[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22416-22430]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               INVESTIGATION AND TREATMENT OF WEN HO LEE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mica). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to express my deep 
concerns about the overall unfortunate circumstances that have revolved 
around Wen Ho Lee.
  On March 6 of 1999, the New York Times reported that government 
investigators believed that China had accelerated its nuclear weapons 
program with the aid of stolen American secrets. This report, along 
with other reports that came subsequently, led to a frenzy of activity. 
In fact, 2 days after the March 6, 1999 New York Times report, Wen Ho 
Lee, who was identified, was then fired from the laboratory; and soon 
after that, he was charged with the various offenses.
  In September of this year, September 26, 2000, the New York Times 
took the very exceptional opportunity to explain the backup of their 
reporting, going back to March 6, 1999. Although they really made no 
overt apologies for the conclusions that they drew in their March 6, 
1999 article, it is interesting to note that they made various 
observations.
  First, they said looking back, and I quote from this article of New 
York Times Tuesday September 26: ``But looking back, we also found some 
things that we wish we had done differently in the course of the 
coverage to give Dr. Lee the full benefit of the doubt. In those 
months, we could have pushed harder to uncover weaknesses in the FBI 
case against Dr. Lee. Our coverage would have been strengthened had we 
moved faster to assess the scientific, technical and investigative 
assumptions that led the FBI and the Department of Energy to connect 
Dr. Lee to what is still widely acknowledged to have been a major 
security breach.''
  The Times neither imagined the security breach, as they go on to say, 
nor did they initiate the case against Dr. Wen Ho Lee. But, however, it 
was the March 6 article that set the tone for the coverage against this 
individual in the ensuing months.
  The New York Times editorial of September 26, 2000 goes on to say, 
``The article, however, had flaws that are more apparent now that the 
weaknesses of the FBI case against Dr. Lee have surfaced. It did not 
pay enough attention to the possibility that there had been a major 
intelligence loss in which the Los Alamos scientist was a minor 
player,'' and perhaps maybe even uninvolved.
  ``The Times should have moved more quickly'', it said in this 
article, ``to open a second line of reporting, particularly among 
scientists inside and outside the government.''
  This article is a very unique and interesting attempt on the part of 
the New York Times to respond to severe criticism that other 
journalists had leveled against the New York Times for its March 6, 
1999 article.
  But in any event, the ensuing events that evolved around Dr. Wen Ho 
Lee is what prompts me to come to the floor tonight to speak about this 
incident. It is very strange that, if there was such an egregious 
breach of national security presumably organized and conducted by Dr. 
Wen Ho Lee, that it took 9 months to obtain an indictment against him, 
during which time he was completely free.
  At that time, 9 months later, they charged him with 59 separate 
felony offenses. Thirty-nine counts alleged that Dr. Lee violated the 
Atomic Energy Act because he mishandled material containing restricted 
data with the intent to injure the United States and with the intent to 
secure an advantage to a foreign Nation. Ten counts alleged that Dr. 
Lee unlawfully obtained defense information in violation of the law, 
ten counts of willfully retaining national defense information in 
violation of the law.
  What safeguards did the government take to make sure that Dr. Wen Ho 
Lee did not flee or transfer the tapes to some individual during those 
9 months? Nothing that I am aware of. He was certainly a security risk 
from the time that he was fired from the Los Alamos laboratory until he 
was finally charged on December 10, 1999.
  Now suddenly we read in the newspapers in September of the year 2000 
that 58 charges leveled against Dr. Wen Ho Lee were dropped under a 
plea bargain involving the plea of guilty on one count only and a 
pledge to cooperate with the government to disclose why he did it and 
how he disposed of the tapes that he has pled guilty to having taken. 
It is very strange.
  The reason I take this floor to raise this issue is not to discuss 
the innocence or guilt of this man. He has already pleaded guilty. But 
the one thing that has concerned the Asian American community 
tremendously is the way that he was treated after he was finally 
charged with these various 59 crimes and incarcerated.
  Suddenly, after he was picked up, he became a huge national security 
risk. Yet, for 9 months, he was allowed to come and go as a free 
citizen. Only upon his indictment in December of 1999 did he become a 
security risk.
  In his plea for bail, release on bail and other things that came up 
at that hearing, it was pointed out by the prosecutors that he 
constituted a real risk and that he might transfer the tapes to 
unauthorized individuals. The whole matter lay in a situation in which, 
as one reporter said, that, short of the charges of espionage and 
naming him a spy, that he was incarcerated under arraignment under 
very, very serious conditions.
  It is that level of concern that the Asian community has raised many, 
many questions. They have met with the Attorney General to discuss it 
and other officials that will listen to him.
  My reason for rising here tonight is that we believe that there was a 
serious mistake made by the government in the way that they dealt with 
Dr. Wen Ho Lee. There is absolutely no justification that he was 
allowed to be a free person for 9 months if, in fact, the government 
had suspicion for at least 3 or 4 years that something was awry, that 
the tapes had been missing and he was under surveillance.
  In fact, they had gone to the Justice Department asking for 
permission to look at his computer and to make determinations as to 
whether something was done that violated the security restrictions of 
the laboratory, and the Justice Department denied the request of the 
investigators.
  Yet, here on December 10, he was denied bail. Out of that denial came 
this extraordinary disclosure through the family and through his 
lawyers and through others who became acquainted with the nature of his 
confinement, that he was kept in a cell, completely enclosed, maybe 4 
feet by 16 feet in dimension. The entrance to his cell was not the 
regular bars, but it was a door with a little window. He was kept in

[[Page 22417]]

there virtually, except for meals, the complete time that he was 
incarcerated, from December 10 until he was released on September 20.
  The other egregious thing, besides being kept in such solitary 
confinement for this length of time, because he constituted a serious 
security risk to this Nation, he was kept in chains whenever he was 
allowed to go out to exercise, which was only 1 hour a day. He was 
required to be in chains. His ankles were chained. His wrists were 
chained. His wrists were chained, They were connected to his waist 
chains. He was expected to go out into the open air and exercise under 
those circumstances.
  It is an absolutely inexplicable situation that they had leveled upon 
him. Many of the people who have looked at this situation, and, indeed, 
those who testified over on the Senate side indicated that this was 
probably done to him in an effort to try to force him to disclose 
information that led him to make the tapes and to disclose where these 
tapes were in fact placed. So it was all a matter of trying to 
intimidate this individual prior to going to trial, prior to any 
particular finding of specific guilt.
  Probably most of the Asians were reluctant to speak up, including 
myself, during this whole tragic event, because we did not quite know 
exactly the extent to which this individual was actually guilty of the 
59 charges.
  Then out of the clear blue, we find that a judge has, not only 
condemned the Justice Department and the Attorney General for the 
mishandling of his incarceration, but by a plea bargain with the 
Justice Department, he is totally exonerated of 58 of the charges, 
pleads guilty to one, and he is a free person, no longer a security 
threat to the United States, and they still do not know where the tapes 
are as far as I know.

                              {time}  1930

  This is an incredible situation that we find ourselves in, with one 
person being put under such severe personal jeopardy before trial, 
before an absolute finding of guilt, and to know that in the end he was 
allowed to be a free person.
  So the questions have to be raised, I think. And many of the people 
from the Asian community are asking these questions: Was his 
apprehension in the first place triggered because he was an Asian? Many 
people are suggesting that others at the Los Alamos laboratory 
committed even more serious violations with respect to secret, 
classified documents, and with respect to the procedures that had been 
in place as to how individuals were supposed to deal with security 
items; yet these people were not investigated, were not put through the 
same extent of inquiry as Dr. Lee was. So we are troubled with his 
selective prosecution.
  Many people are alleging that this was a racial profiling situation, 
and they are raising all sorts of questions with respect to why Dr. Lee 
and not all the other individuals. We know about some very, very 
difficult cases that are involving high-ranking officials, with 
extremely important information, and who took classified information, 
put that on tapes, and are still, for all that I know, not under any 
particular arrest warrants or incarcerated or charged for their 
conduct.
  So the people are very, very concerned. They want to know why his 
bail was denied. Was there really an intent here to pressure this 
particular person to come forward with information? Was there a 
deliberate intent to make his detention so severe that he would be 
forced to cooperate?
  The reason why this case really came to its final conclusion, with 
Wen Ho Lee being released, was that the judge had been told at the 
final bail hearing that came up in August that the information that the 
FBI had presented to the judge back in December was not all true. As a 
matter of fact, it came out in the testimony to the judge in August 
that Wen Ho Lee had been told by the FBI agents that he had flunked the 
polygraph test when in fact he had passed it. This was another incident 
of the government's deliberate attempt to try to force a confession 
from someone who was constantly saying that he had not breached the 
national security of the United States. What he had done was probably 
wrong and contrary to the rules, but certainly not anything that 
constituted a breach of national security.
  Nowhere in the investigation was the FBI able to show in any context 
whatsoever that he had passed any information on to fellow scientists 
or to foreign scientists, or that in his travels to China he had 
breached the security requirements of his occupation. They charged him 
for failure to report contacts that he had made in his trips, which 
were all authorized trips that he made to China. He was accused of not 
having filed reports; yet in the August hearing, before the judge, it 
came out that he had indeed filed the reports and that all of those 
arguments that had been made in December were simply not true.
  The judge had gone along in December with this harsh treatment of 
solitary confinement because he believed that there was here a 
defendant who was deliberately trying to obfuscate his actions, had 
failed to file the necessary reports that he was required to file as an 
employee of Los Alamos laboratory. And when all of this exploded in the 
face of the truth at the August hearing, even the judge made the 
statement in his final recommendation for release of Dr. Lee that he 
was astounded that this sort of situation could be tolerated, and he 
was absolutely shocked at what had happened to this individual. So he 
ordered the release.
  The release was appealed by the government. The other courts simply 
dismissed the appeal and shortly thereafter Dr. Lee was released a free 
man. The only requirement is that he not leave the country for a year, 
I believe, and that he cooperate in a debriefing type of contact with 
the Justice Department in an effort to try to find out where the tapes 
are located and what has happened to them.
  So we have to look back on this situation and say, okay, the FBI 
agents erred in their anxiety to find this person guilty of egregious 
violations against the government and to show that this individual was 
a deliberate liar and trying to withhold information from the 
government. But what happens to the FBI agents who perpetrated this 
misstatement to the courts? I hate to say that these were specific 
deliberate lies. They claimed that they were simply mistakes. But what 
happens to these agents that misled the court and caused this grievous 
harm against this individual insofar as how he was treated? He was 
shackled as an animal. Even when he was allowed to go to see his 
lawyers, he was still shackled. It is an incredible, unbelievable story 
of inhumane treatment of an individual under these circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, I have letters that have been sent to the U.S. Attorney 
in New Mexico, Norman C. Bay, making an inquiry about the conditions of 
his confinement and the responses that were received. Many, many 
individuals wrote to the Justice Department: the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science sent a letter; the New York Academy of 
Science wrote to the Attorney General protesting the harsh treatment of 
Wen Ho Lee; the Human Rights Committee of Scientists; the Episcopal 
Church of the United States wrote in protest of his harsh treatment; 
the National Academy of Sciences; the National Academy of Engineering 
and the Institute of Medicine sent a joint letter on June 26 to the 
Attorney General protesting the severity of his confinement; and the 
Amnesty International on August 16 also sent a letter. On August 31, 
the National Academies protested that in all the letters they had 
written, they had failed to get any responses from the Justice 
Department.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be submitting the letters that I have just 
mentioned for inclusion in the Record. I also will put in the Record 
letters that are dated way back in January of this year from the 
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, writing to the 
Attorney General and expressing their concerns about his detention; as 
well as the Organization of Chinese Americans and their letters; the 
National

[[Page 22418]]

Asian Pacific American Bar Association, also writing to the Attorney 
General about his treatment; and the comments of Robert S. Vrooman, the 
former chief of counterintelligence at Los Alamos regarding 
specifically his being targeted for confinement.
  Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague from California is here with 
me, and I yield to him at this time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding to me, and thank her very much for taking this 
time and this special order to raise the concerns that she has. I have 
been watching the special order, and I want to tell her how much I 
appreciate it, because I think that the treatment and the prosecution 
of Wen Ho Lee and the manner in which it was handled raises serious 
concerns for every American.
  Once again we see that when the incredible power of the government 
comes down on a single individual, all too often that individual's 
rights are crushed under the full force. And in this case we saw almost 
a hysteria that ran through the government, through committees of 
Congress, within the Department of Energy and Justice and Defense, in a 
frenzy to try to prove something that they may, in fact, not have had 
the evidence to prove. And in doing so, they focused on this 
individual, Wen Ho Lee, and then proceeded over the next 9 months to 
treat him in a manner that no American would want to be treated or have 
a member of their family treated.
  The gentlewoman has recited the litany of harsh treatments to this 
elderly man during his time in solitary confinement, when in fact at 
the same time the evidence was starting to suggest that maybe he was 
not guilty of all that he was charged. This is not to suggest that 
perhaps that Wen Ho Lee did not violate rules of protocol and perhaps 
even security rules. But the jump from that to that he was one of the 
most dangerous men in the United States; that he had transferred the 
crown jewels, we now find that what this was was a lot of prosecutorial 
hyperbole. They were trying to make their case. They were trying to 
push the public to focus in on this individual because they felt it 
would solve a problem.
  We know that one of the major mistakes that law enforcement can make 
is to focus on a single individual too early in an investigation. So 
now we find out 9 months later that not only have they dropped all of 
the charges with respect to Wen Ho Lee, except for one out of 79 
counts, but we are no further along in knowing what happened to this 
information and how it got into the hands of the person who walked into 
our embassy and dropped it on to a table. So in fact not only were his 
rights compromised, but in fact maybe the very investigation has been 
compromised because so much energy and effort was put on to the focus 
of Wen Ho Lee.
  I just want to again thank the gentlewoman for taking this time. 
People should not look at this case as a case against a Chinese 
American or an Asian or a person who is a threat to the United States. 
They ought to think of this in terms of every American. We understand 
that this Congress has taken action against prosecutors who have 
exceeded their authority way beyond what can be justified, or the 
Internal Revenue Service. And what we really ought to have, and what I 
have asked for and written the President and spoken out on this floor 
for, is somehow we need a truly independent investigation.
  I am afraid that investigation will have to come from outside of the 
government, because the government is so compromised in the manner in 
which the investigation was handled by the various agencies and by the 
committees of this Congress in their rush to judgment, in their frenzy 
and their hysteria over this issue. But I would hope that this 
administration would in fact appoint an outside panel of experts who 
can have that security clearance, who can determine what in fact 
happened here, because the damage runs to our civil liberties. The 
damage runs to Wen Ho Lee and his family, his reputation; and it also 
runs to the integrity of this body, to our agencies that participated 
in that. The American public needs to know what happened there.
  Unfortunately, I think the damage also runs to the labs and to our 
ability to recruit. The gentlewoman is aware, as I am aware, of what 
has happened in the Asian community with scientists and others who 
wonder now if they go to work for these labs whether they will be 
profiled; whether they will be treated differently; are they suspect 
because of their travels, because of their family, because of their 
heritage, because of their culture?

                              {time}  1945

  And when you see the treatment of this individual, you would be 
asking the same question of yourself if you wanted to determine. And 
yet, because of this action, we may be denying this country some of the 
very best scientists, mathematicians, engineers and others that are 
available in the world today who would love to come to work for the 
United States and in fact are not any of those suspected things.
  So I think it has been a real cost to us, to the labs and to our 
resources available to work on the kinds of scientific endeavors that 
so many at the lab do on a day-to-day basis. So people ought to 
understand, this is not just about Wen Ho Lee. This is the ripples of 
this case, and how it has been handled go far beyond far beyond this 
individual and his treatment.
  But we ought to make sure that we do not forget nor can an agency 
simply not answer for their actions. That is what has to be done. But I 
do not think that they can investigate themselves because in fact they 
were part of the frenzy that took place around the arrest and 
prosecution and detainment of Wen Ho Lee.
  So we owe the gentlewoman a debt of gratitude for taking this time 
for putting these documents in the Record so that the broader public 
will have access to them. I want to thank the gentlewoman very much for 
doing so.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving a 
larger perspective on this. I came to the floor because so many Asians 
have expressed a dismay that a situation like this could happen in 
America and many of them expressed the belief that it could only happen 
to an Asian. That to me is a very damaging aspect to have this country, 
so great and so wonderful in terms of its definition of democracy, to 
have a segment of our community believe that this occurred to this one 
gentleman because he was Asian and that the outcry did not come until 
after he was more or less exonerated.
  The outcry should have been there, as many of the organizations did, 
but it was sort of scuffled. Nobody really paid much attention to it. I 
agree absolutely that we have to call for an investigation, and it 
cannot be the one that the Attorney General has told the community that 
she would do. It is simply not adequate. It has to be taken to a 
different level and a situation where this whole matter can be 
reviewed.
  But it is a terrible thing. The Asian community feels burdened with 
this suspicion, and the wreckage of this whole incident has sort of 
fallen on all Asians, not just the Chinese-Americans, but all Asians. 
And so, I truly believe that the Congress has to take some 
responsibility in this matter and look at it.
  The Senate has investigated it, has called several hearings. And I 
applaud them for it. I hope that when we return here next year that we 
will take the time to make sure that this kind of treatment of a human 
being can never again occur to anyone under our judicial system. I 
plead with the Members of this House to look at this situation 
carefully and dispassionately. And if they do, I believe they will come 
to the same conclusion that the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) and I have come to.
  Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 1999 New York Times reported that Government 
investigators believes China had accelerated its nuclear weapons 
program with the aid of stolen American secrets.
  Two days later, Wen Ho Lee was identified and fired.

[[Page 22419]]



               [From the New York Times, Sept. 26, 2000]

                        The Times and Wen Ho Lee

       On March 6, 1999, The New York Times reported that 
     Government investigators believed China had accelerated its 
     nuclear weapons program with the aid of stolen American 
     secrets. The article said the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     had focused its suspicions on a Chinese-American scientist at 
     the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Two days later, the 
     government announced that it had fired a Los Alamos scientist 
     for ``serious security violations.'' Officials identified the 
     man as Wen Ho Lee.
       Dr. Lee was indicted nine months later on charges that he 
     had transferred huge amounts of restricted information to an 
     easily accessible computer. Justice Department prosecutors 
     persuaded a judge to hold him in solitary confinement without 
     bail, saying his release would pose a grave threat to the 
     nuclear balance.
       This month the Justice Department settled for a guilty plea 
     to a single count of mishandling secret information. The 
     judge accused prosecutors of having misled him on the 
     national security threat and having provided inaccurate 
     testimony. Dr. Lee was released on the condition that he 
     cooperate with the authorities to explain why he downloaded 
     the weapons data and what he did with it.
       The Times's coverage of this case, especially the articles 
     published in the first few months, attracted criticism from 
     competing journalists and media critics and from defenders of 
     Dr. Lee, who contended that our reporting had stimulated a 
     political frenzy amounting to a witch hunt. After Dr. Lee's 
     release, the White House, too, blamed the pressure of 
     coverage in the media, and specifically The Times, for having 
     propelled an overzealous prosecution by the administration's 
     own Justice Department.
       As a rule, we prefer to let out reporting speak for itself. 
     In this extraordinary case, the outcome of the prosecution 
     and the accusations leveled at this newspaper may have left 
     many readers with questions about our coverage. That 
     confusion--and the stakes involved, a man's liberty and 
     reputation--convince us that a public accounting is 
     warranted.
       In the days since the prosecution ended, the paper has 
     looked back at the coverage. On the whole, we remain proud of 
     work that brought into the open a major national security 
     problem of which officials had been aware for months, even 
     years. Our review found careful reporting that included 
     extensive cross-checking and vetting of multiple sources, 
     despite enormous obstacles of official secrecy and government 
     efforts to identify The Times's sources. We found articles 
     that accurately portrayed a debate behind the scenes on the 
     extent and importance of Chinese espionage--a debate that 
     now, a year and a half later, is still going on. We found 
     clear, precise explanations of complex science.
       But looking back, we also found some things we wish we had 
     done differently in the course of the coverage to give Dr. 
     Lee the full benefit of the doubt. In those months, we could 
     have pushed harder to uncover weaknesses in the F.B.I. case 
     against Dr. Lee. Our coverage would have been strengthened 
     had we moved faster to assess the scientific, technical and 
     investigative assumptions that led the F.B.I. and the 
     Department of Energy to connect Dr. Lee to what is still 
     widely acknowledged to have been a major security breach.
       The Times neither imagined the security breach nor 
     initiated the case against Wen Ho Lee. By the time our March 
     6 article appeared, F.B.I. agents had been looking closely 
     into Dr. Lee's activities for more than three years. A 
     bipartisan congressional committee had already conducted 
     closed hearings and written a secret report unanimously 
     concluding that Chinese nuclear espionage had harmed American 
     national security, and questioning the administration's 
     vigilance. The White House had been briefed repeatedly on 
     these issues, and the secretary of energy had begun prodding 
     the F.B.I. Dr. Lee had already taken a lie detector test; 
     F.B.I. investigators believed that it showed deception when 
     he was asked whether he had leaked secrets.
       The Times's stories--echoed and often oversimplified by 
     politicians and other news organizations--touched off a 
     fierce public debate. At a time when the Clinton 
     administration was defending a policy of increased engagement 
     with China, any suggestion that the White House had not moved 
     swiftly against a major Chinese espionage operation was 
     politically explosive.
       But the investigative and political forces were converging 
     on Dr. Lee long before The Times began looking into this 
     story.
       The assertion in our March 6 article that the Chinese made 
     a surprising leap in the miniaturization of nuclear weapons 
     remains unchallenged. That concern had previously been 
     reported in The Wall Street Journal, but without the details 
     provided by The Times in a painstaking narrative that showed 
     how various agencies and the White House itself had responded 
     to the reported security breach.
       The prevailing view within the government is still that 
     China made its gains with access to valuable information 
     about American nuclear weaponry, although the extent to which 
     this espionage helped China is disputed. And while the circle 
     of suspicion has widened greatly, Los Alamos has not been 
     ruled out as the source of the leak.
       The article, however, had flaws that are more apparent now 
     that the weaknesses of the F.B.I. case against Dr. Lee have 
     surfaced. It did not pay enough attention to the possibility 
     that there had been a major intelligence loss in which the 
     Los Alamos scientist was a minor player, or completely 
     uninvolved.
       The Times should have moved more quickly to open a second 
     line of reporting, particularly among scientists inside and 
     outside the government. The paper did this in the early 
     summer, and published a comprehensive article on Sept. 7, 
     1999. The article laid out even more extensively the evidence 
     that Chinese espionage had secured the key design elements of 
     an American warhead called the W-88 while showing at the same 
     time that this secret material was available not only at Los 
     Alamos but ``to hundreds and perhaps thousands of individuals 
     scattered throughout the nation's arms complex.''
       That article, which helped put the charges against Dr. Lee 
     in a new perspective, appeared a full three months before the 
     scientist was indicted.
       Early on, our reporting turned up cautions that might have 
     led us to that perspective sooner. For example, the March 6 
     article noted, deep in the text, that the Justice Department 
     prosecutors did not think they had enough evidence against 
     the Los Alamos scientist to justify a wiretap on his 
     telephone. At the time, the Justice Department refused to 
     discuss its decision, but the fact that the evidence 
     available to the F.B.I. could not overcome the relatively 
     permissive standards for a wiretap in a case of such 
     potential gravity should have been more prominent in the 
     article and in our thinking.
       Passages of some articles also posed a problem of tone. In 
     place of a tone of journalistic detachment from our sources, 
     we occasionally used language that adopted the sense of alarm 
     that was contained in official reports that was being voiced 
     to us by investigators, members of Congress and 
     administration officials with knowledge of the case.
       This happened even in an otherwise far-seeing article on 
     June 14, 1999, that laid out--a half year before the 
     indictment--the reasons the Justice Department might never be 
     able to prove that Dr. Lee had spied for China. The article 
     said Dr. Lee ``may be responsible for the most damaging 
     espionage of the post-cold war era.'' Though it accurately 
     attributed this characterization to ``officials and 
     lawmakers, primarily Republicans,'' such remarks should have 
     been, at a minimum, balanced with the more skeptical views of 
     those who had doubts about the charges against Dr. Lee.
       Nevertheless, far from stimulating a witch hunt, The Times 
     had clearly shown before Dr. Lee was even charged that the 
     case against him was circumstantial and therefore weak, and 
     that there were numerous other potential sources for the 
     design of the warhead.
       There are articles we should have assigned but did not. We 
     never prepared a full-scale profile of Dr. Lee, which might 
     have humanized him and provided some balance.
       Some other stories we wish we had assigned in those early 
     months include a more thorough look at the political context 
     of the Chinese weapons debate, in which Republicans were 
     eager to score points against the White House on China; an 
     examination of how Dr. Lee's handling of classified 
     information compared with the usual practices in the 
     laboratories; a closer look at Notra Trulock, the 
     intelligence official at the Department of Energy who sounded 
     some of the loudest alarms about Chinese espionage; and an 
     exploration of the various suspects and leads that federal 
     investigators passed up in favor of Dr. Lee.
       In those instances where we fell short of our standards in 
     our coverage of this story, the blame lies principally with 
     those who directed the coverage, for not raising questions 
     that occurred to us only later. Nothing in this experience 
     undermines our faith in any of our reporters, who remained 
     persistent and fair-minded in their newsgathering in the face 
     of some fierce attacks.
       An enormous amount remains unknown or disputed about the 
     case of Dr. Lee and the larger issue of Chinese espionage, 
     including why the scientist transferred classified computer 
     code to an easily accessible computer and then tried to hide 
     the fact (a development first reported in The Times), and how 
     the government case evolved. Even the best investigative 
     reporting is performed under deadline pressure, with the best 
     assessment of information available at the time. We have 
     dispatched a team of reporters, including the reporters who 
     broke our first stories, to go back to the beginning of these 
     controversies and do more reporting, drawing on sources and 
     documents that were not previously available. Our coverage of 
     this case is not over.

  It took 9 months later to obtain an indictment against Wen Ho Lee. It 
charged him with 59 separate felony offenses; 39 counts allege that Dr. 
Lee violated the Atomic Energy Act because he purportedly mishandled 
material containing restricted data, with the intent to injure the 
United States, and with the intent to

[[Page 22420]]

secure an advantage to a foreign nation; ten counts allege that Dr. Lee 
unlawfully obtained defense information in violation of 18 U.S.C. & 
793(c); and ten counts of willfully retaining national defense 
information in violation of 18 U.S.C. & 793(e).
  What safeguards did the Government take to make sure Wen Ho Lee 
didn't flee or transfer the tapes?
  Why wasn't he a security risk prior to December 10, 1999?
  Why now in September 2000, 58 charges are dropped for a plea bargain 
involving only one plea of guilty and a pledge to cooperate.
  Suddenly Wen Ho Lee is no longer a risk. Today Wen Ho Lee is a free 
man. The tapes are still missing.
  I rise tonight to express my great concern that hysteria and cover-up 
were the real reasons for Wen Ho Lee's indictment.
  The managers of our national nuclear labs had mismanaged the security 
of these institutions. Access to these secrets was not monitored and 
vast numbers of people could easily obtain access without signing in or 
out.
  Wen Ho Lee was queried about this contacts in the People's Republic 
of China.
  In 1993-94--Wen Ho Lee was under investigation--for knowingly 
assembling 19 collections of files, called tape archive (TAR) files, 
containing secret and confidential restricted data relating to atomic 
weapons research, design, construction, and testing.
  The FBI had Wen Ho Lee under investigation for 3 years.
  In 1997, the FBI asked for authority to search Wen Ho Lee's computer. 
The Attorney General Janet Reno denied this request as not justified 
based on the facts.
  The issue is not the prosecution.
  The issue is why was Wen Ho Lee singled out for this witch hunt.
  After he was indicted, why was he treated as though he was already 
convicted?
  Why was his request for bail denied?
  Why was his detention so severe?
  Was it designed to coerce his cooperation?
  Why did the FBI lie to Wen Ho Lee ``telling him'' he had failed the 
polygraph test when in fact he had passed? A polygraph test was 
administered on December 23, 1998, by the Department of Energy in New 
Mexico. DOE said he unequivocally passed, FBI said failed. The FBI then 
did its own testing of Dr. Lee, and again claimed he failed, but didn't 
tell him that he failed. CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson for 
CBSNews.com.

                   Wen Ho Lee's Problematic Polygraph

       Three Experts Gave The Nuclear Scientist Passing Scores
       But The FBI Later Reversed The Findings
       CBS Investigation Fuels Argument That He Was A Scapegoat
       (CBS) Wen Ho Lee either passed--or failed--his first spy-
     related polygraph, depending upon who was interpreting the 
     results.
       As CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports for 
     CBSNews.com, the test was given December 23, 1998 by a 
     Department of Energy (DOE) polygrapher in Albuqerque, N.M., 
     where Wen Ho Lee worked as a top secret nuclear scientist. 
     Because Lee, a Taiwanese-American, had recently been to 
     Taiwan, had visited China in the past, and purportedly had 
     access to America's top nuclear secrets, the FBI focused on 
     him as the prime suspect in the emerging case of alleged 
     Chinese espionage.
       The FBI still wasn't close to making an arrest or even 
     beginning an interrogation, but the DOE's head of 
     counterintelligence, Ed Curran, was reluctant to leave Lee in 
     his highly sensitive job in the lab's X-Division, so he 
     ordered the polygraph test. FBI agents were standing by 
     during the DOE test, ready to interrogate Lee if his 
     polygraph answers proved to be deceptive.
       Lee was asked four espionage-related questions:
       ``Have you ever committed espionage against the United 
     States?''
       Lee's response: ``No.''
       ``Have you ever provided any classified weapons data to any 
     unauthorized person?
       Lee's response: ``No.''
       ``Here you had any contact with anyone to commit espionage 
     against the United States?''
       Lee's response: ``No.''
       ``Have you ever had personal contact with anyone you know 
     who has committed espionage against the United States?''
       Lee's response: ``No.''
       The polygrapher concluded that Lee was not deceptive. Two 
     other polygraphers in the DOE's Albuquerque test center, 
     including the manager, reviewed the charts and concurred: Lee 
     wasn't lying.
       The polygraph results were so convincing and unequivocal, 
     that sources say the deputy director of the Los Alamos lab 
     issued an apology to Lee, and work began to get him 
     reinstated in the X-Division. Furthermore, sources confirm to 
     CBS News that the local Albuquerque FBI office sent a memo to 
     headquarters in Washington saying it appeared that Lee was 
     not their spy.
       But key decision-makers in Washington remained unconvinced.
       Several weeks after the polygraph, the DOE decided to 
     assign it the unusual designation of ``incomplete.'' 
     Officials in Washington also ordered a halt to Lee's re-
     instatement of the X-Division.
       When FBI headquarters in Washington finally obtained the 
     DOE polygraph results yet another interpretation was offered: 
     that Lee had failed the polygraph.
       The FBI then did its own testing of Lee, and again claimed 
     that he failed. Yet sources say the FBI didn't interrogate 
     Lee at this time, or even tell him he had failed the 
     polygraph--an odd deviation from procedure for agents who are 
     taught to immediately question anyone who is deceptive in a 
     polygraph.
       In early March 1999, the FBI did interrogate Lee. It was 
     the day CBS News broke the story of a soon-to-be-released 
     congressional report on alleged Chinese espionage at the 
     labs, and the day before The New York Times printed an 
     article that described Lee as a suspect, without using his 
     name. One investigative source tells CBS News that after this 
     particular day of questioning, the lead FBI agent verbalized 
     that she thought Lee was not the right man.
       But others still remained unconvinced.
       So on March 7, 1999, the day after the New York Times 
     article, the FBI ordered another interrogation of Lee, this 
     time a ``confrontational'' style interview.
       One special agent doing the questioning told Lee no fewer 
     than 30 times that he had failed his polygraphs, and 
     repeatedly demanded to know why. Here are some selected 
     excerpts:
       FBI special agent: ``You're never going to pass a 
     polygraph. And you're never going to have a clearance. And 
     you're not going to have a job. And if you get arrested 
     you're not going to have a retirement . . . If I don't have 
     something that I can tell Washington as to why you're failing 
     those polygraphs, I can't do a thing.''
       Lee: ``Well I don't understand.''
       FBI special agent: ``I can't get you your job. I can't do 
     anything for you, Wen Ho. I can't stop the newspapers from 
     knocking on your door. I can't stop the newspapers from 
     calling your son. I can't stop the people from polygraphing 
     your wife. I can't stop somebody from coming and knocking on 
     your door and putting handcuffs on you.''
       Lee: ``I don't know how to handle this case, I'm an honest 
     person and I'm telling you all the truth and you don't 
     believe it. I, that's it.''
       FBI special agent: ``Do you want to go down in history 
     whether you're professing your innocence like the Rosenbergs 
     to the day that they take you to the electric chair?''
       Lee: ``I believe eventually, and I think God, God will make 
     it his judgement.''
       During this time period, Washington officials began leaking 
     to the media that Lee had failed his polygraphs, and that he 
     was ``the one'' who had given to China information on 
     America's most advanced thermo-nuclear warhead, the W-88. A 
     stunning charge that, in the end, investigators were unable 
     to back up.
       One question at hand is how could the exact same polygraph 
     charts be legitimately interpreted as ``passing'' and also 
     ``failing?'' CBS News spoke to Richard Keifer, the current 
     chairman of the American Polygraph Association, who's a 
     former FBI agent and used to run the FBI's polygraph program.
       Keifer says, ``There are never enough variables to cause 
     one person to say (a polygraph subject is) deceptive, and one 
     to say he's non-deceptive . . . there should never be that 
     kind of discrepancy of the evaluation of the same chart.''
       As to how it happened in the Wen Ho Lee case, Keifer 
     thinks, ``then somebody is making an error.''
       We asked Keifer to look at Lee's polygraph scores. He said 
     the scores are ``crystal clear.'' In fact, Keifer says, in 
     all his years as a polygrapher, he had never been able to 
     score anyone so high on the non-deceptive scale. He was at a 
     loss to find any explanation for how the FBI could deem the 
     polygraph scores as ``failing.''
       The FBI has not explained how or why it interpreted Lee's 
     polygraph as deceptive. When asked for an interview, the FBI 
     simply said it would be ``bad'' to talk about Lee's 
     polygraph, and that the case will be handled in the courts. 
     The prosecution has not turned over the charts and many other 
     polygraph documents to Lee's defense team. And so far, the 
     prosecution has withheld other key documents, including the 
     actual charts from the DOE polygraph.
       Since Lee was never charged with espionage (only computer 
     security violations), the content of the polygraph may be 
     unimportant to his case. But the fact that his scores 
     apparently morphed from passing to failing fuels the argument 
     of those who claim the government was looking for a 
     scapegoat--someone to blame for the alleged theft of masses 
     of American top secret nuclear weapons information by China--
     and that Lee conveniently filled that role.

  Why did FBI Agent Robert A. Messemer lie? What penalty has he been 
given? Was his lie perjured testimony? Is he still working for the FBI? 
Was this a conspiracy within the FBI?
  Why didn't the court give Wen Ho Lee the benefit of the doubt?

[[Page 22421]]

  Why was he locked in a secure enclosed cell? Why was he required to 
wear ankle and wrist shackles when allowed out for his daily one hour 
exercise?
  Whose idea of ``exercise'' includes the words ``while shackled''? I 
am told that at the court house while meeting with his lawyers, even 
when escorted to the toilet, he was shackled.
  We are told that the Justice Department approved this severe 
treatment--that the Department of Energy requested it--
  Attorney General Reno testified on September 28 in the Senate that 
she was unaware that Wen Ho Lee was shackled and was not in receipt of 
any complaints. A petition dated January 4, 2000 was signed by 3,000 
people and forwarded to the Attorney General on March 8, and again on 
June 8, 2000.

                                    Los Alamos, NM, March 8, 2000.

     Re: Petition for Independent Polygraph Test for Dr. Wen Ho 
         Lee and for Improved Conditions of Imprisonment for Dr. 
         Lee

     Norman C. Bay,
     Interim United States Attorney for the District of New 
         Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
       Dear Mr. Bay: Copies are enclosed of petition signatures of 
     over 2000 people seeking your agreement to an independent, 
     qualified polygraph test for Dr. Wen Ho Lee to confirm that 
     the tapes at issue in the bail proceeding were destroyed and 
     not copied.
       It is unconscionable that your office has refused to agree 
     to an independent polygraph, which was offered by Dr. Lee and 
     his counsel. The federal Judge who presided at the bail 
     hearing indicated the Court welcomes such a polygraph to 
     address the alleged concern of your office that the tapes 
     which Dr. Lee swore he destroyed were indeed destroyed and 
     not copied. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently 
     upheld the Judge's reasoning. Confirmation that the tapes do 
     not exist would verify that concern over transfer of the 
     tapes is not a roadblock to the pre-trial release of Dr. Lee. 
     An independent polygraph on the status of the tapes presents 
     a straightforward means to allay the government's alleged 
     fear about Dr. Lee's release on reasonable bail pending 
     trial. The right to reasonable bail is guaranteed by 
     Amendment VIII of the United States Constitution to all 
     American citizens, including Dr. Lee.
       It is not acceptable for the United States Attorney's 
     office to deny any American the opportunity of reasonable 
     bail due to the possibility that the outcome of the 
     independent polygraph would weaken the government's case. 
     Every prosecutor's first duty is to achieve justice and 
     fairness, not to convict at all cost.
       The Petitioners also seek improved conditions for Dr. Lee, 
     who continues to be shackled in prison awaiting trial to 
     clear his name. The conditions under which Dr. Lee is 
     imprisoned are shameful. No person should be subject to such 
     arbitrary and harsh conditions, especially one who, like Dr. 
     Lee, is presumed to be innocent.
       Your immediate response to the request of the Petitioners 
     is anticipated. All original petition signatures are 
     available for inspection by you or your representative at my 
     office, by appointment.
           Sincerely,
                                                Phyllis I. Hedges.
                                  ____
                                  

               Fight Unjust Treatment of Dr. Wen Ho Lee!

       Dr. Wen Ho Lee continues to be shackled as a prisoner in a 
     Sante Fe jail although his trial is months away. Excessive, 
     punitive restraints have been imposed on Dr. Lee while he 
     waits for the opportunity to clear his name which was smeared 
     by government leaks accusing him of being a spy. When the 
     FBI, DOE, and United States Attorney found no evidence of 
     spying by Dr. Lee they rationalized their botched 
     investigation, laced with racism, by bringing criminal 
     charges against Lee for placing classified information on 
     non-classified computer tapes.
       The U.S. Attorney swayed the Albuquerque judge to deny bail 
     by conjuring fear that Lee might somehow spirit the destroyed 
     tapes and himself abroad. The judge indicated Lee should be 
     released pending trial and suggested the U.S. Attorney agree 
     to a polygraph examination offered by Lee's attorneys to 
     verify the tapes were destroyed. The U.S. Attorney insists 
     that Lee must agree to a polygraph administered by the FBI as 
     well as FBI interrogations before and after the polygraph.
       You can do something to fight this injustice. Below is a 
     petition to the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico to agree to an 
     independent polygraph as well as more humane conditions for 
     Dr. Wen Ho Lee during his incarceration.
       Please clip, sign, and return the petition to me at P.O. 
     Box 1288, Los Alamos, NM. I will send the petition to the 
     U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, listing your name with many 
     others who have signed. Or, call me at 662-7400, to obtain a 
     copy of the petition. For further information see 
     www.wenholee.org.


                                petition

       Petitioners request that the United States Attorney for the 
     District of New Mexico agree to an independent polygraph 
     examination of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, to be administered by a 
     reputable organization not associated with the defense or the 
     prosecution in the proceeding by the United States against 
     Dr. Lee, to confirm the status of the seven ``missing'' tapes 
     at issue in that proceeding.
       Pending resolution of Dr. Lee's pre-trial release, 
     Petitioners request that the United States Attorney for New 
     Mexico institute improved conditions for Dr. Lee during his 
     confinement, including increased recreation and visiting 
     opportunities.
     ____________
       (your name)

  Another letter from Cecilia Chang signed by thousands of others were 
sent to the Attorney General in April 2000.


                                                 WenHoLee.Org,

                                      Fremont, CA, April 10, 2000.

     Re: Review of Special Restrictions Imposed on Dr. Wen Ho Lee

     Hon. Janet Reno,
     U.S. Attorney General,
     U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC.
       Dear Ms. Reno: The enclosed petition was signed on behalf 
     of Dr. Wen Ho Lee by 1,288 of Dr. Lee's fellow American 
     citizens, urging that you exercise your authority to release 
     Dr. Lee from the harsh detention conditions imposed at your 
     direction under 28 CFR Sec. 501.2. This petition, sponsored 
     by WenHoLee.Org, also has been endorsed by organizations with 
     combined membership of over 100,000, 106-faculty members from 
     64 colleges and universities, and many community leaders, 
     scientists and elected officials.
       Dr. Lee has spent the past 120 days shackled in jail in 
     Santa Fe, New Mexico, awaiting trial to clear his name. The 
     conditions under which Dr. Lee is imprisoned are shameful. 
     Such arbitrary and harsh detention conditions are unjustified 
     and should not be extended. there is no factual basis to 
     infer any threat of disclosure by Dr. Lee, and his treatment 
     is not regular, particularly in contrast with the treatment 
     of others for classified information lapses.
       In national security cases the guide for implementing 
     special detention restrictions under Sec. 501.2 is the 
     prevention of disclosure of classified information. The 
     restrictions must serve that goal.
       Dr. Lee is charged with transferring classified information 
     to non-classified tapes at his workplace, with the illegal 
     intent to harm the United States or to secure an advantage to 
     a foreign country. He is not charged with any espionage or 
     spy activity and there exists no allegation that Dr. Lee 
     transferred or ever attempted to transfer any sensitive 
     information to any unauthorized recipient. The only 
     ``evidence'' of the alleged criminal intent to harm the U.S. 
     or assist another country is his transferring classified 
     information to a non-classified system at his workplace.
       Although there are several possible innocent explanations 
     for such a transfer, your prosecutors chose to assume mal 
     intent from Dr. Lee's transfer of work files that included 
     some classified material. Their assumption is not well 
     founded. Los Alamos National Laboratory has thrived as an 
     exemplary scientific institution because of its university 
     atmosphere, including its long history of tacitly 
     disregarding security restrictions that impede efforts to 
     achieve scientific and work-related goals.
       It is imperative to seek accuracy in the national security 
     justifications for causing Dr. Lee to suffer the demeaning 
     and cruel conditions imposed on him. The original harsh 
     detention conditions were imposed on the basis of conjecture 
     rather than any reality of threats to national security. At 
     the bail hearing for Dr. Lee, government witnesses and 
     prosecutors engaged in preposterous rhetoric that distorted 
     the nature of the classified information involved and its 
     value to foreign entities. You have previously received 
     letters sent by premiere scientific organizations, such as 
     the American Physical Society, American Association for the 
     Advancement of Science, Federation of American Scientists, 
     New York Academy of Sciences, The Committee of Concerned 
     Scientists, American Chemical Society, Overseas Chinese 
     Physical Society, and others, protesting Dr. Lee's treatment 
     and the voodoo science used to alarm the public. We ask that 
     you consider these letters in arriving at your decision about 
     Dr. Lee's detention.
       Of particular note is the contrast of Dr. Lee's treatment 
     with that of former CIA Director John Deutch. Handling of the 
     Deutch and Lee cases reveals the irregular treatment of Dr. 
     Lee. Mr. Deutch's security violations, which went 
     uninvestigated for years, exposed the United States to far 
     greater harm than the security lapses by Dr. Lee. Mr. Deutch 
     made accessible at his home, current and top secret 
     information significantly more important to national security 
     than the information transferred by Dr. Lee, which was not 
     top secret and in fact can be found in the open or developed 
     by other countries such as China on their own. The actions of 
     Mr. Deutch posed a clear and present threat to national 
     security whereas Dr. Lee's actions did not.
       Nevertheless the only consequence to Mr. Deutch was loss of 
     a no longer required security clearance. Last year Dr. Lee 
     lost his security clearance and with it the ability to 
     continue his work at LANL to which he had dedicated the past 
     20 years. Then in March 1999 Dr. Lee lost his job and his 
     retirement,

[[Page 22422]]

     consequences unheard of for any security violation at the 
     national laboratories. Whereas mishandling of classified 
     information should have been an internal matter for DOE and 
     LANL, on December 10, 1999, the United States Attorney 
     brought federal criminal charges that threaten him with life 
     in prison, made a media display of having him arrested at 
     home, and worked relentlessly to deny bail and any conditions 
     of release. Since December 10, 1999, under your authority, 
     Dr. Lee has been subjected to inhumane conditions during his 
     pre-trial imprisonment.
       The conclusion is inescapable that this overblown federal 
     case emerged from the false accusations that Dr. Lee was 
     engaged in espionage. The FBI has publicly stated the ensuing 
     investigation of Dr. Lee was based on racial profiling. The 
     FBI used intimidation, threats of execution, and lying, to 
     try to force a confession during their interrogation of Dr. 
     Lee. It can only be inferred that Dr. Lee's cruel treatment 
     reflects bias against Dr. Lee, which should not have any 
     place in the prosecutorial duty to achieve justice and 
     fairness.
       Yours is a critical responsibility to stem the improper 
     treatment of Dr. Lee, who is presumed to be innocent of 
     criminal wrongdoing. Continuing the cruel conditions of his 
     detention would afflict all American citizens by diminishing 
     the rights and freedoms we cherish.
           Sincerely,
                                                     WenHoLee, Org
         (By: Cecilia Chang, Executive Director, Chair, Steering 
           Committee Wen Ho Lee Defense Fund.)
                                  ____


                            Free Wen Ho Lee!

       Petition Recipients: Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General; 
     Bill Richardson, U.S. Energy Secretary; Vice President Al 
     Gore.
       Petition Sponsored by: Wenholee.org, 3785 Armour Court, 
     Freemont, CA 94536.

       To The Honorable Janet Reno: We, the signers of this 
     petition, urge you to take advantage of the opportunity 
     afforded you under Title 28 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations to free Dr. Wen Ho Lee from his harsh and unjust 
     confinement in the New Mexico jail.
       Section 501.2 of Title 28 requires you to periodically 
     reauthorize Dr. Lee's confinement. Under this law, you have 
     the power to have Dr. Lee be confined to his home, with all 
     necessary security precautions imposed at your discretion. 
     Although Dr. Lee's movement will remain restricted under this 
     arrangement, he will at lest be at home in humane conditions.
       If you do not free Dr. Lee from jail, then you must at 
     least order that his conditions of confinement, which have 
     been more fit for a mass murderer, be significantly improved. 
     The use of shackles on Dr. Lee under any circumstances is 
     ridiculous.
       As we make these requests of you, we would like to remind 
     you that the government authorities already have conceded 
     that the targeting of Dr. Lee has been entirely racially 
     motivated and that there is no evidence of espionage by Dr. 
     Lee. Yet, the government authorities continue to persecute 
     Dr. Lee, singling him out on the basis of his race. The 
     authorities' behavior and action have angered not just 
     Chinese Americans across the country--but all Americans who 
     believe that no one should be treated on the basis of his or 
     her race or ethnicity, and that discrimination, especially by 
     the government, is simply not acceptable!
       Furthermore, the discriminatory persecution of Dr. Lee not 
     only shames the United States of America and its citizens, it 
     also impedes our nation's efforts to improve human rights 
     conditions to the victims of government oppression everywhere 
     else around the world.
       Therefore, we, the people of America, ask you to do the 
     right thing and free Dr. Lee!
       The views expressed here are those of the petition sponsor, 
     not of One Democracy.com

  On February 29, 2000 the American Association for the Advancement of 
Science sent the Attorney General a letter protesting Wen Ho Lee's 
inhumane treatment in prison at the Sante Fe County Detention Center.
         American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
           Directorate for Science and Policy Programs,
                                Washington, DC, February 29, 2000.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madame Attorney General: I write on behalf of the 
     Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the 
     American Association for the Advancement of Science 
     concerning the matter of the continued denial of bail and the 
     conditions of pre-trial incarceration of Dr. Wen Ho Lee. The 
     AAAS is the world's largest multi-disciplinary scientific 
     organization. The Committee on Scientific Freedom and 
     Responsibility is charged by the Association to, among other 
     things, address issues related to the human rights of 
     scientists.
       Our purpose is to inquire into the reasons for the 
     extraordinarily restrictive conditions to which Dr. Lee has 
     been subjected. Our disquiet with the government's treatment 
     of Dr. Lee does not extend to the issue of his guilt or 
     innocence, which will be decided by our courts on the basis 
     of the evidence. Our concern stems from the possibility that 
     Dr. Lee is being maltreated and may have been the target of 
     special scrutiny because of his ethnic background.
       This case has had an adverse impact on many of our 
     colleagues and could damage our national labs as a result of 
     the hemorrhaging of skilled scientists through resignation or 
     attrition, falling recruitment and a decline in the 
     international collaboration that are so vital to the success 
     of DoE programs. There is some evidence that such losses are 
     already occurring.
       Our concerns relate to the following:
       We have been informed that the original conditions of 
     detention were--and remain--harsh in the extreme. He is 
     confined to his cell 23 hours each day and was, until 
     recently, kept completely indoors. When moved about within 
     the confines of the prison, his arms and legs are shackled. 
     His weekly meetings with family members are curtailed and 
     monitored and, early on, he was required to speak English. He 
     has no access to TV and, at first, was denied newspapers. 
     While we understand that these conditions are now slightly 
     modified, we are concerned that continuing restrictions not 
     only serve as intimidation, but may inhibit his ability to 
     prepare his defense and place an enormous emotional and 
     physical burden on him, his family and his attorneys. From 
     our perspective, Dr. Lee's pretrial treatment appears to be 
     exceedingly cruel. Court records and prosecution documents 
     give the distinct impression that many measures were imposed 
     simply because he has Chinese associates and speaks Chinese. 
     AAAS believes very strongly that place of birth or ethnic 
     background should never be used to impugn the loyalty of 
     scientists.
       The justification for continued incarceration is that Dr. 
     Lee, if released, is likely to pose a grave threat to our 
     national security. In judging the merits of such a serious 
     contention, we hope that you will consult with a few of the 
     many informed independent weapons specialists and national 
     security experts who no longer serve in government, and who 
     therefore may provide an objective assessment of the risk. 
     Should the Justice Department wish to seek such expert 
     counsel, an appropriate source would be the National Academy 
     of Sciences.
       In sum, we believe it important that the scientific 
     community be given some assurances on these issues. 
     Otherwise, we worry that serious damage could be done to the 
     U.S. scientific enterprise and to this nation's future 
     prosperity and security if the government is perceived by 
     scientists as treating Dr. Lee unfairly and relying on 
     unfounded claims regarding threats to national security.
           Sincerely,

                                              Irving A. Lerch,

                                          Chair, AAAS Committee on
                            Scientific Freedom and Responsibility.

  On March 14, 2000 the New York Academy of Science wrote to the 
Attorney General protesting the harsh treatment of Wen Ho Lee.

                                                   March 14, 2000.
       Dear Attorney General Reno: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Committee on Human Rights of Scientists of the New York 
     Academy of Sciences. In this we are joining other prominent 
     scientific organizations such as the American Physical 
     Society, the American Association for the Advancement of 
     Science, and the Committee of Concerned Scientists regarding 
     the condition of detention and the denial of bail for Dr. Wen 
     Ho Lee accused of mishandling classified information at the 
     Los Alamos National Laboratories. At the outset we emphasize 
     that we do not take a position on Dr. Lee's guilt or 
     innocence which must be determined at trial.
       For more than 20 years, this Committee has been deeply 
     concerned about governmental treatment and repression of 
     scientists throughout the world. Among the cases in which we 
     have intervened were those of Professors Andrel Sakharov, 
     Fang Li Zhe, Benjamin Levich, and recently Alexandr Nikitin, 
     to name just a few. Often the scientists named in these cases 
     were accused by their governments of violation of secrecy, 
     treason, and other high crimes. Our Committee has always paid 
     close attention to the conditions under which these and other 
     individuals were held during their detention, as well as 
     related matters such as denial of bail, access to counsel, 
     and openness and fairness of trial.
       It has been reported to us that the conditions of Dr. Lee's 
     detention have been harsh. He has been shackled in prison, 
     restricted to his cell in isolation, had his meetings with 
     immediate family curtailed, and been restricted about outside 
     information such as TV and newspapers. These conditions 
     remind us of the abuses that occurred under Communist rule in 
     the former Soviet Union and occur to this day in other 
     totalitarian states such as in China, Iran, and others.
       The impression given to the world by the Government's 
     treatment of Dr. Lee is that he has already been found guilty 
     of charges against him. Witness, for example, the statement 
     repeated by CIA Director George Tenet that Lee's actions were 
     taken ``with intent to harm the United States.'' We earnestly 
     call to your attention that Dr. Lee's treatment during his 
     detention has had a seriously chilling effect on the 
     scientific community, especially because of the suspicion

[[Page 22423]]

     that his ethnic background has played some role in this 
     treatment and in the unproven public allegations made about 
     his possible motives for the acts of which he is accused.
       In addition, reliable reports reach us that the recruiting 
     and retention of top scientific staff at our major national 
     laboratories, including weapon laboratories, have been 
     damaged by this affair. We urge that you look into the 
     treatment of Dr. Lee and see to it that the physical and 
     psychological conditions of Dr. Lee's detention conform to 
     the highest international standards for the humane treatment 
     of people in detention awaiting trial. Continuation of the 
     harsh treatment of Dr. Lee will expose us to ridicule when we 
     criticize such treatment in other countries around the world.
       The New York Academy of Sciences is an independent, non-
     profit, global membership organization committed to advancing 
     science, technology, and society worldwide. Established in 
     1817, the Academy is the oldest scientific organization in 
     New York and the third oldest in the nation. It is an 
     international organization with nearly 40,000 members in more 
     than 150 countries.
       We respectfully await your response in this matter of 
     importance to this Committee and to the international 
     scientific community.
           Sincerely,

                                             Joseph L. Birman,

                                         Chairman of the Committee
                                    on Human Rights of Scientists.

  April 27, 2000 a Resolution passed by the Episcopal Church USA was 
sent to the Attorney General protesting the harsh treatment of Wen Ho 
Lee.

     To: Executive Council, Episcopal Church, USA.
     From: international and National Concerns Committee.
     Date: April 27, 2000.

     Subject: Incarceration of Dr. Wen Ho Lee (Resolution proposed 
         by Ms. Carole Jan Lee, Member of Executive Council from 
         San Francisco, California).

       Resolved, That the Executive Council meeting in the Diocese 
     of Washington, DC, April 27-30, 2000, calls for the humane 
     treatment of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a U.S. citizen, who has been 
     under arrest without bail in solitary confinement with 
     limited family visits, and that these conditions have created 
     grave concern, particularly among the Asian American 
     community, of being unduly harsh treatment along racial 
     lines, a perception for which the Council has concern given 
     the number of disturbing complex factors in this case, and be 
     it Further
       Resolved, That this case moves forward in a manner that 
     assures that Dr. Lee receives due process, and be it Further
       Resolved, That this resolution is not intended to speak of 
     the veracity of the very serious charges that have been filed 
     against Dr. Lee.
       (Resolution passed, thirty-five members present; six 
     abstentions.)
       Note: Copies of this resolution will be sent to Attorney 
     General Janet Reno, and to our Washington Office.
       (Our Public Policy Network has a mailing list of over nine 
     thousand names.)

  On June 26, 2000 the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy 
of Engineering and Institute of Medicine wrote to the Attorney General 
protesting the severity of Wen Ho Lee's confinement.
                                                    June 26, 2000.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: We write with regard to our 
     original March 10 inquiry to you about the case of Dr. Wen Ho 
     Lee (#99-1417) and to express our appreciation for the May 24 
     response that we received from Mr. John J. Dion.
       The information that Mr. Dion provided about Dr. Lee's case 
     was, of course, of interest to us. However, because Mr. Dion 
     did not address many of the questions that we posed in our 
     initial letter of inquiry, we are taking the liberty of 
     requesting, once again, information on the conditions and 
     circumstances under which Dr. Lee is being held. Surely, the 
     answers we seek cannot in any way impinge upon the just 
     prosecution of a pending case.
       It is our understanding that Dr. Lee has been held in 
     solitary confinement since his arrest on December 10, 1999, 
     that he has been denied bail, and that he will not be brought 
     to trial until November 6. We would like your personal 
     assurances that his conditions of confinement have been in 
     full accordance with all U.S. and international standards. We 
     have inquired as to what and how much contact Dr. Lee is 
     permitted to have with his family, defense counsel, and 
     lawyers. Although Mr. Dion said in his letter that 
     arrangements have been made to allow Dr. Lee's family to meet 
     with him ``for more than one hour per week,'' he did not say 
     what the new arrangements for Dr. Lee allow nor did he report 
     with whom he is now allowed to meet.
       We would also like to know whether, as has been alleged by 
     Dr. Lee's family, instruments of restraint are being applied 
     to him. If so, what instruments are used, when and for how 
     long are they applied, why, and under what circumstances?
       With regard to the need for a fair and timely trial, we 
     seek your personal assurances that Dr. Lee's rights not to be 
     coerced into giving a confession and not to be held in a 
     coercive environment are being fully respected. We would also 
     like to know what access Dr. Lee's lawyers are being given to 
     information needed to adequately prepare his defense.
       You should know that the above questions are identical to 
     those that our Academies regularly pose to foreign 
     governments when we desire assurances that the rights of our 
     imprisoned colleagues in other countries are being fully 
     respected. Surely, we cannot expect less from our own 
     government.
       We are grateful for your attention and look forward to your 
     reply.
       Very truly yours,
     Bruce Alberts,
                          President, National Academy of Sciences.
     William Wulf,
                       President, National Academy of Engineering.
     Kenneth Shine,
                                 President, Institute of Medicine.

  Finally by mid-July 2000 his conditions of confinement were eased. By 
the last week in July he finally was allowed to exercise without ankle 
shackles. This, his friends conclude, came about because there was 
another bill hearing scheduled on August 16, 2000. Remember Judge 
Parker had asked that the confinement restrictions be eased. August 16, 
2000 Amnesty International protested to the Justice Department that Wen 
Ho Lee's confinement was in violation of international law.

 Amnesty International Protests Solitary Confinement, Shackling of Dr. 
                               Wen Ho Lee

       Washington, DC, Aug. 16, 2000.--Amnesty International, the 
     world's largest human rights organization, has written to 
     Attorney General Janet Reno to protest the conditions under 
     which Dr. Wen Ho Lee has been held in pre-trial federal 
     detention since December 1999.
       In the Aug. 4 letter, released as Judge James A. Parker 
     hears a renewed application for Dr. Lee's release on bail, 
     Amnesty International expressed concern at reports that Dr. 
     Lee has been held in particularly harsh conditions of 
     solitary confinement, and has been confined to his cell for 
     23 hours each day. According to reports, Dr. Lee has also 
     been shackled at the wrists, waist, and ankles while taking 
     exercise once or twice a week in a federal enclosure. Amnesty 
     International is insisting that the use of shackles be 
     immediately discontinued.
       These conditions are unnecessarily punitive and contravene 
     international human rights standards, said Curt Goering, 
     Senior Deputy Executive Director of Amnesty International 
     USA. The use of shackles is extremely disturbing and is 
     grossly inappropriate in the circumstances.
       Rule 33 of the United Nations (UN) Standard Minimum Rules 
     for the Treatment of Prisoners provides that restraints 
     should be used only when strictly as a precaution against 
     escape during transfer, on medical grounds on the direction 
     of the medical officer or to prevent damage or injury. The 
     rules also state that restraints should never be applied as 
     punishment and that chains or irons shall not be used as 
     restraints. The rules also provide that every prisoner 
     (including pre-trial detainees) should have at least one hour 
     of suitable exercise in the open air daily.
       Amnesty International believes that the overall conditions 
     under which Dr. Lee is detained contravene international 
     standards, which require that all persons deprived of their 
     liberty be treated humanely and with respect for their 
     inherent dignity. Amnesty International is urging the Justice 
     Department to urgently review Dr. Lee's conditions of 
     confinement and ensure that he is being treated in accordance 
     with international standards. Such steps should include 
     provision for adequate exercise and out-of-cell time and 
     reasonable contact with the outside world.

  August 31, 2000 the National Academies that had previously written (3 
letters) to the Attorney General again regarding her failure to respond 
to their earlier letters.
                                                  August 31, 2000.

              An Open Letter to the U.S. Attorney General

     Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General,
     U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: We, the presidents of the 
     National Academies, along with our Committee on Human Rights 
     and many of our members, are distressed by several matters 
     which have arisen regarding the case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee and 
     his incarceration during the past eight months. Although we 
     make no claim as to his innocence or guilt, he appears to be 
     a victim of unjust treatment.
       We are writing to you, as the chief law officer and legal 
     counsel of our nation, to urge you to rectify any wrongs to 
     which Dr. Lee has been subjected, and to ensure that he 
     receives fair and just treatment from now on. We also urge 
     that those responsible for any injustice that he has suffered 
     be held accountable. Even more importantly, perhaps, we urge 
     that safeguards be put in place to ensure that, in future, 
     others do not suffer the same plight.
       We write publicly because our private letters of March 10, 
     April 14, and June 26 of this

[[Page 22424]]

     year with regard to Dr. Lee's plight have been responded to 
     only by a form letter signed by your Acting Chief of the 
     Internal Security Section. (His letter was not a satisfactory 
     response to the questions that we had posed, as we indicated 
     in our follow-up letter of June 26.)
       We should perhaps explain that, for more than a century, 
     the National Academy of Sciences has provided independent, 
     objective scientific advice to our nation. By extension of 
     its original congressional charter, it established the 
     National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, 
     and the National Research Council. Some 4,800 of our nation's 
     most distinguished leaders in science, engineering, medicine, 
     and related fields have been selected by their peers to be 
     members of the Academies and the Institute.
       We are concerned that inaccurate and detrimental testimony 
     by government officials resulted in Dr. Lee needlessly 
     spending eight months in prison under harsh and questionable 
     conditions of confinement. Our assessment appears to have 
     been confirmed by the recent ruling of Judge James Parker in 
     granting bail to Dr. Lee.
       The three institutions of which we are presidents have an 
     active Committee on Human Rights. During the last 25 years 
     this committee has intervened in the name of our institutions 
     on behalf of hundreds of scientific colleagues, around the 
     world, who are unjustly detained or imprisoned for 
     nonviolently expressing their opinions. The committee writes 
     inquiries and appeals to offending governments and holds them 
     accountable for their actions. Although Dr. Lee has not been 
     detained for expressing his opinions, the handling of his 
     case reflects poorly on the U.S. justice system. The concerns 
     that we have expressed and the questions that we have posed 
     in our letters are identical to those that our Committee on 
     Human Rights regularly poses to foreign governments, some of 
     which have had the courtesy to respond. Surely, we cannot 
     expect less from our own government.
           Very truly yours,
     Bruce Alberts,
       President, National Academy of Sciences.
     Wm. A. Wulf,
       President, National Academy of Engineering.
     Kenneth I. Shine,
       President, Institute of Medicine.
                                  ____


    Text of the First Letter From the Presidents of the 3 National 
                        Academies to Janet Reno

                                                   March 10, 2000.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General,
     U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General: We write to inquire about the 
     status of the case (#99-1417) of a physicist, former Los 
     Alamos National Laboratory employee Wen Ho Lee. It is our 
     understanding that Mr. Lee is charged with 59 felony counts 
     under statutes 42 USC 2275, 2276 and 18 USC 793 (c&e). He is 
     currently being held without bail in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 
     pending trial.
       The purpose of this letter is to inquire about several 
     matters related to Mr. Lees case, as well as to request your 
     assurances that his rights are being full respected.
       In view of recent allegations in the press with regard to 
     Mr. Lees treatment, we would appreciate being informed as to 
     the conditions and circumstances under which Mr. Lee is being 
     held. Are his conditions of confinement in accordance with 
     all U.S. and international standards? We would also like to 
     know whether, as has been alleged by Mr. Lee's family, 
     instruments of restraint have been applied to him. If so, 
     what instruments were used, when and for how long were they 
     applied, why, and under what circumstances?
       With regard to the need for a fair trial, we would value 
     your assurances that Mr. Lee's rights not to be coerced into 
     giving a confession and not to be held in a coercive 
     environment are being fully respected. What and how much 
     contact is Mr. Lee permitted to have with his family, defense 
     counsel, and lawyers? We would also like to know what access 
     Mr. Lee's lawyers are being given to information needed to 
     adequately prepare his defense.
       We very much appreciate your attention to our inquiry and 
     look forward to receiving information that will help to 
     assure us that all reasonable measures are being taken to 
     protect Mr. Lee's rights, in full accordance with U.S. and 
     international law.
           Very truly yours,
     Bruce Alberts,
       President, National Academy of Sciences.
     William Wulf,
       President, National Academy of Engineering.
     Kenneth Shine,
       President, Institute of Medicine.

  January 30, 2000, the National Asian Pacific American Legal 
Consortium wrote to the Attorney General expressing concerns about 
overzealous prosecution and detention.
  On April 13, 2000, the Organization of Chinese Americans wrote to 
Norman Bay, the U.S. Attorney based in Albuquerque, raising questions 
about his detention.
  On August 18, 1999, the National Asian Pacific American Bar 
Association wrote to the Attorney General noting the fact that the FBI 
had not investigated the other prime suspects. It noted the comments of 
Robert S. Vrooman, former Chief of Counter-Intelligence at Los Alamos 
who said Wen Ho Lee was targeted because he was Chinese.
                                                 January 30, 2000.
     Re: Dr. Wen Ho Lee

     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Attorney General Reno: Per our meeting January 
     12, 2000, I am enclosing a memorandum discussing the Asian 
     Pacific American community's concerns that we raised with you 
     and Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the 
     prosecution of Dr. Wen Ho Lee. We don't seek to argue about 
     Dr. Lee's guilt or innocence, but instead to focus on his 
     treatment. It appears to the Asian American community, indeed 
     to many concerned about issues of civil liberties and due 
     process, that some of the prosecution's decisions have been 
     overzealous--perhaps out of embarrassment because of the many 
     media reports about how the investigation was handled.
       We are concerned that the intense media scrutiny and high 
     political stakes involved in his case may be compromising Dr. 
     Lee's due process rights and civil liberties as an American 
     citizen and bringing the loyalties of the nation's Asian 
     Pacific Americans under a cloud of suspicion. Our analysis 
     takes into careful consideration of U.S. District Judge James 
     Parker's Memorandum Opinion and Order and the voluminous bail 
     hearing transcripts.
       I thank you for taking the time to meet with us, and for 
     the sensitive manner in which you handled and continue to 
     give attention to our concerns. I look forward to your reply.
           Sincerely,
                                                Karen K. Narasaki,
                                               Executive Director.
     The Honorable Eric Holder,
       Deputy Attorney General.
     Yvonne Lee,
       U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
     Daphne Kwok,
       Organization of Chinese Americans.
     Nancy Choy,
       National Asian Pacific American Bar Association.
     Dr. John Young,
       Committee of 100.
                                   ____
                                 

                               MEMORANDUM

     To: Attorney General Janet Reno.
     From: Karen Narasaki, Executive Director, NAPALC; Aryani Ong, 
         Staff Attorney.
     Date: January 30, 2000.
     Re: Dr. Wen Ho Lee's Pretrial Detention.
       Currently, Dr. Lee is being held in prison pending trial, 
     having been denied pretrial release. He has been charged with 
     59 separate counts involving 19 computer files--29 counts of 
     removing and tampering with restricted data, 10 counts of 
     receiving restricted data, 10 counts of gathering national 
     defense information and 10 counts of retaining national 
     defense information. We understand that he is being held in 
     custody under solitary confinement. He cannot see his family 
     except for four hours per month nor receive any mail. We've 
     also heard reports that he is not being allowed to speak 
     Chinese to his visitors.


 i. dr. lee has faced harsh treatment that is disproportionate to the 
                         evidence of wrongdoing

       Many in the Asian American community believe that the 
     prosecution has been overzealous in their treatment of Dr. 
     Lee, given the evidence presented at the detention hearing 
     and what has been reported in the news. They are convinced 
     that federal investigators used racial profiling in the 
     initial targeting of Dr. Lee. They also believe that the 
     Department of Energy and others involved are acting so 
     harshly due to embarrassment from the congressional attacks, 
     the reported bungling of the initial investigation and the 
     failure to find evidence of espionage after the investigation 
     was leaked.
       Many community leaders believe that prosecutors have been 
     overstating the security risk to create a hostile public 
     environment so that he will be tried based on the perception 
     of espionage, despite the fact that there is insufficient 
     evidence to even bring such a charge. He is being treated as 
     though there is overwhelming evidence of espionage even 
     though the detention hearing revealed no such evidence. 
     Without such evidence, the community believes that pretrial 
     detention in solitary confinement is not warranted. Solitary 
     confinement seems to have no basis except to impose 
     psychological stress on the defendant so that he will not be 
     able to pursue the vigorous defense to which he is entitled.

[[Page 22425]]




                     a. denial of pre-trial release

       Where the statutory scheme 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142 generally 
     favors the defendant, Dr. Lee nonetheless was denied bail. 
     While we respect the judge's decision, we are concerned that 
     he was provided with characterizations of Dr. Lee as a 
     Chinese spy that are not substantiated by the evidence and 
     that influenced his decision not to consider alternative 
     conditions for release. For many in the Asian community, it 
     bears a potential resemblance to the Supreme Court's decision 
     to uphold the internment of Japanese Americans because the 
     threat to national security was overstated by government 
     attorneys who destroyed evidence that undercut the argument. 
     While we are certainly not charging the Department of Justice 
     with such misconduct here, we do believe that Korematsu v. 
     U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944), Hirabayashi v. U.S., 320 U.S. 81 
     (1943), and Yasui v. U.S., 320 U.S. 115 (1943) are cases 
     instructive of how much more careful we must be when national 
     security threats are being claimed as a basis for unfair and 
     harsh treatment.
       Under Sec. 3142(b), the judge ``shall order the pretrial 
     release'' of a defendant to ``subject to the least 
     restrictive further condition.'' According to Judge Parker, 
     no alternative conditions would save against the ``danger'' 
     posed by Dr. Lee's ``ability to communicate with unauthorized 
     persons while under house arrest.''
       We are concerned with the suggestive nature of this 
     assertion because there is no evidence that shows that Dr. 
     Lee transferred any classified information to an unauthorized 
     third party nor ever attempted to commit such act. Moreover, 
     the Government has not provided any direct evidence of Dr. 
     Lee's intent to use classified information to injure the 
     United States nor procure unfair advantage to a foreign 
     nature. Yet, the charges brought against Dr. Lee make this 
     assertion, and while espionage is not expressly among them, 
     the specter of espionage is raised throughout the detention 
     hearing and prominently figures into the judge's rationale 
     for denying a pretrial release.
       What the evidence does show is that Dr. Lee has been the 
     target of an investigation since 1995 for the possible theft 
     of W-88 data theft, which he has been cleared for over a 
     year. In March 1999, he was placed under 24-hour secret 
     surveillance for nine months, yet during that time, the FBI 
     acquired no evidence showing that Dr. Lee attempted to 
     transfer or transferred classified information to any 
     unauthorized third party. Instead, they found six tapes in 
     his office, and received an offer from Dr. Lee to take a 
     polygraph test to determine the truthfulness of his statement 
     to the FBI regarding the seven missing tapes. The Government 
     rejected the offer, but used his inability to produce the 
     missing tapes as the rationale for holding him without bail. 
     This places Dr. Lee in the untenable position of producing 
     tapes that he says has been destroyed or proving they no 
     longer exist. How can he be expected to prove they no longer 
     exist?
       Furthermore, even though Dr. Lee is not charged with 
     espionage, the Govenrment strongly inferred the allegation 
     during the detention hearings. We are concerned that Dr. 
     Lee's contacts with Chinese scientists and government 
     officials are depicted as bad acts in and of themselves when 
     the evidence shows otherwise. Dr. Lee's trips to China were 
     authorized by the Los Alamos National Laboratories and his 
     scientific collaborations with the Chinese were encouraged by 
     the Secretary of the Department of Energy.
       The Government successfully argued that Dr. Lee is a 
     national security risk based on the fact that the seven 
     portable tapes are missing and that Dr. Lee has the cognitive 
     ability to potentially assist a third party in using the 
     codes. Based on a single witness, they persuaded the Court to 
     view Dr. Lee's actions in the most damaging light possible, 
     using words such as ``devious,'' ``nefarious,'' and 
     ``secretive and deceptive.''
       Without doubt, we too find Dr. Lee's actions very grave. We 
     do not condone any employee who breaches security rules, 
     especially when sensitive defense information such as nuclear 
     weapons designs is involved. However, we also are guided by 
     the evidence presented and the presumption of innocence until 
     proven guilty in our justice system.
       Dr. Lee faces very serious criminal charges, but he has not 
     had his day in court. Meanwhile, he is being held in custody 
     as if he posed a threat of heinous violence to the community. 
     We particularly are concerned that despite many alternatives 
     that have been in practice by other courts, i.e., house 
     arrest, electronic monitoring, supervision by a third-party 
     custodian, visitation by court-approved persons and consent 
     to unannounced searches, the Government chose the harshest 
     alternative for a nonviolent offense.
       The Court uses a four-part test to determine whether there 
     are conditions of release that will reasonably assure a 
     defendant's appearance and the safety of the community. We 
     find that the evidence shows the following: (1) Dr. Lee was 
     not charged with committing a violent act or dealing with 
     drugs; (2) no direct evidence exists to prove that Dr. Lee 
     had the intent to injure the United States or procure an 
     unfair advantage to a foreign nation; (3) Dr. Lee has strong 
     community ties and no past criminal record; and, (4) he has 
     not acted in a manner to suggest that he poses a danger to 
     society; there is no evidence that he attempted to transfer 
     or transferred classified information to an unauthorized 
     third party nor that he assisted any person with the use of 
     the classified information. Yet, despite the evidence, Dr. 
     Lee been denied one of the most sacred guarantees by our 
     Constitution--his freedom.
       Judge James Parker indicated that he would be willing to 
     revisit the issue of pretrial release if Dr. Lee could 
     satisfactorily account for the missing seven tapes. We 
     encourage the Government to work with Dr. Lee's attorneys on 
     Dr. Lee's offer to take a polygraph test as to the 
     disposition of the tapes so that they can move forward on 
     discussing alternative conditions of release.


      B. Imposition of the Harshest Restrictions During Detainment

       Dr. Lee has been placed under solitary confinement and 
     restricted from family visits except for four hours per 
     month. While the prison warden may have the discretionary 
     authority regarding at least visitation, we believe that the 
     Government can weigh on the conditions imposed on Dr. Lee's 
     confinement.
       We are concerned about reports from the media and the 
     detention hearing transcripts that the FBI have been 
     employing psychological tactics to pressure Dr. Lee to 
     ``confess'' to wrongdoings or to break down his will to go 
     through a trial. The Asian American community does not 
     understand the national interest in placing harsh 
     restrictions on a defendant who has been been proven guilty. 
     In fact, Dr. Lee's treatment in jail only has strengthened 
     the majority view of the Asian Pacific American community 
     that the Government has selectively and unfairly investigated 
     and prosecuted Dr. Lee.
       Judge Parker urged the Government to consider loosening 
     what he himself described as severe restrictions imposed on 
     Dr. Lee. We also urge the Government to carefully consider 
     the offer by Dr. Lee's attorneys to have Dr. Lee undergo a 
     polygraph test so that Court may reevaluate any changed 
     circumstances that warrant his pretrial release.


ii. the department of justice should be particularly circumspect given 
    the political nature of the circumstances surrounding dr. lee's 
                              prosecution

       The Asian American community has been carefully monitoring 
     the developments of Dr. Lee's situation because they are 
     concerned that political forces may be playing an 
     inappropriately significant role in the investigation and 
     prosecution of Dr. Lee. The media, initially led by The New 
     York Times recklessly portrayed Dr. Lee as a Chinese spy. The 
     Cox House Committee Report, later criticized for serious 
     inaccuracies by the Rudman Report and esteemed Stanford 
     University researchers, took advantage of the opportunity to 
     embarrass the Administration by fanning fears about Communist 
     China.
       Given Dr. Lee's ethnic background, the community was 
     concerned that he was investigated on the basis of his ethnic 
     background. Former FBI counterintelligence officers reporting 
     to the media that they believed racial profiling occurred in 
     Dr. Lee's case validated their concerns. Further reports that 
     in fact the Chinese government could have gained the 
     information from other sources and that Dr. Lee's laboratory 
     probably could not have been the source for the design 
     information have added to the community's alarm.
       While the community does not condone Dr. Lee's egregious 
     mishandling of classified information, they fear that Dr. Lee 
     is vulnerable to being used as a scapegoat to take attention 
     from the embarrassing wealth of security lapses that the 
     Energy Department has allowed to occur. In its efforts to 
     overcome the series of embarrassing disclosures and to look 
     tough on security, the Department of Energy may not be acting 
     fairly or providing prosecutors with full disclosure.
       The Asian American community is concerned that Dr. Lee's 
     due process rights may fall victim to political scapegoating 
     and that negative repercussions for other Asian Americans 
     working in science and technology may follow if a pattern of 
     disregard for civil liberties is established in this case.
                                  ____

                                            National Asian Pacific


                                     American Bar Association,

                                  Washington, DC, August 18, 1999.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Reno: We are writing to express our deep concern 
     about recent accounts that race may have played a significant 
     factor in pursuing the investigation of Dr. Wen Ho Lee for 
     alleged espionage. While we do not condone acts of espionage 
     or any other illegal activity by any individual, we ask that 
     you ensure that race is not now a factor as you make 
     decisions regarding this and other investigations and 
     prosecutions involving security violations at Los Alamos and 
     other national laboratories.
       According to Senators Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman in 
     a statement issued on August 5, 1999, the Department of 
     Energy and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had multiple 
     suspects for leaks of nuclear warhead information and yet 
     only two--Dr. Lee and his wife--were investigated. Because 
     the DOE and FBI investigators failed to look into the other 
     suspects ``--that is, to assess

[[Page 22426]]

     whether these others were not for some reason equally 
     suspicious--meant that it was impossible to be sure that the 
     Lees really did stand out as the prime suspects.'' (Thompson/
     Lieberman Report p. 18.) This account is further buttressed 
     by recent statements made by Robert S. Vrooman, former chief 
     of Counter-Intelligence at the Los Alamos National 
     Laboratory. Mr. Vrooman stated that Dr. Lee was targeted for 
     investigation mainly because of his ethnicity, and that there 
     is no evidence that Dr. Lee leaked secrets to China. Mr. 
     Vrooman noted that at least 13 Caucasian scientists from Los 
     Alamos ``who went to the same [physics] institute and visited 
     the same people'' as Dr. Lee were left out of the 
     investigation.
       Furthermore, both the Thompson/Lieberman Statement and Mr. 
     Vrooman noted that key technical information concerning 
     certain weapons, whose acquisition by the Chinese government 
     initiated the investigation of Mr. Lee, was available to 
     numerous government and military entities that could have 
     been the source of the leaked information.
       While we recognize that Mr. Vrooman's statements will be 
     subject to debate, we believe that it is important that you 
     verify that no ``racial profiling'' occurred in this 
     investigation. Additionally, we would like to request a 
     meeting with you to discuss these issues. In the meantime, we 
     ask that as you continue your investigation of security leaks 
     at our national laboratories, you do so with a heightened 
     consideration for fairness.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy Choy,
       Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Bar 
     Association.
     Daphne Kwok,
       Executive Director, Organization of Chinese Americans.
     Jin Sook Lee,
       Executive Director, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, 
     AFL-CIO.
     Jon Melegrito,
       Executive Director, National Federation of Filipino 
     American Associations.
     Debasish Mishra,
       Executive Director, India Abroad Center for Political 
     Awareness.
     Karen Narasaki,
       Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Legal 
     Consortium.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                   Organization of


                                      Chinese Americans, Inc.,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 2000.
     Mr. Norman Bay,
     U.S. Attorney, Albuquerque, NM.
       Dear Mr. Bay: Thank you very much for meeting with us last 
     week. The Asian Pacific American community nationwide has 
     been monitoring the Wen Ho Lee case for over a year. The 
     community has been concerned with the public discourse and 
     media stereotypes arising from the case that insinuate all 
     Asian Pacific Americans as disloyal foreigners. With regard 
     to Dr. Lee, the community is wondering whether he has been 
     accorded his due process rights as an American citizen during 
     the investigation and decision making to prosecute him.
       Since Dr. Lee's incarceration in December of 1999, the 
     community has been very concerned about the fact that he has 
     not been granted bail until his trial. One of the questions 
     we have is what are the conditions, if any, must Dr. Lee meet 
     in order for him to be released on bail?
       As a follow up to our conversation, we wanted to ask 
     specific questions about Dr. Lee's incarceration.
       We understand that Dr. Lee has been charged with 
     mishandling classified data. A concern of the community is 
     that since Dr. Lee has not been charged with espionage then 
     why is he being treated as if he has been charged with 
     espionage? As someone charged with a nonviolent act, the 
     community believes Dr. Lee should be treated like those 
     charged with other nonviolent ``white collar'' offenses.
       We have heard the following:
       Dr. Lee is in ``solitary confinement.''
       Dr. Lee is ``shackled'' all day.
       Dr. Lee's ankles and wrists are shackled when he is moved 
     within the jail facility, even during his one hour of 
     exercise, and unremoved during weekly meetings with his 
     family.
       No collect calls to any outside party are allowed except to 
     his counsel.
       Kept separate from other prisoners during one hour long 
     exercise.
       Dr. Lee is only allowed one hour outside of his jail cell 
     for exercise per day, but not always outside under the 
     sunlight.
       Dr. Lee is not allowed to read newspapers, magazines, 
     books.
       Dr. Lee is not allowed to watch TV.
       We would greatly appreciate your response to these points 
     as soon as possible so that we may accurately respond to the 
     inquiries from our community about Dr. Lee's confinement. 
     Thank you very much.
           Sincerely,
     Daphne Kwok,
       Executive Director, Organization of Chinese Americans.
     Nancy Choy,
       Executive Director, National Asian Pacific, American Bar 
     Association.
     Aryani Ong,
       Staff Attorney, National Asian Pacific American, Legal 
     Consortium.
     Jin Sook Lee,
       Executive Director, Asian Pacific American, Labor Alliance, 
     AFL-CIO.
     Kristine Minami,
       Washington, D.C. Representative, Japanese American Citizens 
     League.
                                  ____


                     Declaration of Robert Vrooman

       I, Robert Vrooman, do hereby declare and state:
       1. I have reviewed the government's response to Wen Ho 
     Lee's Motion for Discovery of Materials Related to Selective 
     Prosecution, including the attached Declaration of Special 
     Agent Robert Messemer. As set out below, Agent Messsemer's 
     declaration contains numerous false statements. Based on my 
     experiences with Agent Messemer and the information I have 
     received from other FBI agents, I believe that the regularly 
     distorts information.
       2. I did not tell Agent Messemer that Lee probably assisted 
     the Chinese by helping fix Chinese hydrocodes during his 
     travel in 1986 and 1988. His allegation that I did so is 
     false. Our April 28, 1999 meeting focused on [approx, one 
     line deleted] and Agent Messemer's theory that there was 
     something inappropriate going on [words deleted]. I attended 
     that interview solely as a favor to John Browne, the director 
     of Los Alamos National Laboratory. When it was over, I told 
     Browne that I considered the interview strange, because it 
     had nothing to do with the Lee case. I later learned from 
     officials at the CIA that Agent Messemer was falsely 
     informing CIA officials that I had been critical [word(s) 
     deleted]. At the time, Agent Messemer was attempting to shift 
     blame to the CIA for possible fallout [words deleted]. I 
     sought to obtain a copy of Agency Messemer's memoranda of my 
     interview and to have it corrected. See Attachment one. The 
     FBI refused to provide me a copy of this memorandum, which I 
     expect contains false information.
       3. Agent Messemer's statement that the individuals selected 
     for investigation was chosen because they fit ``matrix'' 
     based on access to W-88 information and travel to the PRC is 
     false. Dozens of individuals who share those characteristics 
     were not chosen for investigation. As I explained in my prior 
     declaration, it is my firm belief that the actual reason Dr. 
     Lee was selected for investigation was because he made a call 
     to another person who was under investigation in spite of the 
     fact that he assisted the FBI in this case. It is my opinion 
     that the failure to look at the rest of the population is 
     because Lee is ethnic Chinese.
       4. Mr. Moore's contention that the Chinese target 
     ethnically Chinese individuals to the exclusion of others, 
     therefore making it rational to focus investigations on such 
     individuals was not borne out by our experience at Los 
     Alamos, which was the critical context for this 
     investigation. It was our experience that Chinese 
     intelligence officials contacted everyone from the 
     laboratories with a nuclear weapons background who visited 
     China for information, regardless of their ethnicity. I am 
     unaware of any empirical data that would support any 
     inference that an American citizen born in Taiwan would be 
     more likely than any other American citizen [deletion].
       5. Of the twelve people ultimately chosen for the short 
     list on which the investigation focused, some had no access 
     at all to W-88 information, and one did not have a security 
     clearance, but this individuals is ethnically Chinese. I do 
     not believe this was a coincidence. Further, this ethnically 
     Chinese individual did not fall within the ``matrix'' which 
     Agent Messemer claims was used by the DOE and FBI. In 
     addition, although there were other names on the HI list, Mr. 
     Trulock made clear that Dr. Lee was his primary suspect.
       6. Agent Messemer deliberately mischaracterizes the nature 
     of my comments to him regarding my concerns about Dr. Lee's 
     travel to the PRC. I did consider it unusual that Dr. Lee had 
     not reported any contact by Chinese agents when I debriefed 
     him following his return from the PRC. I did not believe then 
     and I do not believe now that Dr. Lee engaged in espionage, 
     and I made no such intimation to Agent Messemer. Dr. Lee and 
     his wife Sylvia were both cooperating with FBI 
     investigations, and I considered them loyal Americans. 
     Nonetheless, I considered Dr. Lee naive, and therefore a 
     potential security risk. It was to keep Dr. Lee out of harm's 
     way, not because I had any fear that he might knowingly 
     engage in improper conduct, that I recommended against 
     further

[[Page 22427]]

     unescorted trips out of the country for Dr. Lee.
       7. My concerns about the real motivation behind the 
     investigation were exacerbated when I received a classified 
     intelligence briefing from Dr. Thomas Cook, an intelligence 
     analysis at LANL, in September 1999. This briefing put to 
     rest any concerns that I may have had that Dr. Lee helped the 
     Chinese in any substantial manner.
       8. In my capacity as a counterintelligence investigator at 
     LANL, I was brief on the existence of an investigation code-
     named ``Buffalo Slaughter'' some time in the late 1980s 
     involving a non-Chinese individual working at DOE laboratory 
     who transferred classified information to a foreign country. 
     That individual was granted full immunity in return for 
     agreeing to a full debriefing on the information that he 
     passed. [Approx. six lines deleted].
       9. The statements contained in my Declaration dated June 
     22, 2000 are true and correct and I so attest.
       I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the 
     United States that the foregoing is true and correct. 
     Executed August 10, 2000, at Gallatin Gateway, Montana.
       [signed]
                                                   Robert Vrooman.
       [Attachment one]
         September 17, 1999.
     Robert S. Vrooman,
     P.O. Box 348, Gallatin Gateway, MT.
     David V. Kitchen,
     Special Agent in Charge, FBI 415 Silver SW, 
         Albuquerque, NM.
       Dear Mr. Kitchen: I would like to have a copy of the 302 
     prepared by S.A. Robert Messemer as a result of his interview 
     with me on April 28, 1999. Several members of the CIA's IG 
     office have read me portions [of] Messemer's report, and it 
     is clear to me that SA Messemer attributed his opinions to 
     me. During the interview, I told SA Messemer that I did not 
     know [deletion] well enough to have an opinion [deletion]. He 
     then provided me with the details and asked me to speculate 
     on the implications. I find this interview technique 
     objectionable.
       On the other hand, SA Messemer did provide me with a lot of 
     details regarding Dr. Lee that I did not know. This helped to 
     solidify my opinions on the case and to have the confidence 
     to go public. I learned during the meeting with SA Messemer 
     that Dr. Lee [Approx. one line deleted]. SA Messemer was 
     particularly helpful to us when he provided us a copy of Mr. 
     Bruno's April 15, 1997 memorandum to Notra Trulock thus 
     allowing us to defend our decision to keep Dr. Lee in his 
     job. For this I am grateful to SA Messemer, but I still 
     object to his using me to promote his opinions.
       I am planning to write a book on my experiences and would 
     like to have the 302 as soon as possible.
           Sincerely yours,
     Robert S. Vrooman.
                                  ____

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                            Criminal Division,

                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2000.
     Mr. Phyllis Hedges,
     P.O. Box 1288, Los Alamos, NM.
       Dear Mr. Hedges: This is in response to your letter to the 
     Department of Justice concerning the prosecution of Wen Ho 
     Lee. Although I am not able to comment in detail about a 
     pending case, I hope you will find the following information 
     useful.
       This prosecution is based solely on the facts and the law, 
     Dr. Lee's Chinese heritage and ancestry played no role 
     whatsoover in the decision to prosecute him. Like you, I am 
     very disturbed by news accounts suggesting that Dr. Lee has 
     been singled out for investigation and prosecution because of 
     his ethnicity. Let me assure you that this is not the way the 
     Department of Justice or the Criminal Division operates. To 
     render a decision on a potential prosecution on the basis of 
     race or ethnicity, even in part, would violate the 
     Department's ethical canons, as well as my own personal 
     beliefs.
       As you may know, Dr. Lee was ordered to be detained pending 
     trial by United States Magistrate Judge Svet and, thereafter, 
     by United States District Judge Parker, who heard extensive 
     testimony and legal argument. On February 29, 2000, a three-
     judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed Judge Parker's decision.
       With regard to the conditions of Dr. Lee's incarceration, I 
     am advised that the limitations on visits by his family are 
     the same as those for other similarly-situated prisoners at 
     the facility where Dr. Lee is being held. We have, however, 
     been able to accommodate the Lee family recently by arranging 
     for a Mandarin language interpreter to be present for several 
     meetings so that Dr. Lee's family can speak with him in his 
     native language. We will continue to make the interpreter 
     available as often as possible. Furthermore, we have arranged 
     with the prison facility to allow Dr. Lee's family to meet 
     with Dr. Lee for more than one hour per week.
       Thank you for taking the time to write to express your 
     views.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John J. Dion,
     Acting Chief, Internal Security Section.
                                  ____

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                            Criminal Division,

                                   Washington, DC, April 21, 2000.
     Mr. Phyllis Hedges,
     P.O. Box 1288, Los Alamos, NM.
       Dear Mr. Hedges: This is in response to your letter to the 
     Department of Justice concerning the prosecution of Wen Ho 
     Lee. Although I am not able to comment in detail about a 
     pending case, I hope you will find the following information 
     useful.
       This prosecution is based solely on the facts and the law. 
     Dr. Lee's Chinese heritage and ancestry played no role 
     whatsoever in the decision to prosecute him. Like you, I am 
     very disturbed by news accounts suggesting that Dr. Lee has 
     been singled out for investigation and prosecution because of 
     his ethnicity. Let me assure you that this is not the way the 
     Department of Justice or the Criminal Division operates. To 
     render a decision on a potential prosecution on the basis of 
     race or ethnicity, even in part, would violate the 
     Department's ethical canons, as well as my own personal 
     beliefs.
       As you may know, Dr. Lee was ordered to be detained pending 
     trial by United States Magistrate Judge Svet and, thereafter, 
     by United States District Judge Parker, who heard extensive 
     testimony and legal argument. On February 29, 2000, a three-
     judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed Judge Parker's decision.
       With regard to the conditions of Dr. Lee's incarceration, I 
     am advised that the limitations on visits by his family are 
     the same as those for others similarly-situated prisoners at 
     the facility where Dr. Lee is being held. We have, however, 
     been able to accommodate the Lee family recently by arranging 
     for a Mandarin language interpreter to be present for several 
     meetings so that Dr. Lee's family can speak with him in his 
     native language. We will continue to make the interpreter 
     available as often as possible. Furthermore, we have arranged 
     with the prison facility to allow Dr. Lee's family to meet 
     with Dr. Lee for more than one hour per week.
       Thank you for taking the time to write to express your 
     views.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John J. Dion,
     Acting Chief, Internal Security Section.
                                  ____

       At the request of the members of its Social Concerns 
     Committee, the Congregation of the Unitarian Church of Los 
     Alamos met in a Congressional Meeting on Friday, August 4, 
     2000 and, after a more than two-hour debate, passed the 
     following resolution concerning the pretrial treatment of Dr. 
     Wen Ho Lee. The resolution was passed by an affirmative vote 
     of 97% of those voting.
                                                Richard K. Cooper,
                        President, Unitarian Church of Los Alamos.


        resolution in support of civil rights for dr. wen ho lee

                             August 4, 2000

       WHEREAS, Dr. Wen Ho Lee, an American citizen, was arrested 
     in December 1999 and charged in a 59-count indictment with 
     transferring nuclear weapons data to an unsecured computer 
     and portable storage systems in violation of federal laws;
       WHEREAS, Dr. Lee is not charged with espionage;
       WHEREAS, as documented in the transcript of the FBI 
     interrogation, FBI agents lied to Dr. Lee about the results 
     of a polygraph test which he passed, and threatened his life 
     and his family in an effort to force Dr. Lee to confess to 
     espionage;
       WHEREAS, while awaiting trial set for November, 2000, and 
     presumed innocent, Dr. Lee has been denied bail, jailed in 
     solitary confinement, and subjected to harsh and cruel 
     conditions which include the following:
       Dr. Lee is in chains, shackled hands and feet whenever he 
     is taken from his solitary cell; he is chained during his one 
     hour per week visit with immediate family so that he must 
     shuffle and awkwardly lean to activate the intercom with 
     manacled hands in order to speak through glass (however, 
     during a mid-July visit his handcuffs were removed) while two 
     FBI agents monitor and censor each word; Dr. Lee remains in 
     ankle chains when working with his lawyers behind triple 
     locked doors in a windowless room in a secured facility;
       Dr. Lee is not allowed any exercise, fresh air, or showers 
     on weekends; the one hour of exercise weekdays he spends 
     alone, and until recently in shackles, and he must forego any 
     exercise or fresh air on days he meets his attorneys to 
     prepare for trial; Dr. Lee's telephone calls are extremely 
     limited, censored and transcribed; he is allowed no 
     television and limited reading material; his mail is delayed 
     by months;
       AND WHEREAS, in protest of the treatment of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, 
     is far more severe than needed to assure security, numerous 
     organizations and individuals have adopted resolutions or 
     written in protest to Attorney General Janet Reno and other 
     government officials;
       NOW, THEREFORE, it is resolved that the Unitarian Church of 
     Los Alamos, New Mexico, while taking no position on the guilt 
     or innocence of Dr. Lee with respect to the charges against 
     him, concurs in the protest of the conditions of detention of 
     Dr. Wen Ho Lee as cruel and overly harsh and is alarmed

[[Page 22428]]

     by the denial of Dr. Lee's civil libraries and rights to due 
     process;
       FURTHER, the Unitarian Church of Los Alamos, New Mexico, 
     calls upon the government of the United States of America 
     immediately to institute humane treatment of Dr. Lee and to 
     seek from the Court pre-trial release of Dr. Lee under 
     conditions that respect his human dignity;
       And it is FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall be 
     printed in publications of the Unitarian Church of Los 
     Alamos, distributed to other appropriate Unitarian 
     Universalist Association offices and congregations, and shall 
     be delivered to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and to the 
     congressional delegation from the State of New Mexico.

  By September 7, 1999, the New York Times wrote a long article on 
Chinese espionage and noted that secret information regarding nuclear 
design was available not only at Los Alamos but ``to hundreds and 
perhaps thousands of individuals scattered throughout the nation.''
  Citing a CIA official, the New York Times stated that this Wen Ho Lee 
case was going to be as ``bad as the Rosenbergs.''
  All of this hysteria, I believe was deliberately programmed as a 
cover-up of the lack of security at the labs.
  Wen Ho Lee being Taiwanese was an easy target.
  Creating a climate of suspicion upon all Chinese is the terrible 
wreckage heaped by the storm on these loyal Americans.
  If all that the New York Times alleged were true, why wasn't Wen Ho 
Lee charged with espionage?
  The answer is obvious. There was never any evidence of espionage.
  This case began in 1995 when a U.S. agent in Asia was approached by a 
Chinese defector with a 74-page document which purported to be a 
blueprint for a nuclear weapons program. It was 7 years old.
  U.S. experts concluded it came from Los Alamos. Energy Department 
intelligence chief Notra Turlock took over the investigation. By May 
1996 he had identified 12 suspects. Newsweek, September 25, 2000.
  By late 1998 the FBI became convinced Lee was probably not their 
target. Newsweek.--By 1999 the political climate however changed and 
people were hot after finding a spy.
  Newsweek states in its article of September 25, 2000, that Energy 
Secretary Bill Richardson called FBI Director Freeh and urged they 
accelerate Wen Ho Lee's investigation.
  Wen Ho Lee had engaged in a pattern of deceit.
  Dr. Robert A. Messemer, an FBI agent, admitted on August 17, 2000, at 
a December 1999 bail hearing for Wen Ho Lee, that he had misstated the 
testimony of a co-worker, Kuok-Mee Ling, suggesting that Wen Ho Lee had 
misled him in getting permission to use his computer. In fact, there 
was no deception.
  Dr. Messemer also testified in August 2000 that he failed to tell the 
Judge in December 1999, that Dr. Lee had disclosed contracts with 
Chinese scientists in his 1986 trip to China.
  Dr. Messemer had failed to tell the court in December 1999, that Wen 
Ho Lee had told the FBI in March 5, 1999, that he received various 
correspondence from Chinese scientists.
  Nor did Dr. Messemer tell the court that the letters the FBI found in 
Dr. Lee's home did not prove he had sent them seeking a job. The 
letters were written to Australia, France, Singapore, and Switzerland.
  Initially the felony charge against Wen Ho Lee was based on intent to 
harm the U.S. and to aid a foreign power.
  Later, the prosecutor's case was based on showing Lee's motive was to 
impress prospective employers rather than to help China's nuclear 
program. Washington Post, September 24, 2000.
  Mr. Richard Krajcik, Deputy Director of the Los Alamos top-secret X 
Division, testified on August 17, 2000, and conceded the information 
that Wen Ho Lee downloaded was not classified secret at the time he 
took it. AP New Mexico, August 18, 2000. He said it had not been 
reviewed for classification.
  Judge James A. Parker in the final court hearing in which Wen Ho Lee 
was released of all 59 charges except one, said the government action 
against Wen Ho Lee had embarrassed the entire nation. Judge Parker said 
that the government had led him astray. Judge Parker apologized to Dr. 
Lee for the unfair manner in which he was held.
  The question that lies unanswered with Wen Ho Lee's release is 
whether he in fact downloaded the ``crown jewels'' of our nation's 
nuclear weapons program so sensitive that it could change the global 
strategic balance if obtained by a foreign adversary.

                           Into the Sunshine

                          (By Michael Isikoff)

       Every Saturday morning Sylvia Lee and her children would 
     pass through the metal detector and take their seats by the 
     glass partition in the bleak room where maximum-security 
     prisoners meet visitors. A door would open and Wen Ho Lee, 
     diminutive and soft-spoken at 60, would shuffle in flanked by 
     two FBI agents. Lee's legs were shackled, his hands manacled 
     and the handcuffs chained to his waist. ``It was just so 
     horrible,'' his daughter, Alberta, says now. ``They were 
     treating him like an animal.'' The Lee family time began--an 
     hour of stilted togetherness with the FBI taking notes on 
     every word. Seeing her father in chains, and knowing he was 
     being held in complete isolation, frequently reduced Alberta 
     to tears. Reading was one of his only escapes, and every week 
     she brought him something new. His favorite was the novel by 
     Gabriel Garcia Marquez: ``One Hundred Years of Solitude.''
       Wen Ho Lee's term of solitude ended last week in the 
     collapse of the most highly publicized espionage case since 
     the arrest of Aldrich Ames--a negotiated guilty plea on one 
     count of mishandling classified information. The plea bargain 
     stripped any remaining credibility from the hopelessly 
     botched federal investigation of alleged Chinese spying at 
     the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and it humiliated the 
     FBI. It also infuriated U.S. district Judge James A. Parker, 
     who said he had been ``misled'' into treating Wen Ho Lee as a 
     dangerous spy. Calling Lee's imprisonment ``draconian'' and 
     ``unfair'' Parker excoriated ``top decision makers'' at the 
     Department of Justice and the Energy Department who, 
     according to Parker, had ``embarrassed our nation.'' Lee and 
     his lawyers claimed he had been targeted for investigation 
     because he is Chinese, and critics charged that the FBI and 
     the Energy Department had engaged in a new form of racial 
     profiling. The Clinton administration, it seemed, had a bad 
     case of cold-war paranoia.
       The recriminations have only just begun. Stung by the 
     judge's criticism and by a rebuke from Bill Clinton, Attorney 
     General Janet Reno is likely to order an internal inquiry 
     into what went wrong--a probe that could prove distinctly 
     uncomfortable to Reno herself, FBI Director Louis Freeh and 
     other senior officials. But even as they acknowledged a badly 
     flawed case, senior law-enforcement officials insisted they 
     were right to go after Lee in the first place. They say his 
     actions raise troubling questions that are still unanswered.
       As late as last Monday, Newsweek has learned, Reno and 
     other top Justice officials nearly torpedoed the deal after 
     Lee admitted for the first time that he made copies of the 
     computer tapes containing nuclear secrets he downloaded from 
     Los Alamos's classified computers. Lee insisted he had 
     destroyed all the copies along with seven original tapes the 
     FBI never recovered and that he never compromised U.S. 
     security. But his new admission triggered a series of tense 
     discussions among top national-security officials. ``People 
     were really angry and upset,'' said one source. For a time 
     Reno and other top officials were strongly leaning toward 
     taking the troubled case to trial anyway.
       In the end, Justice officials modified the deal with Lee. 
     They gave themselves greater latitude to bring new charges 
     against the scientist if they catch him lying during the 
     intense debriefings he must now undergo. ``When the full 
     story comes out,'' said one unrepentant law-enforcement 
     official, ``people are going to see that he's not the poor 
     little innocent he's being made out to be.''
       Maybe so, but suspicions are not what federal prosecutions 
     are supposed to be about. What drove the Lee case was 
     legitimate national-security concerns--warped by politics. 
     The case began in 1995 when a U.S. agent in Asia was 
     approached by a Chinese ``walk-in'' defector with a 
     sensational intelligence coup--a 74-page document that 
     purported to be the blueprint for modernizing China's 
     nuclear-weapons program. Although it was seven years old, the 
     document included numerous pieces of information, and some 
     key phrases, that suggested a massive security leak at Los 
     Alamos. It also included a design virtually identical to the 
     W88, a state-of-the-art thermonuclear warhead built for U.S. 
     missile subs. While skeptics suggested the document may have 
     been a plant by Chinese intelligence, some U.S. experts were 
     convinced that much of the information had indeed been stolen 
     from Los Alamos. One of them was Energy Department counter-
     intelligence chief Notra Trulock, who took over the W88 
     probe, code-named Kindred Spirit. By May 1996 his team of 
     spy-hunters, working with the FBI, had identified 12 
     suspects--with Wen Ho Lee at the top of the list.
       Born in Taiwan and educated at Texas A&M, where he got his 
     doctorate in mechanical engineering, Lee joined the staff at 
     Los Alamos in 1978. He worked in the X Division, which 
     designs U.S. bombs and warheads, as a midlevel scientist 
     specializing in the computer simulation of shock waves 
     generated by nuclear blasts. Crucially, he was on the team 
     that designed the trigger for the W88 warhead. Still, there 
     was no hard evidence that Lee had engaged in any form of 
     espionage. By late 1998 the FBI's Albuquerque, N.M., field 
     office became convinced that Lee was probably not their 
     target and noted that hundreds of other people, including 
     outside contractors, needed to be examined.
       By then the political climate had changed. Trulock had 
     testified in secret before a congressional committee 
     investigating technology transfers to China headed by GOP

[[Page 22429]]

     Rep. Chris Cox. Republicans had already pummeled the Clinton 
     White House over Asian campaign contributions, and top 
     administration officials feared a new China scandal. In 
     December 1998, Newsweek has learned, Energy Secretary Bill 
     Richardson called FBI Director Freeh and urged him to 
     accelerate the Lee investigation.
       In March 1999 The New York Times ran a front-page story 
     pointing to an unnamed ``computer scientist'' at Los Alamos 
     as a key figure in a probe of Chinese espionage. The next day 
     the FBI interrogated Lee and tried to extract a confession. 
     Waving the newspaper story, agents warned Lee he faced the 
     loss of his job and pension and that he was ``failing'' lie-
     detector tests--a statement that was at least somewhat 
     misleading. ``I tell the truth,'' Lee insisted. ``Do you know 
     who the Rosenbergs are?'' an agent asked. ``You know what 
     happened to them? They electrocuted them, Wen Ho.'' No lawyer 
     was present.
       Ironically, neither the FBI nor the Energy Department was 
     aware at that point that Wen Ho Lee had been secretly 
     downloading massive amounts of X Division weapons data for 
     years. To do it, Lee asked to use the computer of a colleague 
     outside the X Division. Then he typed cl=u (classified equals 
     unclassified) on the restricted files, allowing access from 
     the other computer. Starting in 1993 Lee downloaded 806 
     megabytes of classified information--about 400,000 pages.
       But damning as the evidence looked to national-security 
     officials in Washington, the case against Lee turned out to 
     be filled with holes, and prosecutors began to take hits left 
     and right. At a bail hearing in August, FBI agent Robert 
     Messemer admitted that he had earlier given false testimony, 
     portraying Lee as more devious than the scientist actually 
     was when he asked to use his colleague's computer. Messemer 
     called his testimony ``an honest mistake.'' Other government 
     scientists stated that many of the nuclear secrets Lee 
     downloaded were publicly available--and many had a relatively 
     low classification: ``protect as restricted data,'' or PARD.
       In late August a meeting was convened at the Justice 
     Department command center to review where matters stood. 
     ``The case was falling apart,'' said one official. Chief 
     prosecutor George Stamboulidis was convinced he could still 
     win at trial. But national-security officials feared that 
     Judge Parker would allow defense lawyers to introduce some of 
     the secret documents that Lee had downloaded. ``We would have 
     had to parade these documents in front of the jury and the 
     world,'' said Stamboulidis. Even FBI Director Freeh--who had 
     aggressively pushed the case to begin with--was now arguing 
     that the government should take a plea.
       Senior law-enforcement officials say the biggest mistake 
     may have been the harsh conditions under which Lee was held--
     the solitary cell, the leg irons, the 24-hour watch. Top 
     Justice officials now say they had some concerns about this 
     from the beginning but didn't convey them strongly enough to 
     the original prosecution team. ``If there was a failure, the 
     higher-ups at Justice weren't really forceful enough in 
     speaking up,'' said one official. ``That's a legitimate 
     criticism.'' When Stamboulidis came in to take over the case 
     in June, he eased the treatment of Lee and ordered the leg 
     irons taken off. But by then it was too late. The image of 
     Lee, a gentle scientist being mistreated by the government, 
     had made its way into the public mind. As a symbol of 
     overzealous prosecution, it could well stay there for some 
     time to come.
                                  ____


      FBI Agent Recants Testimony Against Los Alamos Scientist Lee

               (August 18, 2000; Albuquerque, New Mexico)

       An FBI agent has recanted testimony that was key to a 
     judge's decision to deny bail last December to a fired 
     nuclear weapons scientist accused of downloading restricted 
     files.
       The testimony last year from Agent Robert Messemer had 
     portrayed Wen Ho Lee as guileful when the jailed Los Alamos 
     lab physicist supposedly told a colleague he wanted to use 
     that scientist's computer to print a resume.
       At a bail review hearing Thursday, Messemer acknowledge 
     that Lee had told the other scientist he wished to download 
     files.
       ``My testimony was incorrect,'' Messemer told U.S. District 
     Judge James Parker.
       The judge had cited Lee's ``deeply troubling'' deceptions 
     in denying him bail in December.
       The FBI agent said Thursday he did not intentionally 
     attempt to mislead the judge and said he did not believe it 
     was a serious error.
       The hearing, the defense's third effort to get Lee released 
     on bail, was scheduled to continue Friday with more 
     questioning of Messemer.
       Lee, 60, is charged with 59 counts involving downloading 
     files from Los Alamos National Laboratory to unsecured 
     computers and tape. The Taiwan-born American citizen could 
     face life in prison if convicted at trial, scheduled to begin 
     Nov. 6.
       During Messemer's testimony Thursday, the FBI agent also 
     acknowledged Lee disclosed contacts with scientists from the 
     People's Republic of China in a report to the lab about a 
     1986 conference he attended.
       Messemer insisted, however, that under questioning by 
     authorities Lee did not disclose the full scope of those 
     contacts.
       Messemer testified last year Lee initially told authorities 
     only about a Christmas card he had gotten from one Chinese 
     scientist. He acknowledged that Parker could have inferred 
     from that testimony Lee was lying.
       He also said he wanted to correct a ``minor point'' in 
     which he said Lee sent letters seeking an overseas job. 
     Messemer said Thursday the FBI had no evidence one way or the 
     other whether the letters were sent.
       Los Alamos scientist Richard Krajcik, deputy director of a 
     top-secret nuclear weapons division at the lab, testified 
     that he stood by earlier statements about the seriousness of 
     the downloaded documents.
       ``It represents the crown jewels of nuclear design 
     assessment capability of the United States,'' Krajcik said.
       Krajcik conceded the information was not classified as 
     secret when Lee allegedly took it, but said only scientists 
     with security clearances could access it.
       At the time, the information had not been reviewed for 
     classification. The information has since been classified as 
     confidential restricted data and secret restricted data, but 
     not top secret.
       Defense attorney John Cline read descriptions of 
     classification levels, which define top-secret information as 
     vital to national security and whose dissemination would 
     cause ``exceptionally great damage.'' Secret information does 
     not reveal critical features.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Mink for 
organizing this important Special Order and commend Congressman 
Underwood, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, 
and the other Members of the Caucus for their leadership and hard work 
to focus attention on these important civil rights issues.
  The treatment of Dr. Wen Ho Lee remains a cause for concern. Asian-
Americans, members of racial and ethnic minority groups, civil 
libertarians, and other Americans have correctly questioned his 
treatment and continue to question the underlying racial stereotyping 
and racial profiling that plagued this case. Why did this happen? What 
were the objective and neutral criteria used to bring these charges? 
Why was he held in solitary confinement, unable to exercise, prohibited 
from speaking Chinese to his family, and subjected to extraordinary 
conditions of confinement?
  The implications of this case go well beyond the Chinese and Asian-
American community. It concerns other minority communities, racial 
profiling in law enforcement, and stereotyping all across the country. 
America's law enforcement agencies and the FBI should not be targeting 
individuals based solely on their race or ethnicity. Several years ago, 
after the bombing at the Oklahoma City Federal Building, too many 
people were quick to blame foreigners and Arab terrorists. That tragedy 
reminded us of the important lesson of not jumping to conclusions. 
Evidently, that lesson has been forgotten.
  Rep. Robert Underwood, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific 
American Caucus, has written to President Clinton to urge the 
establishment of an independent, bi-partisan commission to investigate 
the handling of the case of Dr. Wen Ho Lee. This important step would 
help reveal the truth and help depoliticize the issue. A formal 
Commission of national stature to review these issues would be an 
important step forward. This independent Commission should have 
subpoena power. I would like to see the release of documents that the 
defense would have used during discovery in order to determine whether 
there were appropriate criteria used to target Dr. Wen Ho Lee. The 
Organization of Chinese Americans [OCA] has also called for an 
independent inquiry into how this case was investigated and prosecuted 
by Federal agencies.
  It is important to remind government officials, law enforcement 
agencies, and the media that our nation's underlying guarantee of equal 
and fair treatment before the law applies to all Americans, including 
Chinese and Asian Pacific Americans. Many think Dr. Lee's case was 
influenced by biased media coverage, political partisanship, attempts 
to scapegoat someone for the Department of Energy's lax security 
procedures. Bail hearing testimony by government investigators 
admitting erroneous statements about Dr. Lee's actions are particularly 
troubling. As a nation, we can and must do better.
  I look forward to the establishment of an independent Commission and 
the results of the Commission's fact finding mission. Regardless of 
these findings, we must keep in mind the lessons of the Oklahoma 
bombing and recognize that racial profiling and stereotyping are unfair 
and may violate our civil rights. We must work to ensure that the 
principles of innocent until proven guilty and due process are more 
than mere rhetoric. We must ensure they remain core American values 
protecting all Americans.
  In closing, I want to thank Congresswoman Mink for organizing this 
Special Order and highlighting these important issues.

[[Page 22430]]


  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about 
the unjust treatment and confinement of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a former Los 
Alamos scientist.
  Dr. Wen Ho Lee was arrested by the FBI on December 10, 1999, when a 
grand jury issued a 59-count indictment charging him with stealing 
nuclear secrets from a classified Los Alamos computer. U.S. District 
Judge James Parker denied bail for Dr. Lee, citing seven missing 
computer tapes of nuclear secrets and the possibility that his release 
could harm U.S. national security. Dr. Lee was held in solitary 
confinement for the following nine months and shackled whenever he was 
outside of his cell.
  Dr. Lee's confinement was clearly unnecessary. He had not been 
convicted of any crime and was considered innocent under the law 
throughout his confinement. On August 17, 2000, FBI agent Robert 
Messemer admitted that he gave false testimony against Dr. Lee at his 
bail hearing the previous December. Furthermore, on September 10, 2000, 
the Department of Justice announced that Dr. Lee would go free after 
pleading guilty to just one of the original 59 felony counts against 
him. All other counts against him were dropped. When the Executive 
Branch agreed to release him without any conditions, it became apparent 
that it had never been necessary to confine him.
  We will never know the reasons why the Federal Government confined 
Dr. Lee and treated him so harshly. The plea agreement reached by Dr. 
Lee and the Department of Justice shields the Executive Branch from 
disclosing information that might have provided an explanation.
  Dr. Lee's unjust confinement and the cruelty of the conditions under 
which he was confined are a disgrace to the FBI, the Department of 
Justice and the entire nation. No American citizen should ever be 
unnecessarily confined by the U.S. Government. I am deeply sorry about 
the unjust treatment Dr. Lee received, and I urge my colleagues to work 
diligently to ensure that no other citizen will ever be forced to 
endure this type of treatment.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on my special order tonight.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mica). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentlewoman from Hawaii?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________