Pentagon Strips Air Force of
21 Major Weapons Programs
Las Vegas Review-Journal
WASHINGTON (AP) – In a highly unusual move, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer
on Monday took away the Air Force’s authority to oversee 21 major programs with
a combine value of $200 billion.
The move, called temporary, was made because of a civilian leadership vacuum at
the Air Force after the departure last week of Peter Teets, who was under
secretary of the Air Force as well as acting secretary. Teets had been fillin in
since James Roche resigned as secretary in January.
It also comes amid continuing controversy over the Air Force’s handling of a
multibillion-dollar Boeing aircraft lease deal that fell through last year and led to
the conviction of former Air Force executive Darleen Druyun on charges of
conspiring to violate conflict-of-interest rules.
Druyun admitted in court that she favored Boeing on deals worth billion of dollarsbecause the company gave jobs to her daughter and son-in-law. Her admission
led to a detailed Pentagon review of her nearly 10-year tenure as a key weapons
buyer for the Air Force and prompted rival defense companies to file protests
over Boeing contracts awarded during that period.
The episode has taken a tool on the Air Force. Since Roche departed, the White
House has not nominated anyone to replace him as the Air Force secretary, a post
that requires Senate confirmation. Some believe the current Navy secretary,
Gordon England, will get the nomination.
In addition, no one has been nominated to replace Teets as the under secretary.
What’s more, the post of Air Force acquisition chief has been vacant since Marvin
Sambur left in January.
With Teets gone, the most senior civilian in the Air Force is Michael I.
Dominquez, who has served since August 2001 as assistant secretary of the Air
Force for manpower and reserve affairs….
In Monday’s announcement, the Pentagon said it was giving the decision-making
authority for the 21 major Air Force weapons programs to Michael Wynne, the No.
2 Pentagon civilian in charge of weapons procurement.
The No. 1 slot has not had a Senate-confirmed holder since May 2003. Wynne was
nominate for the top spot but his nomination – and others in the Air Force – have
been blocked by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, as part of a long-running dispute over
the Boeing lease deal….
The 21 programs include a $59.2 billionBoeing contract for C-17A Globemaster II
advanced cargo aircraft, and a $31.7 billionBoeing and Lockheed Martin contract
for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle….
Among other programs affected are air-to-air missiles, B-2 bomber radar
modernization, C-5 cargo plane improvements, propulsion replacement for the
Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile and a $18 billion communications
$ $ $
January 28, 2005
Lockheed Team Wins Presidential Chopper
By Andrea Shalai-Esa, MSN Money
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Navy on Friday gave a transatlantic team
led by Lockheed Martin Corp. a $1.7 billion contract to build a new fleet of 23
U.S. presidential helicopters, a deal valued at up to $6.1 billion.
The decision was a stunning setback for Connecticut-based United Technologies
Corp.’s (UTX) Sikorsky Aircraft unit – which for nearly 50 years has built and
maintained the green and white “Marine One” helicopters that fly the president.
Sikorsky had wrapped itself in the American flag to pitch its twin-engined VH-92,
based on the Black Hawk helicopter.
But lower cost, a larger cabin and faster delivery schedule allowed No. 1 Pentagon
supplier Lockheed to prevail with its US101, based on the three-engined EH101
made by AgustaWestland Inc., a unit of Italy’sFinmeccanica SpA.
The deal attracted international attention, with Prime Ministers Tony Blair of
Britain and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy personally pressing President Bush on
behalf of Lockheed’s British-Italian design….
Texas-based Textron Inc.’s Bell Helicopter is the other big partner and Los
Angeles-based Northrop Grumman Corp. will provide electronics for the new
Lockheed Vice President Stephen Ramsey said 65 percent of the US101 would be
built in the United States, with the remaining 35 percent to be split between
Britain and Italy….
[Assistant Navy Secretary John] Young downplayed any impact on the U.S.
industrial base, saying both companies enter good bids and met “Buy America”
provisions for U.S. content.
Sikorsky President Stephen Finger said the company was disappointed about the
decision and insisted its VH-92 flew farther, faster and carried more than the
Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, said the decision was “outrageously
wrong” because Sikorsky had vowed to build a helicopter that was “100 pct made
“I am committed to do everything in my power to right this wrong,” Lieberman said
in a statement, saying he hoped Sikorsky would challenge the contract award with
The cost of the new helicopter will begin at $75 million a copy, gradually rising to
about $110 million, Young said….
Analysts said the win could give Lockheed and its partners a competitive edge when
the Air Force buys 194 new search and rescue helicopters next year, although
Young downplayed that, saying the requirements were very different.
$2.6 billion bought Air Force
planes not up to standards
By R. Jeffrey Smith, The Washington Post
WASHINGTON – The Air Force spent $2.6 billion to acquire 50 transport
planes that don’t meet military requirements, preventing squadrons based in six
states from being fully prepared for their missions in the Middle East and
elsewhere, the Defense Department Inspector General’s office disclosed
After conducting a lengthy investigation set off by a whistle-blower’s phone
call, the Inspector General’s office said the Air Force used an inappropriate
procedure to buy the C-130J transport plane from Lockheed Martin and then
mismanaged its production. It also said senior Defense Department weapons
acquisition officials failed to “provide effective oversight” of the program….
Military officials said yesterday that the C-130J planes have not passed key
readiness tests, and so none have been used as planned by the U.S. Air Force
Reserve, Air National Guard, or Marine Corps in combat zones or military
Congress has approved spending $4 billion for the planes, and the entire program
likely will cost more than $7.5 billion….
$ $ $
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003
To: “The Catbird”
From: “The Lone Engineer”
Subject:Lockheed Martin should be debarred ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Okay, here it is:
I began working forSchlockheed-Murderin 1999, as an EMI/EMC test
engineer. I also had duties performing vibration, shock, temperature and altitude
tests on DoD electronics, inclusive of many variants of a line called the Q-70 (see
them on their web site, by the way) and as well as tests on a number of airborne
systems for the P-3C BMUP (block modification upgrade program) as well as some
work on EA-6B upgrades, and F-16 ‘new’ variants being sold strictly to the UAE
and ISRAEL, not to our own forces, by the way, which is paradoxical as the new
variants are vastly superior in capability to what our own services have with the F-16’s they fly.
As early as 2001, I had a ‘gag order’ issued to me by a project lead engineer
during an EMI test on P-3C BMUP mission computer, at which time, this engineer
ordered me “do not talk to government witnesses about deficiencies”
and, at which time, I informed him about the ‘illegality’ of that, as well as went up
my chain of command at Schlockheed-Murder to tell them that there “never can be
a day when anyone in this building issues me an order never to tell the U.S.
Government inspection personnel about deficiencies they have a right to know
about” in a meeting with the Engineering Manager.
At the time I was still a contract to permanent hire person, and I informed the
contract house that I was working for that either I would be dismissed at the end
of my contract period for refusing to go along with gag orders about deficiencies,
or that I would possibly be terminated early. The contract house representative,
much to his credit, said; “you did the right thing, stay the course..” and told me
that they (the contract house) would stand by me on this one.
Ironically, though this attitude of mine not to cooperate with the ‘lying by
omission’ thing they wanted me to embark upon, tended to piss off my manager, a
so-called ‘christian’ that I worked for, he was so angered by this that he made me
remain a contractor for an additional six months before I was ultimately hired,
much to my surprise.
Not too very long after this, I stayed clear of the project lead who had given me
the illegal gag order, though it was clear nothing much happened to him, although
at the time I discussed the matter with management, I had asked that he be
present (I had an ear-witness in the room, unbeknownst to him, who’d heard
everything he said to me, and I was going to have him present, as well) but the
engineering manager, shaken by my disclosure to him that I had already been asked
to testify before a U.S. Senate Subcommittee (J.D. Dingell’s Senate
Subcommittee) about another failed weapons platform, the UH-60A
Blackhawk Helicopter, which had a severe EMI / EMC problem that
caused it to go out of control and crash on a regular basis.
Management kept me at arm’s length, but as I was a performer and did my job, I
did actually get promoted and receive a nice pay raise (blood money or ‘hush
money’ I suspect) and not much further happened to me. Then, regarding a ‘safety
of flight’ issue that emerged on an airborne system that had already been
deployed on as many as ’40’ aircraft that the Navy was operating, the company
began to really lean on my ass over all sorts of things, began to audit my time card,
and proceeded down the road to toss me out of the building.
It was ‘ironic’ that at the same time, I was being adversely impacted by visible
colonies of the toxin producing mold, CLADOSPORIUMthat was growing on the
shield room anechoic cones in the sub-basement laboratory I performed my work
in, and as I had requested they remove the mold that was impacting my health and
ruining my lungs, making me very ill, they declined, and furthermore, forced me to
keep working in that environment until they wrongfully terminated me in March of
this year for alleged ‘insubordination’ which by their accusation, was for not
sitting in meetings at which they repeatedly verbally assaulted me and threatened
I went to the Government Accounting Office, Office of Special Investigations
after discussing the matter with a U.S. Government DCMA employee at length, at
which time, as we were close to going to war in Iraq, he compelled me to do
everything I could to fast track this and get the aircrews that flew these
‘ticking time bombs’ aware of the extreme hazard they were in with that
Schlockheed-Murder system on board their plane.
The GAO Special Agent who contacted me at home assured me that the Navair
community would be IMMEDIATELY told of the deficiency. The nature of that is
more or less sensitive information and therefore I won’t disclose it…however, I
immediately told the Schlockheed-Murder ethics office in Gaithersburg,
Maryland about my reporting the problem to the GAO, and this woman, who I won’t
identify, informed me that it was strictly my job to assist them in covering
their asses, and if I did not, I could be terminated for that. I told her that it
didn’t matter, lives were at stake, and that the company’s apparent concern
wasn’t for human life, but for covering it’s asses, collectively.
On a different note, O.S.H.A. found, as I had asked for them to intervene and
inspect, that not only was I breathing 98 percent pure CLADOSPORIUM mold in
that shield room or anechoic room, but as I wore a monitoring pump, they provided
during their investigation, that myself and others actually were breathing asbestos
fibres from the fireproofing slurry material on the roof of the sub basement as
well as from pipe jacketing. They fined the company but they are appealing the
The state also sided with them and decided not to pay me
unemployment benefits, as they also concluded that my having
refused to be screamed at and yelled at in meetings constituted
‘insubordination’ by doing that.
At this time I have a state Congressman looking into the matter, but I do not
expect much government help, although O.S.H.A. is launching an investigation into
the ‘wrongful firing’ that ensued when Schlockheed-Murder found out that they
were being investigated both by G.A.O. as well as O.S.H.A. because an employee
they were injuring didn’t like that.
Most co-workers there knew of years of this pattern of ‘lying to the government’
or intentionally ‘covering up’ deficiencies of systems built in this plant, but were
so very close to retiring that not many of them wished to rock the boat. One
airborne system’s manager, after I told him about reporting the company to G.A.O.
over the problems on the E-2C aircraft (40 or so of them) that he said; “well, you
know that you’re out of here….probably before the week is over with..” and he was
right, I lasted till Monday, and it was Thursday I spoke to him.
So, that’s my story about Schlockheed-Murder. Deficient hardware, an entire
culture of people intimidated and harassed by management and afraid to report,
and U.S. Government personnel really not watching hard enough or doing enough
about this in this building, even though the company had a clear pattern of doing
this that had them, by law, install an Ethics Hotline.
Oh yes, you get that same bimbo I spoke to that told me, on that Ethics Hotline,
that my first priority was to protect the company.
I have over 30 years experience in Weapons Systems qualification programs, and
this is the worst case of ‘fraud’ I have seen, ever!
You can give me a fictitious name as you print this on your web page, and yes, you
can use their correct name, though I believe in my soul they are indeed
Program Manager Interviews
November, December, 1995
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ECONOMIC SECURITY
~ ~ ~
Which Defense Firms Will Survive – Meet the
Man Who Helps the Pentagon Decide
A large white banner is first thing you notice upon entering the reception
area of Joshua Gotbaum’s third-floor Pentagon office. In foot-high red
letters, it reads: “Please Mr. Gotbaum, Save Natick [Mass.] Labs”
(referring to the Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC] recommendation to
Secretary Gotbaum, a former Wall Street investment banker, achieved
the status of Washington insider in 1 short year. He is respected both
by the Pentagon brass and defense industry officials. He influences key
decisions ranging from BRAC to which defense industries will survive.
Secretary Gotbaum is the right man for the job at the right time. A 44-year-old lawyer, Secretary Gotbaum is at home in the world of mergers,
acquisitions, and restructurings. He heads the new 260-person Pentagon
Office of Economic Security and has won the confidence of many defense
industry and military officials for helping educate the Pentagon brass on
their decisions which impact the nation’s troubled defense industry. And so
far, both sides appear pleased with his efforts or their behalf….
Subject:Investigation of Lockheed Martin re: James Finkelstein for U.S.
Senate in Georgia
I would very much appreciate it if you would respond to let me know if you have any
further information by from or about the “Lone Engineer” report about Lockheed
that you posted- specifically whether this is real or bogus, and whether any
investigation has been launched by any official U.S. government agency or
I am a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Georgia for Zell Miller’s
soon to be vacated seat. The Senate primary is July 20, 2004, and there are two
upcoming televised debates. Lockheed Martin has contributed thousands of dollars
to two candidates in this race, both Representatives in Congress, and I have raised
the issue of conflicts of interest in their taking this contributions from defense
contractors. Obviously, any information you have may be of help.
Also, I have a brief message about my campaign which will give you some insight on
who I am and why I am running in this race. If you think my campaign has merit,
please pass it along or post it, as you will. Thank you!
Message to cut and paste:
WHY JAMES (Jim) FINKELSTEIN DECIDED TO RUN FOR THE
JULY 20TH GEORGIA DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR THE UNITED
In March of 2003, when this country sent over a hundred thousand Marines and
soldiers based in Kuwait to war in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of parents, spouses,
and children back home had to endure indescribable emotions for weeks on end,
waiting to hear any word from their loved ones- and dreading a knock on the door.
I was one of those parents. When the combat phase of the war ended and I finally
heard from my son Ben, a Sergeant in the Marine Corps, and found out he was safe,
I can’t tell you how grateful I felt. Last August Ben and the members of his unit
came home, and if you want to see how he looked at his homecoming at LeJeune, go
But over 5,000 wounded American soldiers and Marines didn’t come home safe, and
over 800 more were flown back in flag draped coffins. I decided when my son came
home last summer that if this war was still going on, if American lives were still
being lost, that I would take a stand- not as a politician, but as a parent. I have no
overwhelming desire to be a politician- my life is fulfilled. But I do have an
obligation- a duty- to those who didn’t return in one piece, to the soldiers and
Marines who are there now or who will be sent there soon, and to their parents,
spouses, children, and other loved ones. That duty is to be a voice for them. At the
very least, I will be a choice for Georgia voters on July 20th, for those who want
to wrap up our mission in Iraq within the next six months and bring the troops
home safe. We can accomplish this while leaving the Iraqis the means to retain
their newly found freedom under the rule of law. To see how I propose doing this,
go to www.finkelstein4senate.org
I also believe that at this moment in time, it is important to the United States of
America and to the State of Georgia to have a person running for a national office
who recognizes that the phrase “support our troops” means more than lip service.
For that reason, I have discussed at debates and candidate forums the equipment,
materials, and provisions for the families left behind that the troops in the field
have been lacking. I have not hesitated to publicly embarrass three sitting
members of the House of Representatives who are running for this Senate seat by
revealing that they voted to provide billions of dollars to the defense contractors
who funded their campaigns while sending our troops to war in canvas covered
humvees that can’t stop a rock, let alone a bullet or RPG, vests without the
ceramic inserts that make the body armor work, the wrong boots for desert
warfare, inadequate eye protection from the desert sand and wind, the wrong
rifles for urban combat (M-16’s instead of M-4’s), and poor or nonexistent
communications equipment for individual soldiers and Marines. In addition, they
failed to provide for the families of reservists and national guardsmen who were
left without medical insurance or other essential benefits.
I am not a “one note” or “one issue” candidate. If you click on “MY PLATFORM” at
the website, you will see some proposals that I think would make this a better
country and a better state. These include my “litmus test” for approving federal
judges and Supreme Court justices, which is a profound respect for the
Constitution of the United States, and, most importantly an understanding and
appreciation for the Bill of Rights and the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. These also include proposals to provide
catastrophic health insurance for American families, to use corporate profits from
outsourcing jobs to educate, retrain, and if necessary employ laid off workers, and
to provide a system that will eliminate all medical malpractice insurance premiums
for doctors while fairly compensating injured patients without regard to fault.
If you want to read the Coastal Courier’s June 18, 2004, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s June 25, 2004, feature articles on this campaign, click on:
For those who want to see and hear the U.S. Senate candidates, there will be two
televised debates: July 11, 2004 at 4:00 P.M. on WSB TV 2 in Atlanta and July 18,
2004, 7:00 P.M. on GPTV. I hope that my presence in this campaign will mean that
the debate will focus on issues of importance to this nation and to the State of
Crowds “shock and awe” Lockheed
Martin with their protests
By Brandywine Peace Community
At noon today, a large crowd gathered at the Lockheed Martin Facility behind
King of Prussia Mall to protest its role in producing the munitions that are
currently devastating Iraq.
“Every weapon produced by Lockheed Martin means billions of
dollars transferred from the public treasury to private wealth,
from public need to corporate greed. Moreover, every weapon
produced by Lockheed Martin means another bombing run, another
cruise missile attach, another war.” (from the Brandywine Peace
Community’s Martin Luther King Day litany at Lockheed Martin, January 21, 2002)
For fifteen years
The Brandywine Peace Community is a faith based peace activist group formed in
1977 by people experienced in the nonviolent resistance to the war in Vietnam.
After more than two decades, Brandywine continues to organize campaigns of
nonviolent direct action to war and to challenge the weapons industry in the
Delaware Valley. That challenge of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience was
first demonstrated at General Electric weapons facilities in the Delaware Valley
in campaign of resistance and public education that lasted for more than 15 years.
In 1993, General Electric sold its Aerospace Division to Martin Marietta.
Consequently, Martin Marietta doubled in size and in 1995 merged with Lockheed
to become Lockheed Martin. All the facilities which once carried the names of GE
Aerospace, Martin Marietta, or Lockheed, are now Lockheed Martin. Since its
inception, announced with the slogan “And this is just the beginning!”, Lockheed
Martin has been and continues to be the world’s largest weapons corporation as
well as the U.S.’s largest international arms seller and the U.S.’s chief nuclear
bomb contractor. Lockheed Martin has also become involved in the
privatization [i.e. “for profit management”] ofstate welfare
The same Lockheed Martin that produces the weapons control systems for
Tomahawk Cruise Missiles in Valley Forge, PA (Lockheed Martin’s
Management & Data Systems) is the very same Lockheed Martin that receives
money from state governments (including the state of Pennsylvania) to process
data, dispense checks to poor people, and administer jobs programs.
The same Lockheed Martin that manages the Oak Ridge, TN uranium
processing complex(including depleted uranium ammunition) and other
parts of the national nuclear bomb component, waste, and maintenance complex
also produces, in Moorestown, NJ, the Aegis battle command system around which
the Navy is producing its fleet of Aegis cruisers and destroyers. The U.S. Navy
considers Aegis “the most powerful warfighting system today”.
Most of the sealaunched cruise missiles fired into Iraq or as part of the
U.S./NATO war in the Balkans came from Aegis warships.
So we resist Lockheed Martin! Join us!
* * *
May 13, 2002
WAGES OF SIN
By Christopher H. Schmitt, U.S. News & World Report
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: Why lawbreakers still
win government contracts
In the mid-1970s,Lockheed Aircraft Corp.was center stage in a
scorching bribery scandal.Millions in secret payments were slipped to public
officials and political parties around the globe, to curry favor and win government
Stung by the blowback, the company promised stringent reforms. Two decades
later, Lockheed was again in the spotlight, pleading guilty to paying off an Egyptian
official to win a deal for C-130 cargo planes. Once more, the company was contrite.
Standing before a federal judge in 1995, a top executive pledged Lockheed’s
“commitment to the highest ethical standards of conduct.”
In the years since, however, Lockheed’s troubles have only grown. The company
has been named in at least 33 more cases covering overcharges on
government contracts, improper technology transfer to China,
falsifying results of nuclear safety tests, job discrimination,
environmental pollution, and more.
These cases, some of which were in motion before the 1995 conviction, have
produced at least $145.3 million in penalties, settlements, and restitution. And
at least 13 more cases are pending.
Lockheed Martin, as the company is known today, says it has a vigorous ethics
and compliance program. And, it turns out, that promise is good enough for the
Pentagon. Last October, despite the company’s record, the federal government
awarded Lockheed the richest military contract in history – a deal to build the
nation’s next generation jet. The project, theF-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
could be worth as much as$200 billion over several decades….
The military tops the government’s buying list – with contracts for $156.5
billion last year. Not surprisingly, some of the worst offenders are military
But while the government may be reluctant to move against its biggest suppliers,
federal agencies don’t have the same qualms about cracking down on small firms.
Officials maintain that federal rules are written evenhandedly, but they
acknowledge that larger companies can naigate them more successfully.
Take James Verlander, a Houston-area researcher who in early 1990s got
tangled up inOperation Lightning Strike, a federal sting operation targeting
NASA suppliers. Federal agents drew Verlander and several others into a scheme
revolving around a bogus medical device that supposedly could improve monitoring
of space-station astronauts.
Threatened with a heavy prison sentence, he pleaded guilty to having accepted
$2,000 as part of an effort to win approval and funding for the device, says his
attorney, Charles Portz. Barred from government work ever since, Verlander
suffered a nervous breakdown and has since become a medical technician.
By contrast, two big contractors that came under scrutiny in the affair – Martin
Marietta and General Electric – settled their involvement by paying $1
million to defray the government’s expenses.
“They didn’t want to make arrests of the higher-up people because
it would damage the space program,”says Portz, “so they busted a
bunch of little people.”
Small fry get nailed more often because it’s more likely that senior executives
were involved in any wrongdoing, say those familiar with the issue. And large
contractors have more financial juice to make a case go away – to hire pricey legal
talent, create compliance programs, or pay settlements.
“They’re pretty willing to settle it to stay in business,” says Jacques Ganaler,
former undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, who is
now a professor of public affairs at the University of Maryland….
Lockheed Martin: Key Player in the
Conquest and Militarization of Space
We are here today as part of a global effort to call for an end to the
weaponization and militarization of space.
The U.S. is seeking to control space through National Missile Defense
(NMD), Space-Based lasers and Anti-Satellite weaponry. This facility,
Lockheed Martin, is the primary contractor for NMD.
National Missile Defense is marketed to the public as a program that will
make our nation a safer, more secure place. In reality, NMD is a costly,
deceptive, and ill-conceived program whose principal function is offensive.
The Congressional Budget Office projected in Jan. 2002 that the NMD program
envisioned by the Bush Administration could cost $238 billion by 2025. Since
1957, the U.S. has spent roughly $125 billion on NMD systems without
producing a single workable device.
Lockheed Martin is running 30% over budget($233 million) for the PAC-3
theater missile defense system.
The Pentagon alleges that the goals of missile defense are defensive. However, the
Pentagon is moving ahead on a second front under the rubric of “missile defense” — Theater Missile Defense (TMD). TMD is an offensive system that aims to
support U.S. forces overseas through missiles deployed on land, sea, air and space.
One of Lockheed’s proudest moments was the successful test of the Star Wars
intercept system in 1984 – a critical factor in validating the much-criticized
“missile shield” concept. In 1993, The New York Times revealed that the test
was a fraud.
Lockheed Martin’s Theater High Altitude Area Defense system
(THAAD) has failed in 6 out of 8 tests to date, and yet they still received a
contract extension worth up to $4 billion for continuing work on the system.
Jack Ruina, formerly of the Defense Department, writes, “If NMD deployment
involved no more than spending a lot of money in pursuit of vain hope, it would only
be a waste — a bad buy. But it’s also bad foreign policy.”
As the U.S. seeks domination of space, we are violating key
international treaties and putting the world at risk of a new arms
race. The bad seeds of warfare, greed, exploitation and
environmental contamination are threatening this sacred frontier.
Join us in saying NO to Lockheed Martin and Star Wars!
NO to the weaponization and militarization of space!
$ $ $
August 13, 2002
Contributor Has Big Role in
Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Political analysts are questioning the wisdom of the Bush administration in selecting
a prominent Democrat donor with extensive ties to the Enron business scandal as
the manager of a $350 million taxpayer supported development project
Frank Savage is considered one of the most generous African-American donors
to Democratic Party causes, but in light of Enron’s bankruptcy, is also
characterized by one critic as a “shameless” personification of the recent
American corporate scandals.
The Bush administration, receiving conflicting advice from prominent African-American politicians, recently extended Savage’s term as managing general partner
of the Africa Millennium Fund, sponsored by the federal government’s
Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC).
The fund will pay for infrastructure projects in sub-Saharan Africa dealing with
energy, telecommunications and transportation. It “represents OPIC’s largest
single financing commitment to date,” according to an Aug. 8, 2001 press release
issued by the investment firm, Alliance Capital International, which
Savage was chairing at that point but was about to leave to take
up the position with OPIC.
U.S. taxpayers are due to pick up $227.5 million of the $350 million tab
to provide a guarantee for private investors who, at Savage’s urging, are
supposed to come up with the remaining $122.5 million.
Those private investors are being promised a 30 percent internal
rate of return, which includes both income and capital appreciation. Savage’s
original deadline for raising the private funds was the end of June, which he
missed. OPIC recently extended the deadline to Sept. 30.
Ties to Gore, Hillary, Schumer
Time magazine, in a Jan. 14 article, called Savage “a major Democratic donor” who
had given at least $100,000 to Democrats since 1999. Among the beneficiaries of
Savage’s contributions were presidential candidate Al Gore and Sens. Hillary
Clinton and Charles Schumer of New York.
As a result of those political activities, some observers wonder why the Bush
administration would keep Savage in such a high-profile position. Savage’s
involvement in the Enron scandal also makes him a liability to the administration,
those observers say.
‘Savage’s Record Is Appalling’
In a June article published by The American Prospect, journalist Joshua Green
called Savage “an authentic bad apple” for his past role as a member of Enron’s
board of directors and for his influence over the Florida state pension fund as
chairman of Alliance Capital.
Green, who also edits The Washington Monthly magazine, wrote that “Savage’s
record is appalling, even by the standards of Enron board
The Florida state pension fund lost$334 million while Savage’s firm,
Alliance Capital, managed the fund.
Under Savage’s supervision and using the Florida pension funds,
Alliance Capital became Enron’s largest institutional investor.
When Enron’s stock plummeted as a result of its accounting scandal, so did the
value of the Florida pension fund. Green wrote that Savage “wasn’t just asleep at
one switch – he was asleep at two.”
Florida state officials sued Alliance Capital for negligence in May of this year.
However, according to Green, Savage was “shameless” after the Enron scandal
“Not only did he decline to forego his $70,000 a year spot on Enron’s board, he
refused to step down from the boards of Qualcom and the
Lockheed Martin Corporation, despite a shareholder campaign [led by the
AFL-CIO] to remove him,” Green wrote.
Savage will “serve as a reminder of the need for corporate responsibility,” Green
Kevin Martin, political and government affairs director for the African American
Republican Leadership Council, believes the Bush administration selected Savage
because it was trying to heal the political turmoil left over from the hotly
contested 2000 Florida election results.
Using ‘Sellout’ to Make Nice With Democrats
“By having Savage work on this project, that was just one of [President Bush’s]
ways of attempting to make peace with Democrats,” Martin said.
Martin, who believes the administration’s peace-making efforts failed, is also
critical of Savage.
“He is one of these African-American Democratic sellouts who is more interested
in photo-ops and fundraising than the betterment of the community,” Martin said.
‘Abuse of Federal Authority’
Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, explained why he believes
OPIC selected a Democrat such as Savage to lead the Africa Millennium Fund.
“As usual, they are sucking up to people who despise them,” Phillips said.
Phillips believes OPIC’s mission in Africa is “comprehensively unconstitutional.” He
said the fund was using U.S. taxpayers as “the insurer of first
resort” and likened Savage’s role as manager of the fund to the
recent corporate scandals.
“I would characterize it as insider trading. Here is a guy who has contacts with
people who are running a government agency and they are in effect using the credit
of the taxpayer as political patronage,” Phillips explained.
“The very concept is an abuse of federal authority. It’s not unlike Enron cheating
its employees and shareholders,” he added.
A source inside the Bush administration told CNSNews.com that Rep. J.C. Watts,
R-Okla., was unhappy with the original selection of Savage to head the Africa
Millennium Fund and was further upset when Savage was given his recent
fundraising extension. However, a spokesman for Watts had “no comment” about
Savage when contacted by CNSNews.com.
Powell, Bloomberg Intervene
The Bush administration source also said Secretary of State Colin Powell and
Republican New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberglobbied to have Savage’s
deadline extended. Both men have previous ties to Savage.
Powell served on the board of trustees for Howard University in Washington,
D.C. when Savage chaired the panel. Savage also is on the board of directors for
Bloomberg L.P., the company the mayor headed before taking office….
‘Lack of Confidence’
The Bush administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity told
CNSNews.com, “The inability of Savage to raise money with a government
guarantee speaks volumes for the lack of confidence that institutional investors
feel toward him.”
Phillips noted that Savage would not need U.S. taxpayers to support the Africa
Millennium Fund if it was engaged in projects that are financially viable.
“If the investments were sound, private banks and companies would
insure them. You wouldn’t have to have Uncle Sucker take the
hard working money from two-earner families to pay for this
garbage,” Phillips said.
– Copyright CNSNews.com
* * *
April 22, 2003
Unions target corporate greed,
Baltimore Business Journal
The International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) and
the AFL-CIO say they are planning a rally for April 24 in opposition to the
renomination of former Enron Corp. directorFrank Savage to Lockheed
Martin Corp.’s board of directors.
Lockheed Martin Corp.’s annual shareholder meeting is in Dayton, Ohio, April 24.
Union representatives say they oppose the renomination because of evidence that
Savage and Enron’s board of directors “failed to exercise sufficient
oversight and restraint” to curb management excess at Enron.
Savage, 64, has been a director at Lockheed since March 1995 and served as a
director at Enron Corp. from 1999 to 2002, according to Lockheed’s most
recent proxy statement. Savage has been the CEO of Savage Holdings LLC
since August 2001 and was previously chairman of Alliance Capital
“The IAM is proud to take on the role of fighting for justice on the job and
service to the community into the realm of corporate governance,” said R. Thomas
Buffenbarger, the IAM’S national president.
NEW YORK (Reuters) – The United States may be spending more on the military,
but defense contractors Raytheon Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp.
reported losses on Friday after making bad bets on businesses such as
telecommunications and power.
Both companies saw their fourth-quarter profits wiped out by special charges
at a time when the U.S. fight against terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks, and
preparations for a possible war on Iraq, have lifted spending on national defense.
Lockheed reported a net loss of $347 million, while Raytheon posted a loss of
Lockheed, which is based in Bethesda, Maryland and makes the F-22 Joint
Strike Fighter, also warned thatrising pension costs would hurt future
earnings, and cut its 2003 profit forecast. Like other big companies with
retirement programs, the largest U.S. defense contractor’s pension
fund has been decimated by losses in the stock market….
LOCKHEED’S POOR PENSION PERFORMANCE
Lockheed said its net loss was due to $722 million in charges from items such as
the impairment of telecommunications investments and a payment to a Russian
manufacturer for commercial satellite launches. Lockheed also took a $106
million charge from the same satellite venture, called Space Imaging, as
Lockheed said that at the end of 2002 it took a$1.6 billionnon-cash charge
to its equity due to its pension fund.
Pension expense is likely to grow to about $490 million in 2003, up from an
earlier forecast of at least$50 million, it said.
Lockheed’s stock was up 64 cents at $52.92 in morning trade on the New
York Stock Exchange; Raytheon was up $2.25, or nearly 8 percent, at $30.80.
* * *
November 2, 2002
Decision sought in lawsuit against
PADUCAH, Ky. – Whistleblowerswho sued the former operator of the uranium
plant at Paducah want a judge to force federal officials to decide whether to join
the suit, which seeks hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds to the
The Justice Department on Thursday asked for an extension – the 13th extension
since the suit was filed in June 1999 against Lockheed Martin Corp.
Plaintiffs in the suit in U.S. District Court include three current and former plant
employees – Ronald B. Fowler, Charles F. Deuschle and Garland E. Jenkins. The
Natural Resources Defense Council and one of its members, Thomas B. Cochran,
also are plaintiffs.
Lockheed and its predecessors operated the uranium enrichment plant for the
Department of Energy from 1982 until 1992.
The suit claims Lockheed made false statements involving storage and disposal of
radioactive waste, exposure of workers to contaminants and contamination of
groundwater and soil.
As a result, the suit alleges, Lockheed was paid hundreds of
millions of dollars in fees that it didn’t deserve. It wants
Lockheed to refund the money.
If successful, the whistleblowers would get up to 25 percent. Lockheed denies the
The suit has been delayed while the Department of Justice and the Department
of Energy have spent more than $1 millioninvestigating the claims….
Attorneys for the whistleblowers contend in a court document filed Thursday that
the investigation has “largely affirmed the allegations”made in the suit.
However, the Energy Departmenthasn’t decided whether it will get
involved, they contend.
In Thursday’s filing, Joe Egan, the lead attorney for the whistleblowers, said
another extension was not justified.
But he asked U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley Jr. to grant a delay until Dec.
17 “with instructions that this extension shall be the last.”…
For more on what you should know before you start to glow, GO TO > > > The
* * *
September 19, 2002
Lockheed, BAE will pay $6.2 million
Lockheed Martin Corp. and BAE Systems Controls of Johnson City, N.Y.
have agreed to pay the government $6.2 million in a civil case* involving
alleged violation of the False Claims Act, the Justice Department announced
The government alleged that, from 1987 through 1994,General Electric
Co. and Martin Marietta Corp. delivered 1,300 aircraft components
for Navy aircraft that did not comply with contractual requirements.
Martin Marietta Corp.bought GE’s operation in Johnson City in 1993 and
Martin Marietta combined with Lockheed Corp. in 1995, creating
BAE Systems bought Lockheed Martin’s operation in Johnson City two years ago. . .
* (Catbird catcall: What, no criminal case?)
* * *
October 26, 2001
Lockheed Martin Corporation Wins $200 Billion Joint
Strike Fighter Contract
Dow Jones reported that Lockheed Martin Corporation won a $200 billionJoint Strike Fighter contract, the biggest award in military history.
The award will allow Lockheed to build the plane that is to be the next-generation
attack aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marines….
* * *
October 26, 2001
Lockheed Martin Corporation Agrees to Acquire OAO
Lockheed Martin’sLockheed Martin Technology Services Corporation
announced that it has signed a definitive agreement under which Lockheed Martin
Technology Services will acquire the outstanding stock of OAO.
Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.
* * *
< < < FLASHBACK < < <
July 31, 2000
Lockheed Martin and the GOP:
Profiteering and Pork Barrel Politics
with a Purpose
An Arms Trade Resource Center Issue Brief by William D. Hartung and Frida
I. Lott and Lockheed: Partners in Influence Peddling
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott kicked off the Republican National Convention
a day early with a massive theme party and fundraiser near the campus of Drexel
University. The party, which was attended by 1,500 faithful Lott supporters (plus
one of the authors of this issue brief) was a lavish 1950s-style dance party
emceed by Dick Clark with music by the Shirelles, Bobby Vee, and the Four Tops.
The “Lott Hop,” as it was called, was bankrolled almost entirely by major
corporations and industry associations, including the American Gas
Association, International Paper, and Lockheed Martin, the nation’s
largest weapons contractor.
Lockheed Martin, which has denied that it sponsored the event in an attempt to
influence the most powerful man in Congress, donated $60,000 towards the event.
The company has also pledged$1 million to the “Trent Lott Leadership
Institute”at the University of Mississippi.
What does Lockheed Martin have to celebrate about Trent Lott?
In the past few years, the majority leader has helped bail out multi-billion dollar
Lockheed Martin projects like theF-22 fighter, a $70 billion program that
was almost stopped in its tracks last year by Representatives Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
and Pennsylvania’s own Jack Murtha; theC-130 transport plane, which is
routinely added to the Pentagon budget in quantities far beyond what the Pentagon
requests; and theTheater High Altitude Area Defense project,
THAAD, for which the company has just received a $4 billion multi-year contractdespite the fact that it has failed in six of its eight tests.
II. Weapons Makers Largesse Favors Republicans
The relationship between Lott and Lockheed Martin is not unique. The top four
missile defense contractors –– Lockheed Martin, TRW, Boeing, and
Raytheon — have made $6 million in political contributions in the
current election cycle. The four firms also spent $34 million in
lobbying in 1997/98 alone, a figure that will no doubt be exceeded
when the final numbers of 1999/2000 are tallied.
Ever since the Republicans took control of Congress in January 1995, major
weapons contractors have favored them over Democratic candidates by a 2 to 1
The weapons makers have good reason to reward the Republican party for its role
in boosting weapons spending — since the Republicans took the House in 1995,
Congress has routinely added $5 to $10 billion per year to the Pentagon budget
beyond what the Clinton Administration has requested in its annual budget
As a result, the Pentagon budget will hit $310 billion next year, a Cold War level
budget despite the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists and the so-called
“rogue states” that the Pentagon worries about most — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
North Korea, and Cuba — taken together spend just one-eighteenth of what the
United States spends on its military.
III. TRW and John Warner: Hail to the Chairman
Lockheed Martin isn’t the only weapons contractor looking to solidify its
connections with key Republicans this week. TRW — which is facing charges
of fraud for manipulating results of tests related to the National
Missile Defense (NMD) program — is throwing a luncheon for Senate
Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner at the Philadelphia
Union Club at noon on July 31st.
Warner has been a key supporter of the NMD program. He led the Republican
charge in defeating an amendment sponsored by Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois
and Paul Wellstone of Minnesota that would have required the Pentagon to conduct
realistic tests of the NMD system before making a deployment decision.
At issue is the fact pointed out by Dr. Ted Postol of the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, a joint study group of experts from MIT and the Union of
Concerned Scientists, and the American Physical Society (the nation’s largest
professional organization of physicists) that the current NMD system has shown
no capability to distinguish between a nuclear warhead and a simple decoy.
TRW research scientist Dr. Nira Schwartz has filed a civil suit against the
company charging that they forced her to cover up research results documenting
that their NMD “kill vehicle” failed to tell a mock warhead from a decoy 80 to 85%
of the time.
IV. Bush and Cheney: the Arms Industry’s ‘Dream Team’
George W. Bush has strong ties toLockheed Martin from his service as
Governor of Texas, where he tried to give the firm a contract to run the Texas
welfare system before he had to relent in the face of public protests and an
unfavorable regulatory ruling by the Clinton administration.
Lockheed Martin VP Bruce Jackson is a finance chair of the Bush for
President campaign, and was heard to brag at a conference last year that he
would be in a position to “write the Republican platform” on defense if Bush gets
the nomination (which he will, later this week).
Dick Cheney, the man who presided over the U.S.-led victory over Saddam
Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War, has spent the past few years running the oil services
giant Halliburton, which ranked 18th on the Pentagon’s top contractors list in FY
Cheney’s wife, Lynne, serves on Lockheed Martin’s board, a service for
which she receives $120,000 in compensation. That’s small change for the
Cheney family — Dick earned $26.7 million in wages, bonuses, and stock options last
year — but it raises serious questions of conflict of interest when the potential
“second lady” is on the payroll of the nation’s largest weapons maker.
V. The Bottom Line: Both Major Parties Have Been Bought
The answer to the weapons industry’s hold on the Republican party is NOT to turn
to the Democrats. Under the leadership of Bill Clinton, Al Gore,and the
Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Party has been almost as pro-military as the Republicans, maintaining high military spending, throwing billions of
dollars at missile defense, and reaping over $1.1 million in soft money from Bernard
Schwartz of Loral Space and Communications in the most recent election cycle
The answer is to get special interest money out of politics by supporting full public
financing of presidential and congressional races on the “clean money” model,
where candidates can successfully run for office without taking any corporate
* * *
From Executive Pay Watch:
Vance D. Coffman, Chairman CEO, Lockheed Martin
In 2000, Vance D. Coffman raked in $16,420,778in total compensation from
And Vance D. Coffman has $9,525,750 in unexercised stock options from
* * *
MOANA WAVE HISTORY
The R/V Moana Wave was built by Halter Marine Corporation in New Orleans,
Louisiana, as an AGOR-class vessel for the United States Navy, and then leased to
the University of Hawaii in a charter party agreement. R/V Moana Wave spent her
first four years operating for the University on various research projects off
South America, the west coast of the United States, and Alaska.
In January of 1977, she was chartered from Hawaii Institute of Geophysics
(HIG) by the Naval Electronics System Command and spent the next six years
operating out of Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Little Creek, Virginia. During that
period, R/V Moana Wave was used in developing the Navy’s Surface Towed Array
System and was the model for the present class of TAGOS ships that deploy the
Upon completion of this project in February of 1984, R/V Moana Wave underwent
an extensiveoverhaul and refit at Halter Marine Shipyard in Chickasaw, Alabama.
The refit included adding a 30-ft section amidships, a deck house on the main
deck, six scientist’s staterooms, additional lab space, and a command center. A 7-ft extension was also added to the main deck aft to provide more machinery space
and work area.
In September of 1984,R/V Moana Wave returned to Honolulu for the first time in
over 6 1/2 years. S he was then fitted out with additional deck machinery,
electronics, and scientific equipment for her first post-conversion scientific
cruise. The new R/V Moana Wave departed Honolulu on 16 December 1984 on her
first research voyage to the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador.
In 1999, the ship was declared surplus by the UofH and the USN and in 2000 title
was transferred to the Clearwater Environmental Corporation of Anchorage,
Alaska … which itself is a division of the Ahtna Regional Corporation (one of
Alaska’s 13 Regional Native Corporations). Taken under management agreement
with her new owner, R/V Moana Wave was rebuilt and refitted to become an ocean
cable route survey vessel and has been under charter for doing cable route surveys
across the Pacific Rim from North America to the Far East and back.
In the past 9 months the ship has steamed over 13,000 miles and provided
survey data for three separate submarine fiber optic
* * *
July 4, 1996
Letters to the Editor
Somebody should sink idea of
building research vessel
It is hard to believe, in these times of budgetary problems, that anyone would
suggest building a new oceanographic research vessel (Star-Bulletin, June 27).
Much as I respect both Sen. Daniel Inouye and Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott, I can’t see how constructing the proposed vessel for the Navy, to be
operated by the University of Hawaii, is anything but pork.
In order to obtain backing for this proposed $45 million investment, both
senators must have had to agree to support other legislators who want a new
bridge here, a new federal building there, a park over here, etc.
It is apparent that the three public or quasi-public agencies – the Navy, the UH
and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – really didn’t feel this was an
important enough item to include in their respective budgets. Consequently, why
should Congress spend hard-earned taxpayer money on this project?
If Inouye is so interested in helping the UH and Hawaii, why doesn’t he suggest
spending one-tenth of the $45 million on completely refurbishing and modernizing
the Moana Wave, using local facilities such as Honolulu Shipyard? In this manner,
funds would be injected into Hawaii’s economy instead of elsewhere in the U.S.
– Edward H. Carus Jr.
New vessel will help us maintain scientific ranking
Your story (“Inouye backs $45 million ship for UH”) depicts Sen. Daniel Inouye
aggressively pursuing this funding in the face of opposition, implying that it’s
another pork barrel project of questionable utility.
In fact, the ship is sorely needed, and it has been at the top of the university’s
list of projects for which federal funds are being sought for some time. . . .
The university’s School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology now ranks
fifth in the U.S. for peer-reviewed ocean science funding from National Science
Foundation. With no ship to drive the research enterprise, that ranking will fall.
Although there is no guarantee that UH will be chosen to operate a new ship, we
are grateful that our congressional delegation has sought to remedy the situation.
Any criticism of Inouye for including the funding in the 1997 defense budget is
undeserved. Considering the importance of a strong academic teaching and
research base for economic development in the United States, the upgrading of
science and engineering facilities at colleges and universities is clearly in the
country’s best interest. This need for new capital facilities and equipment is widely
acknowledged. The federal government can and should play a leading role in this.
Dean O. Smith
Senior Vice President for Research and Graduate Education University of Hawaii
* * *
Dan Inouye Press Releases:
INOUYE ANNOUNCES UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII TO RECEIVE $45
MILLION OCEANOGRAPHIC SHIP
Friday, January 16, 1998
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C. — United States Senator Daniel K. Inouye is pleased
to announce that the U.S. Department of the Navy informed him that the
University of Hawaii at Manoa was awarded a new oceanographic ship to
replace the aging Moana Wave. In the Fiscal Year 1997 U.S. Department of
Defense Appropriations bill, at Senator Inouye’s request $45 million was
provided for the construction of this ship.
“I am most pleased to learn from the Department of the Navy that the
$45 million oceanographic research vessel will be placed in the custody of
the University of Hawaii at Manoa. This research vessel was sought by many
well-known universities and oceanographic research laboratories. This
decision confirms my high regard for the talent and expertise of the faculty
and students at the University of Hawaii. I hope that the University of
Hawaii will seriously consider home porting this vessel on the Island of
Hawaii. The Big Island offers many suitable sites such as Hilo or Kawaihae
Harbors to enhance the facilities and marine science operations at Keahole
in Kona,” said Senator Inouye.
* * *
INOUYE ANNOUNCES HAWAII FIRM TO HELP BUILD UH RESEARCH SHIP Thursday, April 9, 1998
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C. — United States Senator Daniel K. Inouye is pleased
to announce that a Hawaii maritime company, Pacific Marine & Supply, is
part of a national consortium that was recently awarded a $36 million
contract to design and build the new SWATH oceanographic research vessel
for the University of Hawaii (UH). The announcement was made by the
U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command.
When built, the new ship will join the University-National Oceanographic
Laboratory Systems fleet of five research vessels owned by the Navy and
operated under contract to various universities in the United States. The
new Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull (SWATH) oceanographic vessel will
replace the retiring MOANA WAVE research vessel operated by the UH
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST). SOEST has a
long 30-year history of ocean research in the central and circum-Pacific
“I am most pleased to learn that Pacific Marine is a part of the winning
bidder to build the oceanographic research vessel that will be placed in the
custody of the University of Hawaii. I have confidence that together with
Lockheed Marine and Ingalls Shipbuilding, they will deliver a state of the art
vessel to Hawaii. I hope that the University of Hawaii will seriously consider
homeporting this vessel on the Island of Hawaii. The Big Island offers many
suitable sites such as Hilo Harbor to enhance the facilities and marine
science operations at UH Hilo and at Keahole in Kona,” said Senator Inouye.
In addition to Pacific Marine, the winning consortium includes team leader
Lockheed Marine of California, as well as Ingalls Shipbuilding of Mississippi.
Phase I of the contract involves design work on the vessel, with a follow-up
Phase II option to build the vessel. Pacific Marine is a pioneer in
commercializing SWATH ship technology in the United States. In 1992, it
teamed up with Lockheed Martin Corporation of California to research,
develop and commercialize a fast SWATH hull form variant patented by
Lockheed called SLICE.
* * *
November 9, 1999
Lockheed lands UH research ship deal
By Mike Gordon, Honolulu Advertiser
Instead of going to a shipyard, the Navy is breaking tradition and granting a $42.3
million contract to Lockheed Martin Corp. to build a unique research ship destined
for the University of Hawaii.
Researchers at the university’s School of Ocean and Earth Science Technology
are relieved that the contract has been signed. The contract had been in
negotiations for about six months, and the school had retired its aging research
ship, the 27-year-old Moana Wave.
In handing the contract to Lockheed Martin Launching Systems last week, the
Navy broke from its historic practice of giving such contracts to shipyards, which
usually purchase components from Lockheed and other firms.
“I am conscious that I am plowing new ground, and I am conscious that (high-ranking officers) are very interested in what we are doing,” said Capt. Doyle R.
Kicthin, Navy manager for the program.
The 2,500-ton research ship will be built on an innovative Lockheed Martin design
called Swath, which stands for small waterplane-area twin-hull. Similar to the
Navatek cruise ships, the new vessel will rest above the surface of the water on
stilts connected to two cigar-shaped submerged hulls.
The design is intended to keep the deck relatively stable, even in rough seas ——
and that is something researchers are eager to use.
“We can transit at 12 knots, and it stays very stable,” said Patricia Cooper, the
school’s associate dean of academic affairs. “That’s important for us. We need to
be in labs setting things up. You can just imagine the problems with motion ——
breaking beakers and barfing scientists.”
Cooper said the 182-foot-long ship will have a computer-controlled thruster
system to keep it within 15 meters of any position researchers want to hover over.
It also has a range of 10,000 nautical miles.
Scientists will be able to collect data, tow and recover instrument packages,
monitor remotely operated vehicles and install and service deep sea moorings that
are used for long term research programs, Cooper said.
It will have 2,000 square feet of working deck space and about 3,000 square feet
of lab space.
“We already have a bunch of long-term programs that will take advantage of this
ship,” she said. “I think it will attract scientists nationwide.”
The ship will be built at Atlantic Marine Inc. in Jacksonville, Fla. The university is
expected to take delivery of the ship in September 2001.
Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, pushed Congress to approve $45 million in design,
construction and operating money for the ship.
If the venture is successful, “we think it’s going to be a great new part of our
business here in Baltimore,” said Mike Hughes, vice president and general manager
of Lockheed Martin Launching Systems.
Analysts said the contract for the ship could open the door for Lockheed Martin
to the lucrative business of building ships and help lift the fortunes of the
struggling defense giant.
Lockheed, better known as the maker of the F-16 fighter jet and C-130J
transport plane, does about $2.5 billion worth of systems and services work for
the Navy each year. But with the Navy determined to maintain a 300-ship fleet,
shipbuilding is expected to be a growth area, said Todd B. Ernst, an analyst at
Prudential Securities in New York.
“This (research) ship is on a much smaller scale, but we nevertheless think the big
picture for this is going to be pretty robust,” Ernst said.
Lockheed Martin Launching Systems also is looking at commercial applications for
the submerged-hull technology.
The firm has marketed a new, faster design called “Slice,” which was built for
Lockheed by Pacific Marine & Supply in Hawaii. Lockheed hopes West Coast
cities will like its stable platform for oceangoing ferries.
– The Associated Press contributed to this report.
* * *
November 19, 2000
Ahtna president wants name cleared on ship
ANCHORAGE (AP) — The president of Ahtna Inc. has asked his board to
investigate allegationsthat he and the head of an Ahtna subsidiary personally
profited in a deal to purchase a ship.
The move comes after some board members at Glennallen-based Ahtna, one of the
13 Alaska Native regional corporations, raised questions about the deal.
An attorney for Ahtna president Darryl Jordan, as well as Ed Cronick, president
of Anchorage-based subsidiary Clearwater Environmental Inc., denied any
A financial officer for the companies said the dispute hinges on a misunderstanding
of how the 210-foot research vessel Moana Wave was acquired and how it was
accounted for on company books.
Jordan did not return phone calls for an interview by the Anchorage Daily News. In
recent months, he has survived repeated split votes by the 13-member Ahtna
board on whether he should continue as head of the company.
His attorney, John McCarron, said that Jordan had asked the board to look into
the dispute and that Jordan could not speak publicly pending the outcome.
A state agency that administers surplus federal property also is investigating
Ahtna’s acquisition of the ship, as well as an airplane.
Ahtna acquired the Moana Wave last year for a $50,000 fee through a
government surplus property program. The ship is a former Navy vessel that had
been used by the University of Hawaii for marine research.
The vessel subsequently was transferred to Ahtna subsidiary Clearwater and is
now being contracted out on marine research jobs in the Pacific.
Some board members questioned the transfer as a maneuver to benefit Jordan
and Cronick, who together own 49 percent of Clearwater, with Ahtna holding 51
The board authorized a committee of its members to hire an independent counsel
to investigate. In a report Oct. 25, the attorney, Bruce Gagnon, wrote that the
ship transfer appeared to have wiped out what would have been ”substantial
losses” Clearwater would have recorded for 1999, and that ”Jordan and Cronick
each made approximately $1.33 million in the process.”
They did because the ship was recorded in Clearwater’s books as $5.44 million in
revenue. The booking also kept Ahtna in the black for 1999, according to the
company’s annual report.
”While I am not an accountant, I have never heard of or seen a company reporting
substantial income upon the acquisition of an asset such as the Moana Wave at
nominal or no cost,” Gagnon wrote. ”I have confirmed the irregularity of this sort
of reporting with three different certified public accountants.”
Patrick Anderson, an attorney for Ahtna, said Gagnon is ”a very fine attorney”
but that he didn’t have complete information.
Dennis Mandell, chief financial officer for Ahtna subsidiaries, said both he and
Clearwater’s auditor are confident the ship was properly booked as income.
”This is a very, very unique transaction,” he said.
He cited accounting rules that essentially donated property like the Moana Wave
should be recorded as income based on its fair market value. Clearwater had the
Moana Wave appraised and that’s where the $5.44 million figure came from, he
As for why the ship was transferred from Ahtna to Clearwater, said Mandell, it
was always the intent that Clearwater end up with the ship and all Ahtna and
Clearwater board members were so informed.
”It was Ed Cronick’s vision and drive that landed this opportunity,” Mandell said.
The ship originally went to Ahtna because the company had prior experience in
acquiring surplus government property, he said.
However, due to surplus property rules particular to Native corporations, the ship,
had Ahtna kept it, would have been confined to operating only in Alaska.
That rule didn’t apply to Clearwater, so the ship was transferred on the
advice of government officials, Mandell said.
He agreed that Clearwater would have suffered a loss were it not for the Moana
Some board members have said that Jordan has a conflict of interest in
simultaneously owning part of Clearwater and heading Ahtna.
But that is negated because Jordan has made no secret of his interest in
Clearwater and the board of Ahtna has not objected, Mandell said….
* * *
February 11, 2001
Ahtna board fires president, legal counsel
ANCHORAGE (AP) — The board of Ahtna Inc. has fired its president and chief
executive officer. Darryl Jordan was removed Saturday in an 8-1 board vote.
Board Chairman L. Paul Mayo resigned from the board, according to a broadcast
report by KFQD-radio.
The corporation will be operated by a committee of three board members until the
top vacancy is filled. Ahtna’s legal counsel, Patrick Anderson, is also being
Ahtnais one of 13 Alaska Native regional corporations.
Jordan’s removal follows 13 months of dissension among the Glennallen-based
corporation’s shareholders and allegations of mismanagement of corporation
Some shareholders questioned Jordan’s status as a board member, president and
chief executive officer of the corporation, while at the same time holding one-quarter ownership of Clearwater Environmental, one of Ahtna’s affiliate
Jordan in November sought to clear his name and asked the Ahtna board to
investigate allegations that he and the head of Clearwater Environmental, Ed
Cronick, personally profited in a deal to purchase a ship.
Jordan’s management also has been questioned in regard to the company’s
government surplus acquisition of an airplane, and its subsequent use, and
consolidation of lines of credit between Ahtna and Clearwater.
The ship dispute hinged on the acquisition of the 210-foot
research vesselMoana Waveand how it was accounted for on
Ahtna acquired the Moana Wave in 1999 for a $50,000 fee through a government
surplus property program. The ship is a former Navy vessel that had been used by
the University of Hawaii for marine research.
The vessel subsequently was transferred to Clearwater Environmental and was
being contracted out on marine research jobs in the Pacific.
Some board members questioned the transfer as a maneuver to benefit Jordan
and Cronick, who together own 49 percent of Clearwater, with Ahtna holding
The board authorized a committee of its members to hire an independent counsel
to investigate. In a report Oct. 25, the attorney, Bruce Gagnon, wrote that the
ship transfer appeared to have wiped out what would have been ”substantial
losses” Clearwater would have recorded for 1999, and that Jordan and Cronick
each made approximately $1.33 million in the process.”
They did because the ship was recorded in Clearwater’s books as $5.44 million
in revenue. The booking also kept Ahtna in the black for 1999, according to the
company’s annual report.
An Anchorage Daily News story in November quoted Gagnon in his report saying he
had never heard of or seen a company reporting substantial income upon the
acquisition of an asset at nominal or no cost.
Dennis Mandell, chief financial officer for Ahtna subsidiaries, said both he and
Clearwater’s auditor were confident the ship was properly booked as income.
He also said it was always the intent that Clearwater end up with the ship and all
Ahtna and Clearwater board members were so informed.
”It was Ed Cronick’s vision and drive that landed this opportunity,” Mandell told
the Anchorage Daily News.
The ship originally went to Ahtna because the company had prior experience in
acquiring surplus government property, he said.
However, due to surplus property rules particular to Native
corporations, the ship, had Ahtna kept it, would have been
confined to operating only in Alaska.
That rule didn’t apply to Clearwater, so the ship was transferredon the advice of government officials, Mandell said. . . .
– Kenai Peninsula Online
* * *
FromYear of the Rat – How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for
THE LOCKHEED – MARTIN AFFAIR
On May 30, 1998, a Chinese Long March rocket sent up a Lockheed-Martin
telecommunications satellite called “ChinaStar1.”…
Over the course of the past eight years there has been a steady trend in satellite
operators from Australians, to legitimate commercial interests in Hong Kong, to
COSTIND in civilian clothes in Hong Kong, to something mysterious in Singapore,
and now to a Beijing-registered, PRC government-owned firm, China Orient
Satellite Telecommunications (COSAT).
According to published reports, COSAT is a joint venture between the Chlinese
Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, and Polytechnologies.
Polytechnologies is the problem.
It is owned by the General Staff Department of the PLA and headed by Deng
POLY IS CHINA’S LEADING ARMS SMUGGLER AND THE CONDUIT FOR
RUSSIAN ARMS TRANSFERS TO CHINA.
POLY WAS ALSO ONE OF TWO CHINESE ARMS SMUGGLERS CAUGHT BY
U.S. CUSTOMS AGENTS TRYING TO SELL FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE
GUNS TO U.S. DRUG GANGS IN 1996.
~ ~ ~
With regard toChinaStar, Poly is alleged to have arranged with Lockheed to
ensure that the satellite downlinks “passed through missile launching sites” in
The operating assumption is that this is going to be primarily a command and
control satellite for the PLA and for PLA business interests….
We have asked American military sources about COSAT but have been told that it
is “too sensitive” to discuss….
If it was known to a foreign wire service as early as 1995 that
COSAT was a front for the notorious Polytechnologies, why did the
Clinton administration grant approval for the deal?
Far from opposing the mating dances of corporate Goliaths, Washington actively
In 1995, for example, the Pentagon was so pleased that the giant weapons maker
Lockheed was going to take over competitorMartin Marietta that it ponied
up nearly a billion of our tax dollars to pay for merger costs,
including shelling out some$3 million in a bonus to Lockheed CEO Norman
Augustine and $31 million more in bonuses to other top executives who
engineered the merger– a combination that cost nineteen thousand
workers their jobs.
The government payouts to Augustine and the other executives were orchestrated
by then-secretary of defenseWilliam Perry and his deputy John Deutch—
both of whom had previously been highly compensated consultants to Martin
Marietta and had a close personal relationship with Augustine.
(An interesting footnote to this government-induced merger is that one fellow who
lost his job as a result of it went away with a big grin on his face: Lamar
Alexander–the hapless candidate for the Republican presidential nomination! He
had been a well-paid, ex-board member. The merged company wanted a smaller
board, so it paid Larmar $236,000 for agreeingnotto serve on the new
Lockheed Martin board.)
* * *
From tripod.com, by Kaplan and Dubro: . . . Perhaps the best-known case of
underworld involvement with political figures is the bribery scandal in the early
1970s involving Lockheed Corp’s attempt to win All Nippon Airways Co. Ltd’s
A key figure in this affair was Yoshio Kodama, a liaison between
politicians and underworld groups.
Using money from Lockheed, Mr. Kodama, whose power and influence with
gangsters as well as politicians remains unmatched even after his 1984 death,
targeted payments to key government officials– including former Prime Minister
Kakuei Tanyaka– and employed the yakuza in a variety of capacities … to ensure
that ANA selected Lockheed’s TriStar L-1011 wide-bodied jet over the
competition’s planes. . . .
Corporationsdo it to avoid or evade taxes, to defraud their shareholders, to get
around currency control regulations, and to bribe prospective clients. …
TheLockheed Corporation laundered $25.5 million through a Liechtenstein
trust to pay off Italian politicians.
Lockheed also subscribed to the laundry facilities of Deak-Perera, then an
important American foreign exchange dealer,to bribe Japanese politicians.
As Lockheed’s behest, Deak put $8.3 million into the washing cycle, then
brought it out in 15 untraceable payments to a Spanish priest in Hong Kong, who
hand-carried the cash in flight bags and orange crates to Lockheed’s customers in
Tokyo. . . .
* * *
Holes in the Coverage
What’s left out of reporting on missile defense
By Michelle Ciarrocca
Even as skepticism over the proposed $60 billionnational missile defense (NMD)
system emerges in the headlines, the general assumption continues to be that
sooner or later missile defenses will work.
Just days after President Clinton’s decision to defer a decision on deployment to
the next administration, the New York Times (9/4/00) was quick to promote
theater missile defenses, or what they called “lesser-known antimissile weapons.”
The article claims that the theater systems have been “extensively tested,” but
fails to mention the results of those tests, which have been neither extensive nor
successful. The PAC-3 system has achieved three intercepts out of five tests, the
THAAD system has scored two hits out of eight attempts, and the Airborne Laser
was successful in its only intercept attempt.
As a whole, the missile defense issue has enjoyed extensive coverage in the
nation’s press. But important aspects, such as test records and technical critiques,
the fraud and mismanagement charges involving the main missile defense
contractors, and the special interests that have helped shape the debate have
barely been addressed in the media.
Will it work?
Weeks before the Pentagon’s July 8 intercept test failure, the Baltimore Sun
(6/21/00) noted that the Pentagon might back the NMD system even if the test
failed. The week of the third and final intercept test before Clinton made his
decision, Time (7/10/00) got to the heart of the matter with this headline:
“Missile Impossible? This week’s $100 million test of the space shield is all but
Does the outcome matter?”
The answer: NO.
From the start, deployment of the NMD system has been treated like a foregone
conclusion with little thought (or doubt) given to its technological merits. As Larry
Korb from the Council on Foreign Relations aptly summed it up, the prevalent belief
is “If you build it, it will work.”
The Clinton administration’s proposed NMD system has been rightly touted as the
Pentagon’s most demanding weapon system ever, “involving technologies so
sophisticated that some haven’t even been invented” (Boston Globe, 8/9/00).
But what is generally lacking in the media’s coverage is the fact that the Pentagon
expects to test the NMD system less than typical military systems with less
demanding missions. To date, the NMD system has completed only three of the
scheduled 19 intercept tests. The record: 1 hit, 2 misses. By contrast, the Patriot
missile system (which has a far less difficult task than NMD) succeeded in 17 out
of 17 tests before being deployed. The Patriot performed far worse under actual
combat conditions during the Gulf War, hitting only about 10 percent of its
Furthermore, all the variations of missile defense involve “Hit-to-Kill”
technologies, which have failed in the vast majority of tests conducted over the
past decade. The New York Times (6/30/00) was one of the few places where this
critical fact was pointed out: “Since research on so-called hit-to-kill weapons began
in 1976, attempts to destroy mock warheads have failed more than 70 percent of
Test results notwithstanding, advocates of the system have been able to spin
failures into “successes.”
The Los Angeles Times (1/20/00) reported that after the January 2000 intercept
test failure, Pentagon officials were quick to point out all the “bright spots in the
According to the New York Times (7/15/00), there was agreement “among
technically knowledgeable observers on all sides of the debate” that “the generally
low-tech breakdowns that have caused the test failures……say little about whether
the program will eventually succeed.”
Yet if the developers can’t even master the low-tech components of the system,
how can the United States entrust them to develop the Pentagon’s most
challenging weapons system ever?
A blind faith in science and technology appears to have seeped into the media,
obscuring the many technical critiques that have emerged over the past year.
Philip Coyle, the Pentagon’s director of operational testing and evaluation, issued
his annual report on NMD in February 2000. He highlighted the “undue pressure”
being placed on the program, saying: “The NMD program will have to compress the
work of 10 to 12 years into eight or less years…. This pattern has historically
resulted in a negative effect on virtually every troubled DOD development
General Accounting Office (GAO) report released on May 31, 2000 was also
critical of the NMD program. Among its concerns were the risks in developing the
system because of restrictions in the test flights, the potential for rising costs
and the uncertainty of the missile threat facing the United States.
Most recently, the independent Welch panel, headed by former Air Force chief of
staff Larry Welch, released the latest of three critical reports on the missile
defense program. The panel’s June 2000 report questioned the system’s ability to
address realistic decoys and countermeasures. The earlier reports pointed to
systematic flaws in design, planning and management, and warned that the program
was on a “rush to failure” schedule.
While these critiques created one-day news flashes upon their release, media have
failed to convey their importance in coverage of the NMD intercept tests. In the
aftermath of the most recent test, which took place on July 8, no major
newspapers mentioned any of the above critiques.
Special interests drive program
Beyond the technical hurdles NMD still has to clear, the special interests pushing
the missile defense issue have rarely made it to the surface in media coverage.
Through campaign contributions and extensive lobbying efforts, the military
industry has played a pivotal role in putting NMD back on the agenda.
“Over the last decade,” the New York Times reported in an exceptional piece
(6/13/00), “the arms industry has spent$49 million in campaign contributions
to Washington politicians and an additional$2 millionin a more subtle and
indirect campaign that they say has helped create an atmosphere in which the
pressure to build an antimissile system weighs heavily on both parties.”
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that the “Big 4” missile
defense contractors--Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and TRW–have given out almost $7 million in PAC and soft-money contributions since 1997.
And in 1997 and 1998, the most recent years for which figures are available, the
four spent a whopping $34 millionon lobbying.
The top missile defense contractors have also been generous supporters of the
often-quoted Frank Gaffney Jr., a leading proponent of NMD who heads the
Center for Security Policy in Washington. In a New York Times article
(9/6/00), Gaffney is quoted calling ads from the disarmament group Peace Action
But it seems far more misleading that the article failed to mention that Gaffney’s
Center for Security Policy receives more than 15 percent of its annual revenue
from corporate sponsors, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
The Rumsfeld commission, which found that the missile threat facing the U.S.
is “evolving more rapidly” than had been reported, was described as a “bipartisan
commission that has been determining the threat posed to the United States by
ballistic missiles” (Washington Post, 7/29/98).
But the makeup of the commission, chaired by former Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld, calls into question the group’s impartiality.
Center for Security Policy board members William Graham and William
Schneider served on the panel, and CSP has publicly bragged that a number of its
former staffers and interns went on to serve as staff members of the Rumsfeld
Donald Rumsfeld is a financial supporter of the Center for Security Policy, as
well as a board member of Empower America, a group that ran a series of pro-“Star Wars” radio ads during the 1998 elections.
While Long Island Newsday (7/16/98) rightly noted that the commission was
“created by the Republican Congressional leadership,” none of these personnel
details were revealed in media coverage of the Rumsfeld report.
Conflicts and corruption
Given that the results of the missile defense tests Boeing, Lockheed Martin,
Raytheon and TRW are helping to carry out will determine whether they begin
reaping lucrative, multi-billion-dollar production contracts, these major corporate
players have a serious and direct conflict of interest.
All of these companies have questionable records, with histories of corruption,
cost overruns and mismanagement. The shameful record of these corporations has
not been incorporated in the coverage of the NMD program, but instead hidden in
the business section of the newspapers.
For example, Raytheon settled a lawsuit in 1999 charging that it “had engaged in at
least three days of industrial spying that included video and audio surveillance and
thefts of documents” (Boston Globe, 5/13/99).
The L.A. Times reported that “the FBI is looking into allegations that defense
giant TRW was guilty of fraud and cover-up in developing a key component
of the controversial national missile defense” (L.A. Times, 9/12/00), allegedly
faking test data to conceal that the prototype “kill vehicle” – the critical part of
the NMD system – could not pick out warheads from decoys.
Lockheed Martin, contractor for the NMD payload launch vehicle, experienced
a series of embarrassing and expensive launch failures of its rockets and satellites
recently, with“more than $2 billion worth of military and private
satellites being either destroyed or deployed into useless orbits”(Washington Post, 9/1/99).
Moreover, Lockheed colluded with the Pentagon in June 1984 in
rigging the allegedly successful intercept test of Reagan’s Star
Nine years later the truth came out, that “the target was artificially heated to
make it a bigger target” and “an explosive charge had also been placed on the
target missile” (New York Times, 8/27/93). But officials denied that they rigged
the test, maintaining that it was a “normal test event.”
The histories of corporate fraud and corruption on the part of the contractors,
the millions of dollars of special interests money influencing the missile defense
debate, and the understatement of the technical impediments facing the NMD
system have been given too little attention in the media.
Before the next president decides on deployment, media should ensure that all
aspects of the missile defense issue are out in the open.
– Michelle Ciarrocca is a research associate at the World Policy Institute in New
* * *
An Open Letter of Congratulations
from a DOE Whistleblower
Ms. Bonnie Bautz
Inspector General Office
Department of Energy
55 Jefferson Circle, Rm 113
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Dear Bonnie Bautz:
I remember so well your enthusiastic denial that it would happen just this way
when we first discussed my whistleblowing case years ago. Yet as I predicted then,
each element has come to pass:
>> The Department of Energy and Lockheed Martin have quietly behind
the scenes made a few changes to insure that future violations would be less overt
>> They have buried my complaint under mountains of meaningless forms,
investigations, and paperwork.
>> They have punished me for being the messenger of an unwanted truth.
>> They have used you in a ruse investigation as a pawn in their cover up.
>> Hazel O’Leary, like every other politician has talked out of both sides of her
mouth, while living it up on our tax dollars. She has issued reams of meaningless
drivel about the importance of whistleblowers, and how they are valued at DOE,
while gadding about the world at public expense, and spending more to have her
staff justify it.
While I hate to be so right, it does seem the more things change, the more public
graft and corruption stay the same. Yet they are evolving ever more prevalent,
artful, and beyond all control.
I am neither smug nor bitter at this NOT so unexpected flow of events. I remain
however defiant and resolute in my effort to point out that it has been the
master, all along, stealing from his own wood pile, and blaming it on some poor
darkie. The wheel of life rolls, and the top eventually becomes the bottom,
corruption most often holds the seeds of its own destruction. Regardless, time
Marginalization is a complex process by which a privileged few bend and distort
the law and public perception to deprive others of their rights. The law is ignored
when inconvenient to the powered few. Public relations propaganda is used to
trivialize and defame the target group, and to valorize the privileged group,
creating a false perception of who wears the white hats, and who it is that truly
respects the law. Human rights violations are buried in a barrage of meaningless
confusion. Power and influence are used to close off access to redress and justice.
An artful slight-of-hand renders the whole scandal as invisible as air.
In the end, status quo is maintained, as well as appearances and ideals, if only
mythically. The law is brutalized, the civil rights are trivialized, but the
disadvantaged have been kept in their “proper place.” Business may proceed as
A pseudoharmony is perpetuated on the backs of those that the bigots at the top
so disdain, and few if any of the apathetic masses are bit the wiser. This whole
process is well known to the American Indian (or any other indigenous people) who
has been the victim of it for centuries, and studied it in and out, while asking
neither sympathy, nor demanding change.
In patient defiance I remain,
David K. Hackett, Whistleblower
# # #
In June, 2000, it was announced that Secretary of Commerce William
Daley was resigning his post to become AL GORE’S campaign manager. A few
days later, it was announced that PRESIDENT CLINTON had named NORMAN
MINETA his choice for the new Secretary of Commerce.
* * *
Before being named Secretary of Commerce,
– a former California congressman –
* * *
In January, 2001, GEORGE W. BUSH (R) namedNORMAN MINETA (D)
as his SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION.
~ ~ ~
On September 11, 2001, under the watch of NORMAN MINETA, four U.S.
airliners were hijacked.
~ ~ ~
On October 27, 2001, LOCKHEED MARTIN was awarded the largest military
contract in the history of our country.
FAIR USE NOTICE.This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes
a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.