Congressional Record: May 21, 2001 (House)
Page H2367-H2372
NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. [...]
Mr. Speaker, the second topic of my defense special order tonight I
briefly discussed last week in part of a 5-minute speech, and I want to
elaborate on that.
It deals with another of President Bush's top priorities, and that is
national missile defense. When President Bush came out with his major
speech and when we came out with our bill that passed in the last
session of Congress making it our national policy to deploy missile
defense, there were those on the left who began to criticize the
decision that the Congress made and, more recently, the decision that
President Bush made to defend America.
Now, last year in the height of the debate of the Presidential
campaign, even though President Clinton reversed himself politically
and came out in support of our missile defense initiative, there were
those in the Congress who were opposed to missile defense.
They largely based their opposition on the findings of one person.
That one person is a scientist at MIT, one person who has consistently
opposed America's efforts to defend herself from the standpoint of a
long-range intercontinental ballistic missile.
That individual was given prime air time on national TV by Dan Rather
as he focused for 20 minutes on one professor's opposition to missile
defense and one professor's public accusations that the missile defense
organization leaders, General Kadish and our other top brass, as well
as the Secretary of Defense were lying, were involved in a massive
cover-up, were involved in giving the American people false
information, were hiding information from the American people, were
denying America's innocent citizens the right to know all the facts.
This individual on national TV and also in national print media who
gave him prime exposure went on to say, this is a massive cover-up. It
is fraud against the American people. It is outrageous what is
happening. All of these statements were made last year in the height
and the midst of a Presidential election.
Mr. Speaker, a few of our colleagues got together and decided even
though they were the same ones who opposed our missile defense bill,
even though it passed with a veto-proof margin earlier in the session,
they came together as a group and signed a letter to the head of the
FBI demanding a criminal investigation of the Department of Defense, of
the ballistic missile defense organization, of General Kadish and of
the contractors working on missile defense.
They had a special order. They had a press conference out in the
Triangle. They were on national TV. They were on talk radio and fed
this story of one professor around the country saying that America was
having this massive fraud committed against it, and that no one should
support missile defense until the FBI had conducted a complete and
thorough investigation of the allegations made by this professor.
{time} 1915
That was what occurred last year, Mr. Speaker.
Like so many other issues the media focuses on, the American people
were sold a bill of goods. Now, amazingly, Mr. Speaker, with all of
this rhetoric that spewed out of this city, claiming that there was
fraud and abuse and lies and criminal activity, even in denying the
facts, in fact, the professor cited a former TRW employee who claims
they had hard evidence that one company was falsifying data, that one
company was dumbing down the tests, that one company was, in fact,
committing criminal activity.
What has been amazing, Mr. Speaker, is that we are now into the
middle of May. The silence since the end of February has been
deafening, because we just found out within the last 2 weeks that, on
February 26 of this year, the FBI concluded its investigation. The
Department of Justice issued a statement.
Now, we did not hear that professor go back on the Dan Rather show.
We did not hear Dan Rather call for an update for the American people.
We did not hear my colleagues on the other side stand up and present
the statement.
So, Mr. Speaker, I took the time tonight to go over what the FBI said
in their memo dated February 26, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, I include the FBI memo for the Record as follows:
National Missile Defense System Fraud Against the Government--
Department of Defense
In a June 15, 2000, letter to Director Freeh, Dennis J.
Kucinich, U.S. House of representatives, and 52 other members
of Congress requested an FBI investigation into allegations
that the Department of Defense (DOD) covered up fraud
relevant to the experimental failure of testing involving the
National Missile Defense System. This anti-missile defense
system is designed to defeat nuclear warheads launched at the
United States by inexperienced nuclear powers such as Iran,
Iraq and North Korea by intercepting the warhead carrying
missiles in the air.
Specifically the Congressional letter detailed allegations
by anti-missile critic Dr. Theodore Postol, a respected
scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
that not only is the $50 billion National Missile Defense
System incapable of distinguishing between warheads of
incoming missiles and decoys, but the DOD and its contractors
have altered data to hide the failure. Dr. Postol also
contended that his letter to the White House, its
attachments, and all the information and data he used to draw
his conclusions of fraud and coverup, were derived from
unclassified material and were subsequently classified by the
DOD in an effort to conceal the fraud and wrongdoing.
The Washington Field Office (WFO) of the FBI opened a
preliminary inquiry into allegations of fraud in the National
Missile Defense System to specifically address the following
items: (1) Coordinate with Defense Criminal Investigative
Service (DCIS) and obtain copies of material alleging fraud
and coverup prepared by Dr. Postol; (2) address DOD's
justification for classifying Dr. Postol's information
and (3) obtain details of a DCIS Qui Tam inquiry that
precipitated Dr. Postol's criticism of the National
Missile Defense System.
WFO opened up a preliminary inquiry into allegations of
fraud in the National Missile Defense System on July 25,
2000. Contact was made with the DCIS who agreed to work
jointly with the FBI in conducting the preliminary inquiry.
WFO obtained a copy of Dr. Theodore Postol's letter to the
White House from Philip Coyle, Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation, at the Pentagon. Postol had sent Coyle a copy of
his letter to the White House.
The Director of Security for the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) requested a line by line review of
Postol's package when it was suggested that classified
material may be attached to Postol's letter. This line by
line review revealed that four pages of Attachment B to
Postol's letter contained previously classified data, and
Attachment D contained 12 previously classified figures and
one classified table. All this material had been previously
classified and was not newly classified. Postol had obtained
this information from other individuals involved in a Qui Tam
law suit against TRW. Those involved in the Qui Tam suit
believed that the information they had was unclassified. A
good faith effort had been made by a DCIS investigator to
declassify a report that had been previously classified. In
the process, certain classified information was inadvertently
left in the report. Postol used this information believing it
to be unclassified.
Postol's information was based on data he received from Dr.
Nira Schwartz, a scientist and former employee of TRW, a
defense contractor involved with BMDO. Schwartz had filed a
Qui Tam action in the Western District of California alleging
wrongful termination and false claims on the part of TRW. Dr.
Schwartz's allegations were scientific in nature and
concerned false claims made by TRW regarding the data
obtained from the first test flight, IFT-1A. Postol expanded
Schwartz's allegations to include criminal conduct.
Investigation revealed that Postol's claim that data had been
altered was unfounded. As to Postol's claim that the system
is incapable of distinguishing between warheads and decoys,
there is a dispute among scientists about the ability of the
system to discriminate based on scientific grounds. This is a
scientific dispute and Postol's attempt to raise it to the
level of criminal conduct had no basis in fact. A Department
of Justice civil attorney and an
[[Page H2370]]
Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of
California, both advised that during the Qui Tam
investigation, there was no indication of fraud or criminal
activity.
The joint FBI/DCIS investigation failed to disclose
evidence that a federal violation has been committed. Since
all logical investigation has been completed, this matter is
being closed.
The title of the FBI memo, dated February 26, Washington, D.C., is
``National Missile Defense System, Fraud Against the Government,
Department of Defense.''
In the text of the FBI memo, they mention a June 15, 2000, letter
directed to Director Freeh, signed by 53 Members of Congress, alleging
that the Department of Defense covered up fraud relevant to
experimental failure of testing involving the National Missile Defense
System.
Specifically, the letter detailed allegations by an antimissile
critic from MIT, a scientist from MIT, that this entire process was
ripe with fraud and that the DoD and its contractors had altered data
to hide the failure. The professor was invited to submit all of his
documents and all of his claims, as was anyone else, relative to fraud
and cover-up. That data was both classified and unclassified.
The FBI memo, it goes on to say, the Washington field office opened
the preliminary inquiry, and they came to certain conclusions. The
conclusions were that there were no criminal activities by anyone;
that, in fact, there was no fraud committed against the people of
America. In fact, I will quote from the report: ``Investigation
revealed that the professor's claim that data had been altered was
unfounded.''
Is Dan Rather listening out there? Because, Mr. Speaker, as we all
know, the national media has a tremendous ability to affect what the
American people think. When they have 20 minutes of totally controlled
air time, that leaves a lasting impression on the American people.
Now, why am I singling out one man, Dan Rather? It is because Dan
Rather called my office and asked if he could interview me about
national missile defense. As the author of the legislation, I said
sure, I will be happy to talk about anything you want to talk about. He
proposed, through his producer, to me that it would be a fair and
unbiased analysis of national missile defense.
Mr. Rather came into my office last fall and spent over 2 hours
interviewing me on videotape. When I was into about 15 minutes of the
interview, I knew then and there he had already written his story. He
was just looking to get a quote from me that would further the fraud he
was going to commit on the American people based on the allegations by
one MIT professor. But I went on for 2 hours.
When Mr. Rather ran his story, which was 20 minutes in length, the
total amount of time that I appeared on that story was 30 seconds. The
professor from MIT was on repeatedly for probably half the show. The
report was totally biased, was totally ripe with allegations by one man
that the Federal Government, in this case the Department of Defense,
was committing fraud.
I will repeat the statement that I take from the text of the FBI
document: ``Investigation revealed that the professor's claim that data
had been altered was unfounded.''
When people make allegations in today's society and are allowed
access to our national media that affects the public's understanding of
what we are doing here, I think there is a responsibility for the media
and the people who push that allegation to come out when the
investigation is complete and give the American people the results.
The final paragraph of the FBI memo says: ``The joint FBI/DCIS
investigation failed to disclose evidence that a Federal violation has
been committed. Since all logical investigation has been completed,
this matter is being closed.''
The silence has been deafening since February 26 because no one has
acknowledged that the FBI finished its investigation of the charges
made by one professor which resulted in 53 of our colleagues asking for
a criminal investigation of individuals and leaders in our Department
of Defense.
Now, I could read some of the quotes from my colleagues and from
others who spoke out in support of this professor; but, Mr. Speaker, I
would rather insert into the Record a news article dated May 4 relative
to the allegations and the actual results of the findings of the
investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I include the article as follows:
[From the Forbes CFO Forum, May 16-18, 2001]
FBI Clears TRW Inc. of Fraud Charge in Missile Defense Test
(By Tony Capaccio)
Washington.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation cleared
TRW Inc. of allegations it manipulated the test results in a
program for the U.S. missile defense system, according to a
government document.
It's the second time the allegation has been dismissed. A
1999 review by the Justice and Defense departments in a
separate whistleblower lawsuit dealing with the same charge
also found no basis for fraud in TRW's testing.
Last June, 53 members of the U.S. Congress asked the FBI to
investigate charges by Massachusetts Institute of Technology
professor Theodore Postol that TRW and Pentagon officials
committed ``fraud and cover-up,'' by tampering with the
results of program's first test flight to conceal that
company's warhead can't distinguish between decoys and the
real thing.
Postol and another antimissile critic, Dr. Nira Schwartz,
alleged that TRW and the Pentagon manipulated the results of
a June 1997 flight test. Military and TRW officials said the
company's warhead succeeded.
Postol and Schwartz claimed the data was manipulated to
indicate success after the test failed. The test was
conducted in a competition between TRW and Raytheon Co.,
which TRW eventually lost. Their charges were aired in March
and June 2000 front page New York Times articles that became
the basis for the congressional request and fodder for arms
control critics.
The FBI closed the case in late February, saying Postol's
charges were ``a scientific dispute and Postol's attempts to
raise it to the level of criminal conduct had no basis in
fact.''
The FBI's action removes a cloud over the missile defense
program just as the Bush administration presses ahead with
plans to expand it.
A spokesman for TRW said the company hadn't been told of
the finding and is ``delighted'' if it's true. Both Postol
and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat who organized the
congressional opposition, said they too were unaware.
trw's role
TRW is a top subcontractor on the National Missile Defense
program managed by Boeing Co. TRW provides the command and
control system, or electronic brains, that receive and
process target information to missile interceptors carrying
Raytheon Co. hit-to-kill warheads.
The TRW system has performed well in the three missile
intercept tests to date, though two of them ended in failure
after glitches in technology unrelated to the basic system.
Postol argues the Pentagon's system is fundamentally flawed
and is incapable of distinguishing decoys from real warheads.
He alleged the Pentagon watered down its decoy testing,
substituting simpler and fewer decoys that were easier for
the warhead to recognize. The Pentagon has acknowledged
shortcomings in its decoy testing and says it plans
improvements.
The program needs to ensure the ability of the system to
deal with likely countermeasures,'' Pentagon program manager
Army Gen. Willie Nance wrote in an April 12 review.
`no federal violation'
``The investigation failed to disclose evidence that a
federal violation has been committed,'' the FBI said in a
February 26 memo to the Justice Department. ``Since all
logical investigation has been completed, this matter is
being closed.''
The allegation was first made by Schwartz in an April 1996
False Claims Act whistleblower suit. Schwartz was a senior
staff engineer who worked on the project for 40 hours,
according to TRW. The federal government declined to join her
lawsuit after determining there was no evidence to support
criminal charges. The case is pending. Schwartz would
received a monetary award if TRW was found guilty.
Schwartz alleged that TRW ``knowingly and falsely
certified'' as effective discrimination technology that was
``incapable of performing its intended purpose.''
``Dr. Schwartz's allegations were scientific in nature and
concerned false claims made by TRW regarding the data
obtained from the first test flight,'' said the FBI memo.
``Postol expanded Schwartz's allegations to include criminal
conduct. Investigation revealed that Postol's claim that data
has been altered was unfounded.''
gao review
Postol said in an interview he was surprised by the FBI's
decision because he was under the impression that the Bureau
would wait to wrap up its review until the General Accounting
Office completed a separate non-criminal technical review of
the charges.
The GAO review, which was requested by two Democrats,
Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Howard Berman
of California, won't be finished until later this year.
``I am amazed the FBI would have done this without checking
with the GAO,'' Postol
[[Page H2371]]
said. ``It looks to me that the FBI was simply not interested
in doing anything except covering its back.''
Kucinich, who organized the June letter that prompted the
FBI inquiry, said he hadn't heard of the FBI's conclusion.
``It is interesting that the day after the president
announced plans to spend billions more dollars on a missile
defense system, it's revealed that the FBI had terminated its
fraud investigation of the missile defense program--despite
plain proof this technology doesn't work and substantial
evidence suggesting that the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization covered it up,'' he said in a statement.
Kucinich was referring to President George W. Bush's May 1
speech outlining his plans for a missile defense shield that
will likely include the ground-based system.
TRW spokesman Darryl Fraser in a statement said ``if this
report is accurate, we are delighted to hear that the FBI has
vindicated TRW for the years of hard work.''
Mr. Speaker, I would hope my colleagues would look at the evidence
provided by the FBI that there was no fraud and get back to facts when
discussing, as we will this year, whether or not to support the
President's missile defense request.
My third national security issue, Mr. Speaker, is of grave concern to
me. I also raised this briefly in a 5-minute Special Order last week.
All our colleagues need to pay attention to what has been happening
with the Departments of Defense, Energy, Commerce, and the CIA.
Mr. Speaker, I was one of nine Members assigned to the Cox committee,
five Republicans and four Democrats, who spent 7 months of our lives
behind closed doors, in some cases 6 days a week, through the holidays,
working with the FBI and the CIA and our Defense Department, to answer
a simple question for our colleagues in the Congress who had passed
legislation creating our commission. The question that we were asked to
provide an answer for to our colleagues was: Was America's national
security harmed by the transfer of technology to China?
Mr. Speaker, after the 7 months of deliberations, we came to a
unanimous verdict. The vote was not five to four. It was not seven to
two. It was nine to zero that America's security was harmed by the
transfer of technology to China.
Now, the spin by the administration at that time was that somehow
China had stole the technology. That may have been true in a few
isolated cases; but, Mr. Speaker, by and large, we gave the technology
to China. We gave the technology to China.
In fact, Janet Reno assigned one of her top prosecutors, Charles
LaBella, to investigate in response to the Cox committee why that
technology was transferred. He wrote a 94-page memorandum called the
LaBella Memo back to her suggesting she should empower a special
prosecutor. She chose to ignore his advice, and the American people
will never know the full story as to why that technology was
transferred to China. I have some strong suspicions.
But one of the areas that we looked at was China's acquisition of
high-performance computers. In fact, Dr. Steve Bryen, who was the first
director of DTSA, the Defense Technology Support Agency, testified
before the Cox committee that up until 1995 and 1996, China had zero
high-performance computers, in the range above eight to 10,000 MTOPS,
which is considered a high-performance computer, even by today's
standard. Up until 1996, China had none.
China wanted these computers desperately, and we looked at that issue
in the Cox committee but were not given access to an individual who now
has come forward as a lifetime, long-term Dealy employee. This employee
by the name of Stillwell had access to China's nuclear program, in
fact, traveled back and forth regularly to China, was able to gain the
confidence of the Chinese leadership so that he could get access to
information about China's nuclear program that was very helpful to
America's military leadership and our security leadership in terms of
where China was going with its nuclear program.
Mr. Stillwell kept detailed notes of his trip to China. He has now
reported that he knew the Chinese were desperate to acquire high-
performance computers. Because he has reported to us, Mr. Speaker, that
Chinese nuclear leaders told him they did not have the ability to
miniaturize their nuclear weapons, to do simulated nuclear testing for
one reason; and that reason was that China lacked high-performance
computers to do the significant calculations required to simulate
nuclear testing and to miniaturize nuclear weapons. This was in the
1990, 1992 and 1993 time frame.
The reason why this is so critical, Mr. Speaker, is that we now have
someone, an American citizen, a recognized expert on China's nuclear
program, perhaps more an expert than anyone else in this country, who
has come forward and who has tried to publish a book where he documents
China's wanting and desire to obtain high-performance computers.
Why is that so critically important? Because in 1996, in the middle
of a Presidential reelection campaign, for reasons that are yet
unknown, our administration unilaterally changed the policy and, in
1996, allowed American firms that, up until then had been prohibited
from selling high-performance computers, to sell those high-performance
computers to China.
Now, the reasons why those computers were allowed to be sold would
make for an interesting investigation as to why the President all of a
sudden unilaterally decided to reverse a policy decision that previous
administrations had had in limiting high-performance computers to
China.
Now, piecing the facts together, if we get the comments from Mr.
Stillwell, who now tells us that China was desperately in need of high-
performance computers and could not get them in the early 1990s, and
then, 1996, we see a decision by the U.S. administration to lower the
threshold and allow China to acquire something that they had been
prohibited from acquiring up until that year.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Steve Bryen when he testified said, up
until 1996, only two countries had companies manufacturing such high-
performance computers, Japan and the U.S. There was an unwritten
understanding between the two countries that neither of us would sell
high-performance computers to certain countries that might use them for
questionable purposes. Dr. Bryen told us that we did not even consult
with Japan. We simply changed the threshold in 1996 and allowed those
companies to sell the high-performance computers to China.
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to join with me in
letters that I am sending to the Department of Defense, the Departments
of Energy and Commerce, and to the CIA asking specifically for the
following information and demanding that this information be made
available to Members of Congress and to the American people.
{time} 1930
From the period of time from January 1, 1994, to January 1, 1999, we
demand the following information:
Number one. Records of all license applications for computers that
the U.S. Department of Commerce approved, suspended, denied, or
returned without action for export to China, including Hong Kong.
Number two. Information for each application showing the applicant,
the case number, the date received, the final date, the consignee or
end user, the ECCN number, the value, and the statement of end use.
Number three. Information showing the Federal agencies to which each
license application was referred for review, and each agency's
recommendation on the application referred.
In addition to the above, we want any information possessed by these
agencies on the acquisition by China, including Hong Kong, of any
computer operating at more than 500 MTOPS during the above period,
whether such acquisition was made pursuant to an export license or not,
and whether from the United States or some other country. And we need
to demand this information, Mr. Speaker, immediately.
I am going to ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join
with me in demanding that we get some accountability because the
American people deserve to know what happened.
Mr. Speaker, today, China is working on simulation of nuclear
testing. They are miniaturizing nuclear weapons. They are using
American high performance computers in that process. When Dr. Bryen
testified before the Cox Committee, he said up until 1996, China had
zero high performance computers. Within 2 years after we lowered the
[[Page H2372]]
threshold, China had acquired between 400 and 600 high performance
computers, all from the United States of America.
When those in this Chamber rail against spending more money on
defense, I ask them to join with me, because if China had not acquired
those high performance computers, they would not be where they are in
developing their nuclear technology, in miniaturizing their nuclear
capabilities, in designing new weapon systems.
Mr. Speaker, my fear is that the bulk, if not all, of those high
performance computers are not at Chinese universities doing academic
research; they are not affiliated with technical institutions studying
the weather of China; but, in fact, those American-sold high-
performance computers are being used to design the next generation of
weapons that we are now going to have to defend against.
To me, Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve some answers. And so
all of us in this Chamber, I would hope, would join together in
demanding that this administration give us access to answer the
questions that I have posed relative to the transfer of high-
performance computers to China, the applications for those transfers,
the agencies' recommendations, and the number of those computers in
place today and who controls them.
Mr. Speaker, the letter I referred to follows:
To: the Departments of Defense, Energy and Commerce, and to
the CIA
Please provide, for the period from January 1, 1994 to the
January 1, 1999, the following information:
Records of all license applications for computers that the
U.S. Department of Commerce approved, suspended, denied or
returned without action for export to China, including Hong
Kong;
Information for each application showing the applicant, the
case number, the date received, the final date, the consignee
or end user, the ECCN number, the value, and the statement of
end use;
Information showing the federal agencies to which each
license application was referred for review, and each
agency's recommendation on the application referred.
In addition, please provide all information that you
possess on the acquisition by China, including Hong Kong, of
any computer operating at more than 500 MTOPS during the
above period, whether such acquisition was made pursuant to
an export license or not, and whether from the United States
or some other country.
Please submit this information in both electronic and hard-
copy form no later
than.
Sincerely yours,
____________________