NUCLEAR SECURITY ON THE CHEAP

Buried on page 8 of the Times is this disturbing news item.

The White House cut 93 percent of a recent request by the secretary of energy for money to improve the security of nuclear weapons and waste, according to a letter from the secretary.

The secretary, Spencer Abraham, said in the March 14 letter to Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the director of the Office of Management and Budget, that the request, for $379.7 million, was "a critical down payment to the safety and security of our nation and its people."

The money, for guarding nuclear weapons, weapons materials and radioactive waste under the Energy Department's supervision, was part of a $27.1 billion emergency spending bill before Congress, the second such measure to be considered since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Failure to support these urgent security requirements is a risk that would be unwise," the letter said. The New York Times obtained a copy from someone who favors more spending on nuclear security.

But Mr. Daniel passed on to Congress only $26.4 million of the request. Congress has not acted on it.

To improve the security of weapons and weapon material in storage, the letter listed areas for which the department wanted $138.3 million. They included equipment to detect explosives in packages and vehicles entering Energy Department sites ($12 million); better perimeter barriers and fences ($13 million); and improvements in Energy Department computers, including "firewalls" and intrusion detection equipment and increasing the ability to communicate "critical cyber threat and incident information" ($30 million). The request also asked for $41 million to reduce the number of places where bomb-grade plutonium and uranium was stored. All were turned down. Also turned down was $34.1 million for increasing security at Energy Department laboratories.

This comes amidst frightening reports of Al-Qaeda's efforts to develop a "dirty" radioactive bomb for attacks on the United States. This shows that the place that the Bush Administration is most likely to bungle the War on Terror is on the home front. It's about time that the Dems stop with their insipid critiques of foreign policy, and aim them where they belong - at the staggering costs of the Republican obsession with starving the federal government of needed funds. Here's a sampling of what should be standard Democratic rhetoric in this election year:

David J. Sirota, a spokesman for the Democratic minority on the House Appropriations Committee...asked: "Should we give Enron executives the $250 million tax break President Bush proposed, or should we use that money to secure our country against a nuclear attack using our own nuclear materials?"

Signs of life stirring at Dem Central? Hopefully - the country can't afford to fight the war on terror with one party tied behind its back.