deployments of national missile defense interceptors and order more aggressive and realistic testing of the system the Bush administration plans to activate this year, two senior congressmen said yesterday. In letters addressed to President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential challenger Senator John Kerry (Mass.), Representatives John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) wrote that more testing “would be preferable” even before placing the equipment already fielded this year on operational status. “But failing this, the system must undergo a much more demanding regimen of flight tests in the future,” they said. The U.S. Defense Department is preparing to activate by the end of the year some components of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, in accordance with a directive by Bush in December 2002. That initial deployment is set to include up to six interceptor missiles based at Fort Greely, Alaska, with a goal of placing 20 there and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California by 2006. The administration this year requested approximately $591 million in advance money to deploy an additional 20 interceptor missiles in 2006 and 2007, 10 of which are intended for defense against some future ICBM capability in Southwest Asia. That money, the congressmen wrote, should be diverted into “more robust” testing. “If you are president in 2005, we urge you to increase the number and realism of tests so that the Department of Defense, Congress, the people, and those we aim to deter will know we are fielding an effective system,” they wrote. Spratt is the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee and a respected missile defense expert in Congress. Reyes is the senior Democrat of the committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee. Testing, System Deficiencies Alleged The congressmen questioned whether system components planned for activation would have much ability to intercept a North Korean-launched warhead in space. “The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has not conducted an intercept flight-test of this system for almost two years, and the last test in December 2002 was a failure,” they wrote.  “Moreover, the ‘kill vehicle’ that intercepts the oncoming warhead has never been tested with the booster that it is mounted upon, and the system has never had an integrated test with the radars that will actually guide it in operation,” they wrote. “It begs the question of what you mean by ‘operational’ if it hasn’t been tested and you cannot derive based on numerous test shots what the operational likelihood of a takeout is,” Spratt said in an interview today with Global Security Newswire (see GSN, Sept. 29). The congressmen also noted that the deployed components this year would not include the system’s “most essential sensors”: an X-band radar and a satellite infrared tracking system (see related GSN story, today). “Both are needed to provide precise tracking, particularly after the boost phase is complete, and to ensure that the kill vehicle can distinguish the incoming warheads from debris and countermeasures,” they wrote. The radar will not be ready until next year, will itself lack components, and is not a designated operational asset, but is intended for testing, they said. Only two prototypes of the satellite system will be deployed in the next few years, “far short of an effective constellation.” Spratt said the congressmen are not recommending canceling the activation planned for this year, considering the extensive efforts already made in preparation. “They’ve already begun, if you want to go ahead and put them in the ground, fine, the money is budgeted, the project’s under way, but before you commit to the second phase, we think it would be wise for you to use some or a substantial part of that money to do real testing, [or even] basic testing, mating the EKV [exoatmopheric kill vehicle] to the current booster.” ‘Avoid Exaggeration’ The congressmen also urged the presidential candidates to “avoid exaggerating the capabilities of the GMD system.” They argued that deploying without rigorous testing could “send the wrong signal to our adversaries,” deprive the United States of determining weaknesses and shortcomings of the system, and “create a false sense of security.” Bush at a campaign event in August expressed confidence in the system’s capabilities, stating, “We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world, ‘You fire, we’re going to shoot it down.’” The congressmen also advised the candidates to “revisit the opportunity costs of national missile defense,” by considering a reallocation of part of the $10 billion annual budget toward other defense priorities such as theater missile defense. “Should the voters choose you in November, we urge you to consider whether the overall amount of funding for ballistic missile defense is commensurate to the threat, and whether the balance struck between national missile defense (NMD) and TMD is appropriate,” they wrote. Back to top       SBIRS-High Could Face Two-Year Delay Completion of the Space-Based Infrared System-High could be delayed by two years instead of the previously estimated one year, the program’s director said Monday. The system is intended to replace the current U.S. system of satellites to detect missile launches (see GSN, April 1). Contractors Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman had estimated a one-year delay for delivery of the system’s geosynchronous satellite segment. “We are less optimistic,” Air Force Col. Randy Weidenheimer told Defense Daily. He said the estimated launch date could slip from October 2006 to as late as fall 2008 (Amy Butler, Defense Daily, Sept. 30). Weidenheimer also said Northrop Grumman committed a “pretty significant error” by improperly using a key piece of test equipment, thereby causing an 18-month delay in the delivery of the first SBIRS-High sensor. Using the test equipment in the wrong mode led incomplete data to be submitted to engineers fixing high levels of electromagnetic interference coming from the satellite, Weidenheimer said. Air Force program executive officer Lt. Gen. Brian Arnold awarded the contractor team $1 million out of a potential $8 million fee because of the delay, Weidenheimer said (Amy Butler, Defense Daily, Sept. 30). Back to top       Funding Cuts Delay THAAD Flight Test The first flight test of the revamped U.S. Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, intended to intercept short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, has been delayed due to funding cuts, Aerospace Daily & Defense Report reported today (see GSN, Aug. 20). While the test had initially been scheduled for December, it is now set to be held sometime in the first quarter of 2005 due to a $30 million cut from the Missile Defense Agency’s program budget request in the fiscal 2005 defense appropriations bill, Defense Department officials said. Delays are also expected for future tests of the system, which are scheduled to be held in the next few years (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, Sept. 30). Back to top

Most Mexican Food Exporters Registered Under New U.S. Bioterror Rules The large majority of Mexican food exporters have registered with the United States to comply with U.S. bioterrorism regulations, a Mexican official said yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 16). The United States has required 420,000 U.S. and foreign food handling companies to register their products with the Food and Drug Administration, the Washington Post reported. Officials hope that would allow them to trace an attack on the food supply back to its origin. The measure took effect earlier this year, but officials delayed its full implementation until Nov. 1 to allow companies additional time to register. Only about half of the required companies had registered by August, according to FDA estimates. Nearly all Mexican food exporters are registered, said Angel Villalobos, the Mexican Economy Department’s undersecretary for international negotiations. “Ninety-five percent of those exporters are already ready to go, are in compliance,” Villalobos said. However, many small Mexican and U.S. companies that drive one or two trucks of goods across the border a year are not yet in compliance, said Lee Frankel, who represents more than 100 large and small U.S. importers of Mexican produce. “The most affected will be the members of what I call the ‘informal trade,’ or the smallest companies,” said Frankel. “A lot of those companies will be stopped at the border and not be allowed to move goods across” (Will Weissert, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Sept. 29). Meanwhile, a consumer group said yesterday that food industry lobbyists unduly influenced lawmakers in the crafting of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and weakening the rules regarding advance notice of food shipments, the Washington Post reported. Lobbyists for the Grocery Manufacturers of America and for Altria Group Inc., Kraft Foods’ parent company, each met with Office of Management and Budget officials three and four times, according to records on the agency’s Web site. Consumer groups supported proposed regulations issued by the FDA in early 2003. The final rule on prior notice, issued in October 2003, significantly reduced the requirements, according to the Post. The final rule on record keeping of shipments has yet to be issued. “It seems pretty obvious that the additional lobbying done by the industry had an impact,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “Industry got another bite at the apple and, as far as we can tell, none of the consumer groups did. And the result is regulations that the industry likes, but that don’t fully protect the public interest.” “FDA may well not have the appropriate authorities to respond quickly if there was a terrorist attack using the food supply” because of the changes, she said. There was nothing unusual about the meetings, said Chad Kolton, an OMB spokesman. If consumer groups had requested similar meetings, they would have taken place, he said. Kolton added that his agency had little to do with changes in the planned regulations (Marc Kaufman, Washington Post, Sept. 30).   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.