U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today announced sweeping U.S. sanctions against Iranian military entities suspected of proliferating WMD technologies (Tim Sloan/Getty Images). U.S. Imposes New Sanctions Against Iran’s Military The United States today announced its broadest sanctions package against Iran since the country’s 1979 Islamic revolution, designating its Al-Quds force a terrorist entity, its Revolutionary Guard Corps a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and moving to isolate individuals and financial institutions linked to the Iranian military, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Oct. 24)...Full Story

Senators Bash Draft Emergency Response Blueprint By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Influential U.S. senators this week told Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that his draft blueprint for national emergency response threatens to institutionalize many of the same grave management errors discovered in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (see GSN, Aug. 8)...Full Story

Rice, Conservatives Clash on North Korea U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has clashed with conservatives within the Bush administration and Congress over the handling of the nuclear standoff with North Korea, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 24)...Full Story

	Thursday, October 25, 2007

Senators Bash Draft Emergency Response Blueprint By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Influential U.S. senators this week told Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that his draft blueprint for national emergency response threatens to institutionalize many of the same grave management errors discovered in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (see GSN, Aug. 8). After missing a self-imposed deadline for issuing a revised plan by June 1 — the beginning of the hurricane season — Chertoff’s department released the draft framework for comment last month. In a Monday letter, the top-ranking lawmakers on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee — Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) — said the draft National Response Framework “raises several important questions” about whether last year’s Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act “is being properly implemented.” Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.), chairwoman of the panel’s ad hoc subcommittee on disaster response, also signed the letter. Lieberman said Tuesday during a committee hearing that he worries the federal government is woefully unprepared to limit the scope of disaster following a bioterror incident or another major attack. “Senator Collins and I … sent a letter to Secretary Chertoff in which we said that we know he's working on the National Response Framework, which is the groundwork for planning efforts, but there's no substitute for actual operational plans,” the committee chairman said.  In the case of an anthrax attack, for instance, a vaccine might “be delivered, but then it was not clear how it would get to the people who really need it,” he said.  “This keeps me and a lot of other people up at night,” added Lieberman, noting the “ease of bringing biological agents into the country or actually preparing them here.  And then the propensity [germs] have to multiply and spread has devastating consequences.” The 2006 management reform act was aimed at strengthening the ability of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and its administrator to lead the government effort to plan for and respond to domestic disasters, whether man-made or natural.  The legislation followed congressional inquiries documenting how federal planning and response blunders contributed to confusion in the wake of the 2005 hurricane. In their letter, the lawmakers cited a litany of ways in which they believe the draft framework ignores the lessons of Katrina, including unclear roles for particular leaders and fuzzy preparedness plans.  The senators also said earlier versions of the document contained some marked management improvements that, “for whatever reason,” Homeland Security deleted from the latest draft. Additionally, the letter took Chertoff to task for offering up only a “framework” — intended, the senators acknowledged, as a “user-friendly” document to simply “inform” emergency management personnel about response structures and tools — instead of a bone fide “plan.” “Over six years since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 and over two years since Hurricane Katrina, we still do not have sufficient operational plans for governing the response to disasters,” the senators wrote.  “The draft [framework] emphasizes how far away we are from accomplishing this admittedly complex and ongoing, but also critically important, task.  Consequently, we would like to know when you expect the operational plans required by the [post-Katrina management] act to be completed.” Among the complaints listed by the senators were: — The draft document contains “ambiguities in areas such as the roles and responsibilities of response participants.” — Despite the legislative provisions aimed at giving the Federal Emergency Management Agency and its top official “elevated and expanded roles,” the framework document “fails to even refer to either FEMA or its administrator” and delegates “key leadership and coordination responsibilities” to other agencies and individuals. — As reflected in the draft, the Homeland Security Department has stoked confusion by planning simultaneously to conduct “incident management” on the one hand and “emergency management” on the other, without explaining how the two differ.  Moreover, the dual-track approach “raises concerns” that the framework contradicts legislative provisions making “the FEMA administrator the lead in preparing for and responding to disasters, regardless of their cause.” — The draft similarly delegates command center responsibilities to two different facilities — the FEMA National Response Coordination Center and separate elements of the National Operations Center — but “fails to make clear for which incidents” each would take the lead.  “Given the severe consequences that can result when roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined,” the senators wrote, “the final [framework document] must clarify these ambiguities,” consistent with last year’s legislation. — The law “explicitly mandated that the [Homeland Security] Department must pursue a genuine all-hazards approach to preparedness and response,” according to the missive.  “The draft [framework] could be construed as separating natural disasters, where FEMA has the lead, from acts of terrorism and other man-made disasters, where the department’s director of operations has the lead.” — The reform act laid out distinct roles for two key crisis-response posts: a “principal federal official” who advises agencies regarding emergency management, and a “federal coordinating officer” with operational authority in out in the field.  However, “contrary to the lessons of Hurricane Katrina, the draft [framework] appears to create two separate chains of command” under the two leaders, improperly assigning to the principal federal official the role of “lead federal official in the field,” the letter reads.  Moreover, “language in what we understand to be the last discussion draft distributed to key stakeholders was much clearer and seemed to follow the requirements of the [legislation],” according to the senators.  “Continued confusion is not an option.” The lawmakers also raised questions about the Homeland Security Department’s process for drafting the National Response Framework.  They noted that a department steering committee kicked off the writing process in December 2006 with representatives from various communities — emergency management, fire service, law enforcement and others.  However, that process appeared to break down in March in favor of coordination solely among the department’s senior leaders, according to the letter. While the current draft is now circulating for public comment, “the nontransparency of that earlier stage clearly was a source of dismay for some of the stakeholders that had been actively participating in the rewriting process up until that time,” the senators wrote. The framework was released Sept. 10 for a 30-day comment period.  Homeland Security Department spokesmen did not respond by press time to requests for reaction to the lawmakers’ letter. Back to top

U.S. Imposes New Sanctions Against Iran’s Military The United States today announced its broadest sanctions package against Iran since the country’s 1979 Islamic revolution, designating its Al-Quds force a terrorist entity, its Revolutionary Guard Corps a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and moving to isolate individuals and financial institutions linked to the Iranian military, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Oct. 24). The Bush administration is expected to designate the Al-Quds force, the foreign operations division of the Revolutionary Guard, as a supporter of terrorism under U.S. Executive Order 13224 signed by U.S. President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., who announced the sanctions together with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, warned that financial support for the Revolutionary Guard is deeply rooted within the Iranian financial system, making it likely that the first measures specifically targeting another country’s military could also harm Iran’s civilian economy. The Revolutionary Guard “is so deeply entrenched in Iran's economy, that it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran you are doing business with the IRGC,” Paulson said. The administration listed nine businesses, three banks and five Revolutionary Guard leaders included under the new sanctions.  The Iranian Defense and Armed Forces Logistics Ministry is also covered by the measures, the Post reported. Rice said the United States is “committed to a diplomatic solution” to address the standoff between Iran and Western powers over Iran’s nuclear program, but warned that the Bush administration would “increase the costs to Iran” until it complies with international demands over terrorism and proliferation issues. Rice said the sanctions would create “a powerful deterrent” to business interests considering working with Iran while also protecting the international economy. In an effort to ramp up pressure on Tehran over the last year, the United States has sold billions of dollars in weapons to Israel and other Middle Eastern allies while leading a push in the U.N. Security Council to place a new round of international sanctions on Iran. The punitive measures are expected to isolate much of Iran’s military and its financial collaborators, according to U.S. officials.  Hundreds of firms outside the United States might be forced to cut their business ties with Iran or risk their financial ties to the United States (Robin Wright, Washington Post, Oct. 25). Meanwhile, Iranian nuclear negotiators said that progress could be made in defusing Iran’s nuclear tensions with the West, even as despite President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed his country would not back down, the Associated Press reported. Former top nuclear envoy Ali Larijani said that constructive ideas had been introduced in talks yesterday with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Italian Premier Romano Prodi. "In the last part of the talks with Mr. Prodi and Mr. Solana, ideas were introduced that were constructive and that might lead to further progress," Larijani said without giving further details. Ahmadinejad said yesterday that Iran could not be pressured by two previous Security Council sanctions resolutions on Iran’s refusal to halt its uranium enrichment, which could produce a nuclear weapon ingredient. “The so-called dossier at the Security Council is a pile of papers that have no value.  They can add to those worthless papers every day because it has no effect on the will of the Iranian nation," Iranian state media quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. He said moves to isolate Iran would only make the country more self-reliant, adding that Iran would not abandon its right to produce nuclear fuel and enrich uranium. “We are for talks, but we won't negotiate over our rights because it means giving up part of the rights of the nation,” Ahmadinejad said (Alessandra Rizzo, Associated Press/Washington Post, Oct. 24). Solana expressed concern yesterday that Larijani’s continued involvement in nuclear negotiations after Saeed Jalili replaced him as Iran’s senior nuclear negotiator this weekend could complicate future efforts to diffuse the nuclear standoff, Reuters reported. “We have to let some time pass to see how these latest waves in Iran's power structure settle,” Solana said. "It will be very important because the negotiation is already a difficult negotiation.  If you also must negotiate with various players at the same time, it will be more complicated still." “They were both at the meeting, Larijani and Jalili.  Larijani led the meeting, he was the one that took on all of the weight of the meeting,” he said.  “So he will continue to play an important role, in my judgment, in Iran's power structure” (Phil Stewart, Reuters I/Washington Post, Oct. 24). U.N. nuclear watchdog safeguards head Olli Heinonen plans to meet with Iranian officials in Tehran next week, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. “A new meeting will take place on Monday in Tehran with the visit of Olli Heinonen,” Iranian state media quoted Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, as saying (Tehran Times, Oct. 25). International Atomic Energy Agency officials intend to closely monitor the operation of the Bushehr nuclear power plant now under construction in Iran, Reuters reported Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov saying today. Some Western powers believe that Iran could use nuclear fuel that Russia has agreed to provide for the plant instead in a nuclear weapons program.  Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is intended only to generate electricity. “After the fuel is delivered to Iran it will instantly come under the full and total control of the IAEA,” Ivanov said, adding that the timetable for the fuel’s delivery would be determined as payment disputes are resolved with Iran. Russia has repeatedly postponed the plant’s completion, saying that Iran has fallen behind on payments for the facility. Ivanov said the U.N. nuclear watchdog would begin keeping tabs on the nuclear fuel before it leaves Russian custody and would continue to monitor it until it returns to Russia to be reprocessed. “The IAEA will arrive in Russia to put a seal on the containers with fuel,” said Ivanov, a former defense minister and possible Russian presidential contender. "Saying total control, I mean using video cameras and other equipment.  If cameras are off for even one minute, it will be a major violation of IAEA rules and norms,” he said (Reuters II/Washington Post, Oct. 25). Back to top       Rice, Conservatives Clash on North Korea U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has clashed with conservatives within the Bush administration and Congress over the handling of the nuclear standoff with North Korea, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 24). Critics have questioned why the administration continues to push diplomacy given evidence that North Korea was helping Syria develop a nuclear facility that was the reported target of a Sept. 6 Israeli air strike (see GSN, Oct. 24). Despite the recent reports, U.S. officials have publicly maintained support for the deal that would provide Pyongyang with energy aid and security and diplomatic benefits in exchange for fully declaring and disabling its nuclear program. Rice met yesterday with Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who in a recent opinion piece questioned the use of incentives to persuade Pyongyang to shut down its nuclear complex and addressed the White House’s “veil of secrecy” on intelligence regarding Syria’s nuclear effort. Republicans fear that national security interests could suffer from Rice’s efforts to press a diplomatic end to the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, the Times reported. Despite the intelligence on Syria, “we are shaking hands with the North Koreans because they have once again told us they are going to disarm,” said one top administration official who believes the White House should be tougher on Pyongyang. The diplomatic approach favored by Rice and lead negotiator Christopher Hill contrasts to the hard line taken by the administration during its first term. “Republicans are brokenhearted that the administration has done a complete U-turn on this issue,” said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) countered that diplomacy would “rein these guys inside a deal that has some transparency” regarding North Korea’s nuclear pursuits (Mazzetti/Broad, New York Times, Oct. 25). U.S. officials are overseeing the disabling of three key facilities at North Korea’s plutonium-producing Yongbyon nuclear complex, but hopes other nations will become involved in the process, the Yonhap News Agency reported. “We discussed the participation of not only the U.S., but also other members of the six-party process in the disablement phase,” Hill said Tuesday following a meeting with Japanese nuclear negotiator Kenichiro Sasae. The six-party talks participants are China, Japan, Russia, the United States and North and South Korea. The next U.S. team of experts is expected to arrive in North Korea on Nov. 1 to begin the disablement work, Hill said.  Washington hopes to see the process completed before the end of 2007 (Yonhap News Agency, Oct. 23). A South Korean official said yesterday Pyongyang must accept that it could not turn away from denuclearization agreements reached this year at the six-party talks, Reuters reported. “Given the current unstable political and social situation in the North, a long transition period would not be helpful in any respect,” Rhee Bong-jo, president of the Korea Institute for National Unification, said during a speech in Washington.  “They need to speed up the process” (Paul Eckert, Reuters/Washington Post, Oct. 24). Meanwhile, Japan warned the United States against moving too quickly to remove North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism as part of the denuclearization agreement, Agence France-Presse reported. Tokyo has been reluctant to contribute to denuclearization incentives until it feels Pyongyang has adequately addressed its abduction of Japanese citizens. “If the U.S. moves while completely ignoring the abduction issue, you can expect that relations between Japan and the United States will not improve,” said Kyoko Nakayama, special adviser to Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, told AFP (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Oct. 25). Back to top       Syrian Official Denies Reports of Nuclear Site Satellite images of a Syrian site attacked by Israel last month do not show an unfinished nuclear complex and the release of the photographs was an attempt to tarnish the country’s reputation, a Syrian Foreign Ministry official told the Associated Press yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 24). “Syria strongly denies the reports that the targeted site is a nuclear facility,” the official said.  The official described the reports as "part of a continuing campaign of accusations against Syria” (Albert Aji, Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Oct. 24). Back to top       Burns Presses India to Move on Nuclear Deal A senior U.S. official this week urged Indian leaders to press forward with implementing a bilateral nuclear trade that has faced serious political opposition in New Delhi (see GSN, Oct. 22). Indian political parties from both the left and the right have complained that the deal would give Washington excessive influence over Indian policies, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has delayed pushing the pact forward in an effort to keep his coalition government together. The agreement would enable India to purchase U.S. nuclear materials and technology in exchange for placing the nation’s civilian nuclear sector under international supervision.  For the deal to take effect, India needs to negotiate a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (see GSN, Oct. 10) and nuclear exporting nations must agree to exempt New Delhi from rules that ban key nuclear sales to countries that are not party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (see GSN, Sept. 24). U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking Tuesday at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, pressed Singh to pursue the deal nevertheless. “We hope very much that the Indian government will be able to go forward.  It’s going to have to find a way forward and make some tough decisions domestically,” he said.  “We don’t want to interfere in those decisions, but we are certainly saying this is a time for reflection, and we hope eventually a time for action to push it forward.” Burns emphasized that U.S. political conditions could also affect the deal because additional congressional approval is required for its implementation once the safeguards agreement is completed and international trade rules are altered. “We don’t have an unlimited amount of time, I’m sorry to say.  We in our country, as you know, will be entering an election year.  And if you’re thinking about significant pieces of legislation to put onto Capitol Hill, it’s never a good idea to do that in the spring or summer or autumn of an election year.  So we’d like to get this agreement to the United States Congress by the turn of the year,” he said (Greg Webb, Global Security Newswire, Oct. 25). Back to top       Growing Venezuelan Threat Justifies New U.S. Strategic Bomber, Air Force Officials Testify Air-defense improvements made by potential U.S. adversaries such as Venezuela are driving a U.S. effort to develop a new strategic bomber, two top Air Force officials said yesterday (see GSN, June 14). The Air Force has set 2018 as a target to complete the new aircraft, which could complement the current fleet of B-2 stealth bombers while replacing older B-52 and B-1 aircraft. The new design would continue to fill the role of a nuclear weapon-delivery vehicle that long-range bombers have served since the start of the Cold War, a Northrop Grumman official said last year (see GSN, Dec. 8, 2006). Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Michael Moseley yesterday testified that the existing fleet of aging U.S. bombers must be upgraded. “B-52Hs that comprise more than half our total bomber inventory and the ‘newer,’ sleeker B-1Bs (even they average more than 20 years old) do not have the ability to penetrate modern integrated air-defense systems,” the two officials said in prepared testimony to the House Armed Services Committee.  “They are great bomb trucks and serve today’s global war on terrorism needs well, but they are not survivable platforms in contested airspace.” U.S. adversaries have acquired modern air-defense systems that threaten these older U.S. bombers, they said. “Lest anyone think this reality is a long way off either in physical or temporal terms, Venezuela’s leaders have embarked that country on a path that might deny us access to that country or its neighbors in the near future,” they said, referring to reports that Caracas has struck a deal to purchase surface-to-air missiles from Russia.  “Clearly, we need a new penetrating bomber with the range, payload, survivability and lethality to project our nation’s power” (Greg Webb, Global Security Newswire, Oct. 25). Back to top       Air Force Was Midway Through Nuclear Decommissioning Program Before Accidental Transfer The U.S. Air Force’s mistaken August flight of nuclear weapons came at the midway point of a program to remove one type of delivery vehicle from the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the Air Force secretary said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 24). The United States has announced plans to decommission the Advanced Cruise Missile, a weapon stored at two U.S. air bases and flown on B-52 strategic bombers (see GSN, March 7).  The Air Force had been removing the warheads from the missiles stored at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., and flying the inert missiles to Barksdale Air Force Base, La. “This was the sixth of 12 planned flights to comply with the decommissioning aspects of the Moscow Treaty,” Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told the House Armed Services Committee yesterday. The treaty, formally called the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, calls on the United States and Russia to cut the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to less than 2,200 each by the end of 2012 (see GSN July 3). Following the unauthorized flight of armed missiles, however, all such operations at Minot have been suspended, according to the Washington Post (Greg Webb, Global Security Newswire, Oct. 25). Back to top       More Safety Concerns Expressed Over Los Alamos U.S. Energy Department auditors have urged the National Nuclear Security Administration to give “immediate attention” to a series of safety weaknesses at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Santa Fe New Mexican reported Tuesday (see GSN, Oct. 11). The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board issued a letter last week to NNSA Administrator Thomas D’Agostino to highlight several concerns. “While it is arguable whether any of the individual system deficiencies identified by the staff constitute an immediate safety concern, their collective importance and widespread nature warrant immediate attention,” said board chairman A.J. Eggenberger in the letter. The board’s letter refers to a report the board issued following a July review of some laboratory sites.  That report expressed particular concern over the operation of safety equipment in a plutonium facility and a tritium facility, the New Mexican reported. Officials have not made public the report’s precise safety complaints, citing security reasons, but one NNSA official said work has begun to address the concerns. “We will continue to work with the laboratory to ensure speedy action on these important safety initiatives,” said Donald Winchell, NNSA revitalization manager at the Los Alamos Site Office (Wendy Brown, Santa Fe New Mexican, Oct. 23). Back to top

Lawmakers Demand Faster Chemical Weapons Disposal A group of U.S. lawmakers last week backed language in a defense bill that would require all chemical weapons at two U.S. Army sites to be destroyed by 2017, the Richmond Register reported yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 19). Representative Ben Chandler (D-Ky.) requested that the deadline for destroying all chemical weapons at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky and the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado be included in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill. The deadline was introduced in the Senate version of the bill by Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Wayne Allard (R-Colo.).  The language is not included in the House legislation, the Chemical Weapons Working Group said.  A conference committee from both houses of Congress must produce a final version for submission to President George W. Bush. In the letter sent Friday to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and ranking Republican Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), Chandler noted that the Chemical Weapons Convention calls on states parties to completely eliminate all chemical weapons by 2012. Blue Grass and Pueblo are expected to be the last U.S. chemical weapons depots to finish disposal, as late as 2023 under current Defense Department estimates. “The 523 tons of nerve and blister agent at the Blue Grass depot, and the 2,611 tons of mustard [agent] at the Pueblo (Colo.) depot pose serious risks as the Cold War-era weapons continue to age becoming less stable and serve as terrorist targets,” Chandler wrote.  “Not only would a shorter deadline help protect these communities, but it would also save taxpayers about $3.3 billion.” Chandler called the proposed 2017 deadline “absolutely essential for the safe disposal of dangerous chemical weapons on American soil.  We are urging conferees to include this critical language in the final bill.” The letter was signed by Representatives John Salazar (D-Colo.), Geoff Davis (R-Ky.), Harold Rogers, (R-Ky.), Ron Lewis (R-Ky.), Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Diana DeGette, (D-Colo.), Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) A pilot disposal plant now being constructed at the Blue Grass Army Depot has to date cost about $43 million, according to information on the project released in October. Builders have completed the site’s plumbing and sewer systems, perimeter fencing, access road and roadway concrete, security vehicle barrier and control building, temporary electrical substation and other related utilities (Ronica Shannon, Richmond Register, Oct. 24). Back to top

India Test Launches Nuclear-Capable Missile India yesterday conducted its second successful test launch this month of its nuclear-capable Agni 1 ballistic missile, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Oct. 5). The missile was fired from a test range in east India, the Defense Research and Development Organization said. “The system that we tested today has more maneuverability and better re-entry technology than the missile that was launched on Oct. 5,” said one DRDO official. “It is a major success,” the official said. The Agni is a single-warhead, medium-range missile.  The 39-foot weapon can be fired from a mobile launcher and carry a 1-ton warhead to a target as far as 420 miles away, AFP reported.  Its range would enable it to hit most targets in India’s neighboring rival Pakistan (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Oct. 24). Back to top

Russia Reports Little Progress in NATO Talks A U.S. proposal to present proof of an Iranian threat before activating planned missile defenses in Eastern Europe did little to assuage Russian concerns about the system in talks between Moscow and NATO today, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 24). “We cannot agree on what was offered to us, and are sticking to our position," Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said after meeting with his NATO counterparts. Serdyukov added that the talks would continue.  “It seems to me that the Americans are starting to better understand our concerns and we welcome that,” he said (Associated Press I/International Herald Tribune, Oct. 25). Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said yesterday that the United States would deploy the missile defenses even if it cannot find common ground with Russia on the system, AP reported. “We explained this to the Russians,” Fried said, adding “that doesn't mean that they get a veto over our programs” (Associated Press II/International Herald Tribune, Oct. 24). Back to top       Pentagon Appeals Missile Defense Budget Cuts The U.S. Defense Department has asked Congress to reconsider funding cuts made to various missile defense programs in the fiscal 2008 budget, Inside Missile Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 23). The House Appropriations Committee cut $35 million from the $516.7 million request for the Airborne Laser program, which would install lasers on aircraft to destroy enemy missiles (see GSN, Sept. 4). “The reductions put at risk our prior investments and will result in the loss of critical industry skills that have been developed over many years, and potentially depriving our nation’s leaders with an opportunity to select [a] system that provides the country a unique, boost-phase missile defense capability,” the Pentagon said in a budget appeal (Marcus Weisgerber, Inside Missile Defense I, Oct. 24). The Pentagon supported a $45.4 million funding cut proposed in the House to the Space Tracking and Surveillance System, in hopes of avoiding the $59 budget reduction approved by Senate appropriators.  The Defense Department for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 had sought $331.5 million for the program, which would deploy a “constellation” of satellites to help detect and track ballistic missiles around the world. The Senate proposal “would delay the development and fielding of an operational constellation by two years,” according to the Pentagon appeal (Jason Simpson, Inside Missile Defense II, Oct. 24). The Pentagon has also asked appropriators to restore at least $100 million of the roughly $155 million cuts made in both houses of Congress to the Alternative Infrared Satellite System.  The original fiscal 2008 budget request for the program was $230.9 million. The program is being developed as a possible alternative or addition to the Space-Based Infrared System for tracking enemy missiles (see GSN, Sept. 13). “The $100 million of FY 2008 (research, development, test and evaluation) funding would be used to continue maturation of next-generation space based infrared technologies and to facilitate efforts to refocus the program towards providing a follow-on missile warning capability to SBIRS when needed,” the appeal states (Simpson/Liang, Inside Missile Defense III,  Oct. 24). 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.