NucNews - March 16, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR NORTON INTRODUCES BILL FOR TRANSFER OF WEAPON FUNDS TO DOMESTIC NEEDS Criticizes Bush for Decreasing Funding for Nuclear Threat Reduction FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 16, 2005, Conresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton's Office http://www.norton.house.gov/issues2.cfm?id=10279 Washington, DC — Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) reintroduced the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act of 2005 (NDECA) today as Japan and the United States mark the 60th anniversary of the devastation of Japanese cities by an atomic bomb by the United States to end World War II. NDECA would require the United States to disable and dismantle its nuclear weapons when all other nations possessing nuclear weapons enact laws to do the same. NDECA further provides that when our nuclear weapons are dismantled, the resources used to support nuclear weapons programs would be diverted to our growing human and infrastructure needs, such as housing, health care, Social Security and the environment. Norton has introduced this bill every year following a ballot initiative in the District in 1993. The Congresswoman said: “In addition to the economic cost of nuclear weapons, the weapons have increased as a destabilizing force in world affairs.” Norton, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said that the threat was greatest today from inadequately defended nuclear materials throughout the world. She criticized the Bush administration for reducing nuclear threat spending since 9/11. Norton said that with 45 million people still without health care, Social Security without the benefits for the huge baby boomer generation, an economy burdened with a dangerous deficit, and millions of Americans pushed back into poverty, the time has come to begin transferring funding for nuclear weapons to urgent domestic needs. Norton’s full introductory statement follows: Mr. Speaker, today, I am again introducing the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act (NDECA), as I have done since 1994. I have introduced this bill every year based on a ballot initiative passed by D.C. residents in 1993. NDECA will require the United States to disable and dismantle its nuclear weapons when all other nations possessing nuclear weapons enact laws to do the same. NDECA further provides that when U.S. nuclear weapons are dismantled, the resources used to support nuclear weapon programs would be diverted to our growing human and infrastructure needs, such as housing, health care, Social Security and the environment. This year’s introduction of this bill has special meaning because this is the sixtieth anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only the United States has used an atom bomb, but today the number of nations with this capability has grown dangerously and continues without effective intervention by the Bush administration. In addition to the economic cost of nuclear weapons, the weapons have increased as a destabilizing force in world affairs. North Korea, at least in part in response to stepped up aggressive talk and U.S. policies, has responded in a dangerously paranoid fashion by announcing that it is expanding its nuclear capabilities and even that it now has a nuclear weapon, although these claims have not been entirely verified. Iran also appears to be pursuing greater nuclear capability and is resisting inspections. India and Pakistan have moved back from the precipice of several years ago but each remains poised with nuclear weapons. This country must lead the world community in redoubling efforts to push back the new surge of nuclear proliferation. Our country would be better able to dissuade other nations who aspire to become or remain nuclear powers if we ourselves took greater initiative in dismantling our own nuclear weapons program. We moved in the right direction when the Senate ratified the Moscow Treaty in 2003, which provides that by 2012 both the United States and Russia will reduce their long-range warheads two-thirds from approximately 6,000 warheads each to 2,200. However, the Administration has failed to build on this effort. According to a recent study, “Securing The Bomb: An Agenda for Action” (May, 2004; prepared by the Belfer Center, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government): “Total nuclear-threat-reduction spending remains less than one quarter of one percent of the U.S. military budget. Indeed, on average, the Bush administration requests for nuclear-threat-reduction spending over FY 2002 – 2005 have been less, in real terms, than the last Clinton administration request, made long before the 9/11 attacks ever occurred.” However, the problem today is far more complicated than nuclear disarmament by nation states. The greatest threat today is from inadequately defended and guarded sites in many countries where there is enough material to make nuclear weapons and many opportunities for terrorists to secure nuclear materials. Astonishingly, because of the absence of presidential leadership, less nuclear material was seized in the two years following the 9/11 attacks than in the two years immediately preceding the attacks (“Securing The Bomb: An Agenda for Action”, May 2004). I serve on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee. I know that threats from nuclear proliferation and available nuclear material are more dangerous in the post 9/11 era than at any time since I first introduced this bill in 1994. The way to begin is closing down nuclear capability here and around the world. With 45 million people still without health insurance, Social Security without the benefits for the huge baby boomer generation, an economy burdened with a dangerous deficit, and millions of Americans pushed back into poverty during the last four years, the time has come to begin the transfer of nuclear weapons funds to urgent domestic needs. -------- accidents and safety Radioactivity Survival Lessons in Belarus By Hervé Kempf Le Monde Wednesday 16 March 2005 http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/033005EB.shtml A serious nuclear accident is also possible in Western Europe and we should prepare for it: that's the essential message of the European research program SAGE (Strategies for the development of a culture of radiological safety), the conclusions of which were presented during a colloquium held March 14 and 15 in Paris. Inspired by the experience undergone by Belarus after the Chernobyl nuclear generator explosion, this program, which involves French, British, German, and Belarusian researchers, aims to "implant and disseminate a culture of radiological safety in Western Europe to face the case of an incident or accident with long-term radiological consequences" www.ec-sage.net ). A nuclear accident lastingly contaminates the regions affected over a large area, without the possibility of evacuating all the people who are exposed to fallout. They must live in an environment that is undoubtedly weakly radioactive, but still much more radioactive than the natural background. To limit the health impact of these weak doses, precautionary measures conscientiously applied in daily life - "the culture of radiological safety" - can significantly reduce the risks: so believe the SAGE program's actors, who have developed an educational method for life under radioactive conditions. "It's useful to broadcast this culture in the West for three reasons, explains Jacques Lochard, Director of CEPN (Centre d'étude sur l'évaluation de la protection dans le domaine nucléaire [Study Center for the Evaluation of Nuclear Safety) and SAGE coordinator. "First of all, some of our territories remain significantly contaminated since Chernobyl, in the north of Norway's and southern Scotland. Then, we must be prepared in case there should be a big slip-up. Finally, since September 11, 2001, we must imagine acts of terrorism that could lead to significant contamination." From this perspective, Belarus's experience is critical to imagine what must be done. Situated north of Ukraine, this country - which does not possess a nuclear reactor - received 70% of the radioactive fallout from the 1986 explosion. A million and a half people live in areas where the soil contains radioactivity higher than 37,000 Becquerels (Bq) the square meter. That has translated into a significant mortality. "In our Bragin district, only one child out of ten may be considered healthy by the end of secondary studies," remarks Tatiana Kotlabai, from the Belarusian association "Seeds of Life." "According to the Minister of Public Health's data," indicates Vassili Nesterenko, Director of the Belrad Institute in Minsk, "90% of the children in the zones contaminated today were in good health in 1985, 20% are today." More worrying: the pathologies the children present are not those expected attendant on exposure to radioactivity: instead of cancers, cardio-vascular illness, problems of the immune and digestive canal systems, etc. "When we talk to doctors in these areas," relatesJacques Lochard, "they say that children have old people's illnesses. That is not part of the known systems. All the science about radioactivity is constructed around Hiroshima, a sudden, brutal, external radiation. Chernobyl presents a new situation: millions of people ingest radioactivity with their food. And it certainly seems that other effects beyond the carcinogenic effects are provoked." How can the population's exposure be limited? Given that the principal means of contamination is through food, it appears, thanks notably to the research programs of Ethos and CORE, that it is most essential to inform the inhabitants, to suggest that they regularly measure their level of contamination and that of the food they eat and finally, to suggest that they change their diet. Mrs. Kotlabia, whose association has successfully developed this method in several villages, explains: "The Sadenov family had two children who presented contamination levels of 2,250 and 953 Bq/kg. We talked to the parents, identified the source of contamination - game - and explained to them that they shouldn't eat any game without measuring its radioactivity beforehand. Then we sent the children to a sanatorium with the recommendation that they take pectin. The result: the elder saw his contamination level divided by six, the younger, by twenty-four." This approach remains to be generalized throughout Belarus, a difficult task, given the state's lack of means. On top of that, the approach has incurred the criticism of Vassili Nesterenko, a key person for that effort, because of the Belrad Institute's unceasing activity to redress the affected populations' state of contamination. Mr. Nesterenko is sorry that the CORE program does not encourage distribution of pectin - a powder from apple pulp - while studies (including one published in Swiss Medical Weekly in 2004) tend to demonstrate its effectiveness in reducing the level of contamination. CORE and SAGE's overall approach is keenly criticized by anti-nuclear groups. CEPN's neutrality is questioned, since this organization is financed by EDF, Areva and the CEA [utilities that use nuclear power]. Moreover, participants at the Paris colloquium were greeted by streams of eggs and red paint from a group that left a note signed, "Lonesome cobaye [guinea pig] not so far away from Belarus." This act hardly convinced the participants, especially the Belarusian ones. Mr. Nesterenko described the gesture as "heinous." The note criticized the undertaking of "helping populations act as though they can live normally in conditions that are killing them.... This whole affair aims to organize the social acceptance and trust necessary for the current re-launch of nuclear programs." "What should we do?" asks Jacques Lochard. "Deport people, immobilize their lands? If they want to live there, it would be irresponsible not to give them the means to improve the conditions they live under." It would be better if the question were not posed in Europe. But it has become imaginable. Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher. ---- The Case Against the Plutonium Space Race So what happens when the sky begins to fall? By Karl Grossman Printed from the BoiseWeekly POSTED ON MARCH 16, 2005 http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/PrintFriendly?oid=oid%3A482 Twenty years ago, I began to learn about plutonium-238, the isotope of plutonium used in space. I was familiar with plutonium-239, built up in nuclear power plants and used in nuclear weapons. My first book on nuclear technology, Cover Up: What You ARE NOT Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power, was published in 1980. I was reading, in 1985, a Department of Energy publication about plans by NASA, working with the DOE and several national laboratories, to launch two space shuttles carrying plutonium-fueled space probes the following year. One of the shuttles was to be the Challenger. The publication, DOE Insider, stated that DOE had considered "postulated accidents" including "launch vehicle aborts, reentry, and impact and post impact situations." Knowing about the lethality of plutonium-long described as the most toxic radioactive substance with a particle less than a millionth of a gram lodged in a lung capable of being a fatal dose-I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with NASA, DOE and the national labs. The DOE Insider said "postulated accidents" on the shuttle shots were studied-what were the results? I met a wall of resistance. Finally, after protesting the apparent cover-up, I was sent information in late 1985. There would be serious impacts, it was acknowledged, if the plutonium was released in an accident-although NASA and/or DOE personnel had spent considerable time and Liquid Paper censoring the numbers of people who would be affected. The agencies maintained, there was "a very small risk of releasing plutonium-238" because of the "high reliability inherent in the design of the space shuttle." They gave one-in-100,000 odds for a catastrophic shuttle accident. On January 28, 1986, driving to teach my Investigative Reporting course at the State University at New York, I heard over the car radio that the Challenger had blown up soon after launch. Stopping at an appliance store, I viewed the terrible image on scores of TV screens and thought about what if this accident had happened on the next mission of the Challenger, in May 1986, when 24.2 pounds of plutonium-238 were to be on board. "Far more than seven people could have died if the explosion that destroyed Challenger had occurred during the next launch," I wrote in a front-page editorial for The Nation. And I've been deeply involved doing investigative reporting on the space nuclear issue ever since. NASA, incidentally, changed the odds of a catastrophic shuttle accident soon afterwards-from the one-in-100,000, concocted out of whole cloth, to one-in-76, about right in light of the subsequent Columbia shuttle accident. And consider if Columbia had had plutonium on board: radioactive debris would have splattered over Texas and Louisiana. I soon learned the accident record in the use of nuclear power in space was not good. Of the then two-dozen U.S. space nuclear shots, three involved mishaps. The most serious: in 1964, a satellite with a SNAP-9A plutonium-238 power system on board failed to attain orbit and fell to Earth. It broke up dispersing its 2.1 pounds of plutonium-238 fuel as fine particles. The release caused an increase in global lung cancer rates, according Dr. John Gofman, professor emeritus of medical physics at the University of California at Berkeley. It was relatively easy to identify where the plutonium-238 spread, for plutonium-238 is rare compared to plutonium-239. "A worldwide sampling program carried out in 1970 showed SNAP-9A debris to be present at all continents and at all latitudes," determined a report done by Europe's Organization for Economic Cooperation and Swedish National Institute of Radiation Protection. All continents and all latitudes! And, I learned about the extreme toxicity of plutonium-238. The good news is that plutonium-238 is not fissile like plutonium-239; it won't explode. The bad news is that because it has a half-life of 87.8 years compared to 24,500 years for plutonium-239, it is radioactively hotter. That's why it's used in space: the intense heat of it breaking down is coupled in what's called a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) to produce electricity. "Plutonium-238 is about 270 times more radioactive than plutonium-239 per unit of weight," notes Dr. Arjun Makhijani, the physicist who heads the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. A factor of 270 to 280 is cited by physicists. As a result of the SNAP-9A accident, NASA began doing pioneering solar energy development. Now all satellites are powered by solar energy, as is the International Space Station. But NASA and the DOE insist that to send space devices out into the solar system, plutonium-238 is needed to provide electricity. The danger in this program is getting more severe. In 1997, NASA launched the Cassini space probe with the most plutonium-238 ever used on a space device-72.3 pounds. Moreover, it had Cassini do two "slingshot maneuvers" around the Earth-coming back from space and flying in low and fast and taking advantage of the Earth's gravity to increase its velocity so it could reach Saturn. If on either of these Earth "flybys" Cassini had dipped into the atmosphere, it would have disintegrated and the plutonium-238 released and "5 billion ... of the world population ... could receive 99 percent or more of the radiation exposure," acknowledged the NASA's Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini Mission. The death toll was estimated by independent scientists as anywhere between 950,000 to 40 million. Is this kind of enormous risk necessary? Not at all. Last March, the European Space Agency launched its Rosetta space probe powered by new high-efficiency solar cells-and ESA made a point of stressing it was not using plutonium-fueled RTGs on this mission. Rosetta is to rendezvous with a comet near Jupiter. It will be 800 million miles from the sun yet energized by solar power. But the U.S. would stick with plutonium-and now is greatly expanding its space nuclear program. The $3 billion Project Prometheus has begun-with much work to be done at Idaho National Laboratory, where also the production of plutonium-238 is to be "consolidated." Not only is there to be more plutonium-238 generating systems used in space but under Project Prometheus, the U.S. would rocket back to the past and build nuclear-propelled spacecraft-a scheme on which $10 billion was spent from the 1950s to 1972, when the undertaking was cancelled largely because of the still-present problem of an atomic rocket falling back to Earth. For propelling spacecraft, new safe energy technologies have also been developed. There are "solar sails"-utilizing the ionized particles emitted by the sun that constitute a force in space. A space device with solar sails, built in Russia for the International Planetary Society, is to be launched in coming weeks. Solar-electric propulsion and is being used now on NASA's Deep Space 1 probe. Indeed, there is a group within NASA, its Photovoltaics and Space Environment Branch, which stresses the feasibility of solar power in space. On its Web site, Dr. Geoffrey, a scientist at the branch, declares: "In the long term, solar arrays won't have to rely on the sun. We're investigating the concept of using lasers to beam photons to solar arrays. If you make a powerful-enough laser and can aim the beam, there really isn't any edge of sunshine." Then why the push for space nuclear power? It's coming from a combination of interests. As "Deep Throat" instructed Bob Woodward in the Watergate investigation: "Follow the money." Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the plutonium-238 space systems, lobbies heavily for them. Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing want the business of building nuclear-propelled rockets under Project Prometheus and push hard for them. Then there are the national laboratories-including Idaho National Laboratory-promoting space nuclear power. It's a way to increase their budgets. Then there is the military connection. The U.S. military has long been interested in space-based weapons and considers atomic power the ideal way to power them. "The fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection" is projected in a U.S. Air Force Board report, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century. As to energizing these weapons, it states: "A natural technology to enable high power is nuclear power in space." NASA, although established in 1958 ostensibly as a civilian agency, is tied up with the military especially since the most recent administrator, Sean O'Keefe, a former Navy secretary, took over. As Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space (www.space4peace.org), says, the relationship between NASA has never been closer. "Now," says Gagnon, the notion of "dual use," a civilian/military linkage, "runs through NASA operations." In recent days, President Bush nominated Michael Griffin to succeed O'Keefe as NASA administrator. A prior Griffin position: deputy for technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization-the federal agency long involved in developing the Star Wars program. Dual use. What goes up can easily come down, as Newton said centuries ago. Putting nuclear poisons above our heads is asking for it. And the production of plutonium-238 at Idaho National Laboratory presents an enormous threat-on the ground, too. Workers at the facility will be impacted. The New Mexican reported in a front-page story-"Radioactive Mishaps Rising at LANL" -in 1996: "Mishaps in which workers and equipment have been contaminated with radioactive substances are on the rise at Los Alamos National Laboratory." The reason? "Lab officials say the rise in radiation exposure and radioactive mishaps since 1993 has one primary cause: the Cassini project [and] an ongoing effort to build radioactive heat sources." Being worked with, it was noted, was "an isotope of plutonium that is particularly difficult to handle, plutonium-238, which is many times more radioactive than the better known plutonium-239 used in nuclear bombs." People off-site in Idaho can expect radioactive impacts-from accidents and routine operations. The processing of plutonium-238 at Los Alamos and the Mound Laboratory in Ohio has led to plutonium-238 contamination beyond the national laboratory boundaries. It's the wrong stuff ... for space and Idaho. Karl Grossman is author of The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program's Nuclear Threat To Our Planet and writer and narrator of the award-winning TV documentary Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens. He is professor of journalism at the State University of New York and hosts the nationally broadcast TV program Enviro Close-Up (www.envirovideo.com). Karl Grossman will be visiting Idaho to discuss nuclear power in the space age. He will be in Boise on March 21, 7 p.m. at the First Congregational Church, 2201 Woodlawn Ave., and in Ketchum on March 22, 7 p.m. at the Clarion Inn, 6th and Main St. He will continue to tour the State, including Twin Falls and Pocatello. --- How Radiation Can Hurt You BY BINGO BARNES, MARCH 16, 2005 Boise Weekly http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A483 Plutonium existing in the environment is mostly in the form of microscopic dust particles of plutonium-239, mainly from the remnants of nuclear weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. Plutonium-238 however-the kind used in batteries to power satellites-is much more radioactive. Radioactive decay is usually in the form of alpha particles, but plutonium decay does release gamma radiation as well. Alpha particles lose energy very quickly so ingesting radioactive atoms through breathing or from cuts are the primary way this type of radiation affects the body. Gamma radiation can travel longer distances and are typically deflected or reduced with thick concrete walls, water or lead. So what would happen if you ingest radioactive atoms in the most dangerous way, by inhaling them? Plutonium particles lodge in the lungs (diagram 1), killing the cells causing scarring and an increased potential for lung disease and cancer. But it doesn't stop there. It can enter the bloodstream (diagram 2) and travel to the kidneys (diagram 2) doing even more damage and increased cancer risk. Once in the body, it tends to settle in the bones (diagram 3), liver (diagram 3) and spleen (diagram 3) continuing to increase the opportunities for cancer. Since plutonium-238's half-life is a little more than the average human lifespan, 87.7 years, it stays around a while. On the other hand, because the half life is low (as compared to plutonium-239 with a half life of 24,110 years), it is more radioactive and dangerous. Plutonium that is eaten via contaminated food or water is not absorbed as easily by the digestive system and tends to pass through the body. Radiation, measured in units called a rem (Roentgen Equivalent in Man), affects people in different ways. Most people receive about three-tenths of a rem per year due to naturally produced radiation, mostly from radon. In a group of 10,000 people, if each person were exposed to one rem of radiation, the increased deaths as a result of the exposure would be five or six individuals. An exposure of 50 rems would typically result in nausea, while 400 rems typically results in death. For comparison, people in the city of Chernobyl, Russia, were exposed to about 45 rems from the nuclear reactor accident in 1986. Source: Center for Disease Control Emergency Preparedness & Response ---- Shikoku Electric Reactor Leaks Radioactive Water March 16 2005 (Bloomberg) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid=aiANUNFeD6Rs&refer=japan Shikoku Electric Power Co., which supplies power to 4 million customers on the smallest of Japan's four main islands, said one of its nuclear reactors leaked radioactive water. The 890-megawatt, No 3. reactor at Shikoku Electric's Ikata nuclear power plant was already undergoing maintenance checks, the Kagawa prefecture-based company said in a statement today. The leak was discovered at 11.40 p.m. yesterday and no water seeped outside the reactor. The water was radioactive, spokesman Satoshi Sasatani said in a telephone interview. Shares of Shikoku Electric were unchanged at 2,105 yen as of the 11 a.m. close of morning trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The Ikata nuclear power plant has two other reactors of 566- megawatt capacity each. Both are operational. ---- Nuclear test ban system seeking to help out with tsunamis VIENNA (AFP) Mar 16, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050316175343.wp8eft46.html Highly sensitive detectors used to monitor secret nuclear tests should be deployed to help warn of impending tsunamis similar to the one that devastated South Asia, officials in charge of the nuclear system said Wednesday. Taous Feroukhi, who heads the organisation that oversees the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), said it wanted to marry its system of seismic and hydro-acoustic detectors with a tsunami alert network. She said she hoped the move would help to rekindle interest in the moribund test ban treaty which has yet to take effect because it has not been ratified by enough countries. A quake off the Indonesian island of Sumatra on December 26 triggered huge waves that slammed into coastlines across the Indian Ocean, killing more than 270,000 people. CTBT monitors detected the quake and immediately alerted both Indonesia and Thailand. Yet critics have accused Indian Ocean countries of failing to act on the information quickly enough and not evacuating people from the coastlines. Since then, among efforts to prevent a future disaster, the United Nations has said it hopes an Indian Ocean tsunami warning system could be in place by mid-2006. The Vienna-based CTBT organisation decided March 4 to consider contributing to the tsunami warning system. Feroukhi said that while the body's main oversight role was a military one, "we hope that the use of our unique network to ... (give an alert on) tsunamis will encourage all the states which aren't part of the treaty or which haven't ratified it to do it." The CTBT has not yet been ratified by the required number of states for it to take effect, rendering it powerless. Its system of 165 detectors, eventually to be increased to 321 detectors in 82 nations, "could be important and contribute to prevent tsunami disasters," the director of its international data center Lassina Zerbo told a joint press conference with Feroukhi. Zerbo said CTBT members would "receive the raw data in near real time" and then it would be up to national bodies to send out alerts. "We hope to show the usefulness of this (CTBT) organisation, which no one seems to care about," Feroukhi said. The CTBT, which bans any nuclear blasts for military or civilian purposes, was signed in 1996 by 71 states, including the five main nuclear powers, and now has 173 member states. The treaty says the 44 nations that had nuclear research or power facilities when it was adopted in 1996 must ratify it in order for it to come into force. But only 33 have done so, the United States has so far failed to ratify the text, while three key countries -- India, Pakistan and North Korea -- have not even signed the treaty. Both India and Pakistan have carried out nuclear tests since 1996, while North Korea is threatening to do so. Meanwhile, the US Congress in May lifted restrictions on research on small nuclear weapons and is threatening to reduce its contribution to the CTBT's preparatory committee. However, Feroukhi said that her organisation's contribution to any tsunami alert system would help to show its own usefulness. -------- business Privatization of French nuclear group Areva in 2006 at earliest: minister Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:52 PM ET Business - AFP http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050316/bs_afp/franceenergynuclear_050316175237 PARIS (AFP) - Privatization of Areva, the world's largest nuclear engineering group, will take place in 2006 at the earliest, French Finance Minister Thierry Breton said. "I have indicated my priorities for 2005. For the others we will see in 2006. For Areva, which is one of the others, we will look at it in 2006" if market conditions allow, Breton told media as he outlined policy for the first time since assuming the post on February 28. "I was very clear about the program, this year we are going to focus on Gaz de France and EDF," he said in reference to France's state-owned gas and electricity groups. Breton's predecessor Herve Gaymard had said last month that Areva would be floated by the end of the summer in France, at which point the proportion of listed shares was to have risen to 35-40 percent from the current level of four percent. ---- USEC Reports Solid Results in Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2004 BETHESDA, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 16, 2005-- http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050316005920&newsLang=en USEC Inc. (NYSE:USU): -- USEC restates prior financial statements -- $23.5 million net income in 2004 as EPS more than doubles year over year -- Gross profit margin rises to 13.7 percent on higher uranium prices -- Cash flow from operations of $52.6 million; year-end cash balance of $174.8 million -- 2005 earnings guidance in range of $25 to $30 million net income -- Paducah plant achieves highest level of production cells online in over 25 years USEC Inc. (NYSE:USU) today reported net income for the year ended December 31, 2004 of $23.5 million or 28 cents per share compared to net income of $9.8 million or 12 cents per share in 2003. For the quarter ended December 31, 2004, USEC reported net income of $28.2 million or 33 cents per share compared to a net loss of $0.7 million or 1 cent per share in the same period last year. Financial results for 2003 and the quarterly results for 2004 have been restated, and numbers in this release reflect this restatement, as discussed below. The Company's investment in the American Centrifuge, which is expected to be the world's most efficient uranium enrichment technology, continues to affect financial results. During 2004, USEC spent $64.6 million on the American Centrifuge demonstration, including $58.5 million that was expensed, which had the effect of reducing net income by about $36 million or 43 cents per share. In 2003, USEC expensed $44.8 million of advanced technology costs, which had the effect of reducing net income by about $28 million or 34 cents per share. James R. Mellor, USEC chairman and chief executive officer said, "Our solid operations and strong financial results clearly show that USEC continues to be on the right track. Careful management of our costs, efficient operations and a clear emphasis on our future with the American Centrifuge technology all demonstrate that management is focused on the priorities that will deliver shareholder value." "Looking ahead to 2005, we will be sharply focused on our strategic priorities and are encouraged by the commercial nuclear power industry's strong fundamentals and potential. We are providing net income guidance in a range of $25 to $30 million, or 29 to 35 cents per share. This earnings guidance includes our significant investment in the American Centrifuge. While this spending reduces net income in the near term, we believe that it will increase shareholder value in the longer term," he said. Revenue For the year ended December 31, 2004, total revenue was $1,417.2 million compared to $1,445.3 million in 2003. Revenue for the fourth quarter was a record $648.5 million, compared to $399.4 million for the same quarter a year ago. USEC's revenue is primarily related to the sale of the Separative Work Unit (SWU) component of low enriched uranium (LEU). Revenue from the sale of SWU in 2004 was $1,027.3 million compared to $1,110.8 million in 2003. SWU sales volume in 2004 was 8 percent lower than in 2003 as deliveries were negatively affected by postponed refuelings due to the temporary shutdown of a Japanese customer's reactors for special inspections, and by lower contractual commitments. The lower revenue in 2004 was partially offset by an improved gross profit margin on SWU sales. After several years of declining average SWU prices billed to customers, average invoiced prices showed slight improvement in the second half of 2004. As anticipated, approximately half of USEC's annual SWU deliveries occurred in the fourth quarter, resulting in 60 percent higher SWU revenue compared to the same quarter last year. Revenue from uranium sales increased 33 percent to $224 million in 2004 from $168.5 million in 2003. The average price for uranium billed to customers increased 20 percent during 2004 while volume was 11 percent higher. USEC's uranium inventory is being supplemented with uranium available as a result of underfeeding operations at the Paducah, Kentucky enrichment plant. Underfeeding uses less uranium in the enrichment process but requires more SWU, which requires more electric power. Underfeeding results in incremental uranium available to USEC to sell at today's higher prices. Uranium prices increased 62 percent in 2004. Revenue from U.S. government contracts totaled $165.9 million in 2004, virtually unchanged from 2003. The acquisition of NAC International, now a wholly owned subsidiary, was completed during the fourth quarter. Revenue from NAC during this several week period was not material to USEC's 2004 results and has been included with revenue from U.S. government contracts on the income statement. USEC's customers generally place orders under their long-term contracts tied to reactor refuelings that occur on a 12- to 24-month cycle. Therefore, short-term comparisons of USEC's financials are not necessarily indicative of the Company's longer-term results. Cost of Sales and Expenses The average unit cost of production and purchases increased by 3 percent during 2004 compared with the corresponding period in 2003. The unit production cost increased due to higher costs for electric power, labor and benefits, and 5 percent lower production volume. The Company's purchase costs per SWU increased under a market-based formula with Tenex, the Russian government's executive agent under the Megatons to Megawatts program, which reflects the impact of higher SWU market prices since 2001. Under the average inventory cost method, coupled with USEC's substantial inventory position, an increase or decrease in costs will have an effect on cost of sales in future periods. "The work performed by our people to maintain the Paducah plant helped mitigate higher production costs by improving the plant's efficiency in 2004," Mellor said. "Our internal power efficiency index that measures how effectively we use electricity stayed at the high level achieved in 2003, which was the best performance since 1998. The number of production cells online, one measure of equipment availability, was at its highest level in 25 years." The gross profit margin for the year improved to 13.7 percent compared to 11.3 percent in the previous year. The key drivers in improved profit margin were the higher average uranium price billed to customers and the lower costs of purchases and production in previous periods that reduced the cost of sales. Selling, general and administrative expenses totaled $64.1 million, which represented a $5.3 million or 8 percent reduction from 2003. For the quarter, SG&A was $16.9 million compared to $25.1 million during the same period last year. SG&A included a charge of approximately $8 million in 2003 and $2 million in 2004 related to the early retirement or severance for executive officers. Other income in 2004 includes $4.4 million received from U.S. Customs and Border Protection as a reimbursement for a portion of qualified expenses incurred by USEC following U.S. government issuance of orders imposing countervailing duties on a European competitor. To offset the economic injury caused by unfair trade, U.S. companies can seek reimbursement under the law for qualifying expenses, such as research and development costs. This reimbursement was partly offset by an expense of $2.7 million representing acquired in-process research and development costs related to the acquisition of NAC. Cash and Cash Flow At December 31, 2004, USEC's cash balance was $174.8 million. Cash flow from operating activities for the year was $52.6 million compared to $109.9 million for the prior year. The difference between the two periods was primarily due to decreased SWU sales in 2004 and a $33.2 million payment that year to resolve the termination of a power contract. Cash flow in 2004 also includes $35 million in short-term investments from 2003 that matured in 2004. In December 2004, USEC repurchased $25 million of its senior notes due in 2006. Restatements of Financial Results As detailed by USEC in a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2005, financial statements for all quarterly, interim or annual periods beginning with the fiscal year ended June 30, 1999 can no longer be relied upon and are being restated. The restatements correct timing in revenue recognition in connection with a limited number of uranium and SWU sales. In addition, the consolidated financial statements were corrected to remove a $45.2 million valuation allowance relating to deferred income tax assets established in 1999. Both of these corrections were a result of inadvertent errors associated with the interpretation of complex accounting principles. As a result of the restatements, net income in 2004 increased by $1.8 million (or $.02 per share), net income in 2003 was reduced by $.9 million (or $.01 per share), the net loss in the six-month period ended December 31, 2002, was reduced by $2.0 million (or $.02 per share), and net income in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, was reduced by $1.0 million (or $.01 per share). The impact of the restatements for periods prior to fiscal 2002 is reflected as an increase of $43.2 million to retained earnings at June 30, 2001. These changes are reflected in USEC's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. Consistent with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, USEC management has concluded that the control deficiencies that resulted in these restatements constitute material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is defined as a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected. To address these material weaknesses, USEC performed additional analysis and other post-closing procedures to ensure that the financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, USEC management believes that the financial statements included in this earnings release present fairly in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. Outlook for 2005 USEC expects revenue to total approximately $1.5 billion in 2005. Revenue from SWU is expected to be approximately $1.1 billion. Sales of SWU and uranium will again be weighted to the fourth quarter reflecting the timing of customers' reactor refuelings similar to 2004. After several years of declines, we expect the average price per SWU billed to customers to continue the trend begun in the second half of 2004 and improve modestly in 2005. Revenue from the sale of uranium is expected to total approximately $250 million, including approximately $50 million from sales of uranium generated from underfeeding or purchased from third party suppliers. The new NAC subsidiary should provide approximately $30 million in revenue. Revenue from U.S. government contracts is expected to be about $175 million. The average gross margin for all business segments is expected to be between 12 and 14 percent. The Company is providing net income guidance for 2005 in a range of $25 to $30 million, or 29 to 35 cents per share. This earnings guidance includes our significant investment in the American Centrifuge, USEC's future technology. USEC expects to invest approximately $110 million in the American Centrifuge technology in 2005. We anticipate that approximately $55 million related to demonstration activities will be expensed, which would have the effect of reducing net income by about $34 million or 40 cents per share. The remaining $55 million is expected to be capitalized. As testing and demonstration proceeds, the Company will regularly reassess allocation between expense and capital of these American Centrifuge costs during 2005. A higher allocation of the costs to expense would reduce net income. USEC expects cash flow from operating activities to improve over 2004. Cash flow from operating activities is expected to be in a range of $150 to $170 million, and capital expenditures should total approximately $70 million, including $55 million related to the American Centrifuge Plant. The Company anticipates ending the year with a cash balance in a range of $200 to $220 million. American Centrifuge Status Update USEC is in the process of demonstrating its next-generation American Centrifuge uranium enrichment technology. USEC expects to begin operation of the American Centrifuge Demonstration Facility in Piketon, Ohio in late 2005. As NRC licensing progresses and milestones under the DOE-USEC Agreement are reached, the Company expects to begin construction of the American Centrifuge Plant in 2007, reaching an annual production capacity of 3.5 million SWU by 2010. USEC has applied for a construction and operating license for the American Centrifuge Plant and is working with the NRC for approval of the application in late 2006. USEC expects to spend approximately $170 million for centrifuge demonstration costs through December 2006. Although this estimate of demonstration costs exceeds USEC's previous estimate of $150 million, the Company continues to estimate that it will cost up to $1.5 billion to demonstrate and deploy this advanced uranium enrichment technology. Engineering, assembling and testing of the initial centrifuge machines continue at USEC's test facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In January 2005, USEC announced it had met the milestone under the DOE-USEC Agreement of beginning testing of the American Centrifuge machines. The Company has now met the first eight milestones on or ahead of schedule and is on track to meet the next milestone of beginning centrifuge manufacturing by June 2005, which will provide machines for the demonstration facility slated to begin operations late this year. This news release contains forward-looking information that involves risks and uncertainty, including certain assumptions regarding the future performance of USEC. Actual results and trends may differ materially depending upon a variety of factors, including, without limitation, market demand for the products and services of USEC and its subsidiaries, pricing trends in the uranium and enrichment markets, deliveries under the Russian Contract, the availability and cost of electric power, implementation of agreements with the Department of Energy regarding uranium inventory remediation and the use of centrifuge technology and facilities, satisfactory performance of the American Centrifuge technology at various stages of demonstration, USEC's ability to successfully execute its internal performance plans, the refueling cycles of USEC's customers, final determinations of environmental and other costs, the outcome of litigation and trade actions and the impact of litigation upon existing restrictions on imports of foreign-produced LEU and uranium, USEC's ability to renegotiate or replace revolving credit commitments by September 2005 and to refinance senior notes by January 2006, performance under U.S. government contracts and audits of allowable costs billed under U.S government contracts, and the impact of any government regulation. Revenue and operating results can fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter, and in some cases, year to year. Please refer to our SEC filings, which can be accessed through the Company's website www.usec.com, for a more complete discussion of these factors. USEC Inc., a global energy company, is the world's leading supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. USEC Inc. CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (LOSS) (Unaudited) (millions, except per share data) Three Months Ended Years Ended December 31, December 31, ------------------- ------------------- 2004 2003 2004 2003 --------- --------- --------- --------- As As restated(1) restated(1) Revenue: Separative work units $ 484.2 $ 302.3 $1,027.3 $1,110.8 Uranium 119.2 59.7 224.0 168.5 U.S. government contracts and other 45.1 37.4 165.9 166.0 --------- --------- --------- --------- Total revenue 648.5 399.4 1,417.2 1,445.3 --------- --------- --------- --------- Cost of sales: Separative work units and uranium 517.5 320.4 1,071.6 1,131.4 U.S. government contracts and other 40.6 34.1 151.5 150.2 --------- --------- --------- --------- Total cost of sales 558.1 354.5 1,223.1 1,281.6 --------- --------- --------- --------- Gross profit 90.4 44.9 194.1 163.7 Centrifuge demonstration costs 22.1 12.1 58.5 44.8 Selling, general and administrative 16.9 25.1 64.1 69.4 Other (income) expense, net (1.7)(2) - (1.7)(2) - --------- --------- --------- --------- Operating income 53.1 7.7 73.2 49.5 Interest expense 10.7 9.7 40.5 38.4 Interest (income) (1.2) (.8) (3.9) (5.4) --------- --------- --------- --------- Income (loss) before income taxes 43.6 (1.2) 36.6 16.5 Provision (credit) for income taxes 15.4 (.5) 13.1 6.7 --------- --------- --------- --------- Net income (loss) $ 28.2 $ (.7) $ 23.5 $ 9.8 ========= ========= ========= ========= Net income (loss) per share - basic and diluted $ .33 $ (.01) $ .28 $ .12 Dividends per share $ .1375 $ .1375 $ .55 $ .55 Weighted average number of shares outstanding - basic 85.0 82.5 84.1 82.2 USEC Inc. CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS (Unaudited) (millions) December 31, ---------------------- 2004 2003 ---------- ---------- As restated(1) ASSETS Current Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 174.8 $ 214.1 Short-term investments (3) - 35.0 Accounts receivable - trade 238.5 254.5 Inventories 1,009.4 883.2 Deferred income taxes 26.5 - Other current assets 31.8 70.7 ---------- ---------- Total Current Assets 1,481.0 1,457.5 Property, Plant and Equipment, net 178.0 185.1 Other Long-Term Assets Deferred income taxes 73.5 97.7 Prepayment and deposit for depleted uranium 23.5 47.1 Prepaid pension benefit costs 82.9 76.3 Inventories 156.2 266.1 Goodwill 4.3 - ---------- ---------- Total Other Assets 340.4 487.2 ---------- ---------- Total Assets $ 1,999.4 $ 2,129.8 ========== ========== LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY Current Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 201.0 $ 187.1 Payables under Russian Contract 89.7 119.3 Termination settlement obligation under power purchase agreement - 33.2 Uranium owed to customers and suppliers 44.5 45.0 Deferred revenue and advances from customers 20.2 59.7 ---------- ---------- Total Current Liabilities 355.4 444.3 Long-Term Debt 475.0 500.0 Other Long-Term Liabilities Deferred revenue and advances from customers 6.9 13.5 Depleted uranium disposition 26.1 53.5 Postretirement health and life benefit obligations 145.2 138.1 Other liabilities 66.2 50.9 ---------- ---------- Total Other Liabilities 244.4 256.0 Stockholders' Equity 924.6 929.5 ---------- ---------- Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity $ 1,999.4 $ 2,129.8 ========== ========== USEC Inc. CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) (millions) Years Ended December 31, --------------------- 2004 2003 --------- --------- As restated(1) Cash Flows from Operating Activities Net income $ 23.5 $ 9.8 Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities: Depreciation and amortization 31.8 29.3 Depleted uranium disposition (3.8) (5.4) Deferred revenue, net of deferred costs (12.1) (37.5) Deferred income taxes 1.6 (1.7) Changes in operating assets and liabilities: Short-term investments - (increase) decrease(3) 35.0 (35.0) Accounts receivable - decrease 16.0 1.5 Inventories - net (increase) decrease (17.0) 117.7 Payables under Russian Contract - increase (decrease) (29.6) 12.7 Payment of termination settlement obligation under power purchase agreement (33.2) - Accounts payable and other liabilities - increase 37.9 5.4 Other, net 2.5 13.1 --------- --------- Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities 52.6 109.9 --------- --------- Cash Flows Used in Investing Activities Capital expenditures (20.2) (24.9) Investment in NAC Holding Inc., net of cash acquired (8.1) - Deposit relating to acquisition of NAC Holding Inc. (6.0) - --------- --------- Net Cash (Used in) Investing Activities (34.3) (24.9) --------- --------- Cash Flows Used in Financing Activities Dividends paid to stockholders (46.3) (45.2) Repurchase of senior notes (25.6) - Common stock issued 14.3 3.2 --------- --------- Net Cash (Used in) Financing Activities (57.6) (42.0) --------- --------- Net Increase (Decrease) (39.3) 43.0 Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year 214.1 171.1 --------- --------- Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year $ 174.8 $ 214.1 ========= ========= Supplemental Cash Flow Information: Interest paid $ 35.2 $ 34.7 Income taxes paid (refund) 3.6 (10.0) (1) USEC has restated the consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2003, the consolidated statements of income (loss) for the three months and year ended December 31, 2003, and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2003. As a result of the restatements, net income was reduced by $1.6 million (or $.02 per share) in the three months and by $.9 million (or $.01 per share) in the year ended December 31, 2003, and deferred tax assets and stockholders' equity were increased by $45.2 million at December 31, 2003. The restatements correct inadvertent errors in the application of generally accepted accounting principles dealing with complex and technical accounting issues relating to the recognition of revenue and a valuation allowance relating to deferred income taxes. (2) Other income in the three months and year ended December 31, 2004, includes income of $4.4 million ($2.7 million or $.03 per share after tax) from reimbursement of qualified expenses paid to USEC from customs duties collected from a European competitor as a result of an order against unfairly traded LEU, partly offset by an expense of $2.7 million (or $.03 per share) for acquired in-process research and development expense relating to the acquisition of NAC. (3) Certain amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform with the current presentation. Short-term investments of $35.0 million reported in the balance sheet at December 31, 2003, have been reclassified from cash and cash equivalents. An investment in an auction-rate security with a stated maturity date in excess of 90 days is no longer reported as cash and cash equivalents and has been reclassified to short-term investments at December 31, 2003. Contacts USEC Inc. Steven Wingfield, 301-564-3354 or Mari Angeles Major-Sosias, 301-564-3353 -------- depleted uranium 30 arrested in Alliant protest Posted on Wednesday 16 March @ 19:56:01 by Bert Schlauch Pulse of Twin Cities (Minnesota) http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1707 Roughly 200 persons protested in front of a weapons plant in Edina, Minnesota this morning. The Edina police arrested 30 of the protesters for trespassing. The civil disobedience is in response to violations of international law that proscribe the use of landmines and cluster bombs, both of which are allegedly manufactured at by the Edina-based company. The temperature was in the teens this morning at 7:00 am when roughly 200 persons gathered in a parking lot near the Alliant Tech Systems (ATK), a company that has, according to a quote on their homepage, has “bucked the trend and broken into the party of larger defense companies.” If the party they are talking about is making a mint from US tax dollars by spreading death and destruction, that’s why most of us were protesting this morning. The vigil began with the lighting of a candle. The crowd broke into song singing “Down by the Riverside.” This was followed by a briefing by an officer from the Edina Police Department. The officer told us that he respected our right to protest peacefully — a right he added that all US citizens have. He passed out instructions for a peaceful protest and everyone read them aloud. Someone asked the officer how he could support a company that is breaking international law. His response is he has taken an oath to implement Minnesota and U.S. laws. And that’s the problem. The Bush administration attacks and threatens countries that it believes have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when the US itself is manufacturing and using WMD. The U.S. acts as if it is above the law. The Bush administration no longer supports several major treaties, including the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. The administration also announced it will not support the landmine ban treaty nor environmental and mercury treaties. Add to this the fact that the US has withdrawn its support of the International Criminal Court. By some estimates, 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the latest war. This figure was released months ago, and the news reports 20 or more new Iraqis deaths everyday. In Fallujah, there are reports that the US used a napalm-like substance and cluster bombs. Has anyone seen photos of a liberated Fallujah? It was a city of 300,000 inhabitants. Underlying all of this bad news are the possible risks of depleted uranium, which has been used throughout Iraq and in other conflict zones. This “mildly” radioactive element that is found in US munitions is believed to cause birth defects and cancer. The US Defense Dept. says there is no evidence that this is true, but shouldn’t scientific studies be completed before the Defense Dept. experiments with the “liberated” people of Iraq and the US soldiers that are exposed to this radioactive dust? Remember Agent Orange? With these issues fresh in everyone’s mind, the protesters walked to the edge of ATK’s property. We were greeted by a large number of police and ATK employees who lined the perimeter of their property. ATK security were also on the roof of the building (you can see them in some of the photos). Other security members took photos of the vigil participants with long telephoto lenses. Only 30 or so of the participants in the vigil elected to trespass on ATK property to bring attention to this company’s record. They kneeled down on the driveway at the entrance to ATK. They were cuffed and carried away to a bus for processing. No corporate media were present. || Bert Schlauch is a longtime activist in the Twin Cities. ---- Weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq By BRUCE WEST, Special to the Examiner March 16, 2005 Casa Grande Valley Newspapers http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14157538&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222071&rfi=6 "Depleted uranium is a crime against God and humanity." - Dr. Doug Rokke, U.S. Army health physicist Radioactive weapons have finally been discovered in Iraq. Unfortunately, they are being employed by the U.S. military. Depleted uranium (DU) is a byproduct of the nuclear industry. It is an extremely dense metal that is 40 times less radioactive than the deadly uranium from which it is derived. It is also a very good material for armor plate and armor-piercing warheads, and it is widely used by U.S. forces. Many consider long-term exposure to DU to be deadly. According to Vladimir S. Zajic, nuclear physicist, the "surface of a DU penetrator ignites on impact (especially with steel), partially liquefies due to the high temperature generated by the impact and relatively low melting point of uranium (1132ºC), and the projectile sharpens as it melts and pierces the heavy armor." As much as 70 percent of the projectile is vaporized, resulting in a radioactive dust that is breathed in, dispersed and settles on the ground, buildings, vehicles and water in the area. The DU-tipped shells are encased in non-radioactive material and stored in shielded areas. Most of the radioactive rays from these munitions are blocked from entering the human body by this shielding and by clothing. DU used as armor plating is more problematic and DU held in contact with the skin will increase the potential for radiation poisoning. So is it dangerous to our soldiers? Zajic says, "The accumulated [yearly] dose equivalent for [a tank] driver would reach the annual limit for general public [100 m/rem year] after 70 days of 8-hour shifts." In only 70 days, the average tank driver may reach the yearly limit for radiation exposure. Iraqi children have been seen playing with the uranium rods from unexploded shells. Their exposure rate would be exponentially higher. Medical personnel say cancer and birth defects are being traced to DU. In December 1998, Iraq sponsored a medical conference on health and environmental consequences of DU used in the Gulf War. It was attended by 600 Iraqi doctors and scientists. "The doctors reported increased frequency of birth defects around the southern city of Basra by a factor of three since the Gulf War. Hospital statistics indicated that the number of Iraqi children with cancer rose by a factor of four, from 32,000 in 1990 to 130,000 in 1997. Air, soil and water samples collected in southern provinces showed abnormally high levels of radiation," according to Zajic. The United States claims that the risks are exaggerated. The Department of Defense seems to contradict itself on the subject. On the one hand, they claim there is no danger to military personnel. On the other hand, they admit that there is a danger of radiation exposure if DU enters the body. Writes A. Durakovic, Croation Society of Nuclear Medicine, "Pentagon statements concerning the safety of DU are inconsistent with findings of non-governmental funded research which document that aerosolized particles are dangerous if inhaled. Once inside the lungs these particles pass through the lung-blood barrier and circulate freely throughout the body... the potential for radioactive damage leading to carcinogenic disease is ever present." The United Nations has called for a moratorium on DU weaponry and British forces have stopped using them, but already thousands of tons of the weapons have been expended in Iraq. Only the Americans continue to use them. One problem is that once the radioactive weapon or armor is vaporized, the dust becomes part of the environment. When people return to resume their lives, the battlefield may be contaminated. The degree of radioactivity depends on how much ordinance was expended in the area. The fact is, DU weaponry contaminates the very ground on which people will return to live and raise families. It is not unreasonable to suppose that long-term exposure to this low-level radiation will result in the birth defects and cancers to which the Iraqi doctors refer. And what of the soldiers who are exposed to DU radioactivity? Surely, some of those in armor and artillery units are exceeding the 70-day-per-year exposure rate of the tank driver. The Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the Nuremberg Conventions adopted by the United Nations in 1945 were all intended to limit the most horrible weapons of war. Radioactivity that has a lifespan of 4.5 billion years is usually thought to be one of them. It is ironic that a country that started a war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist is now seen to be using them. -------- india / pakistan U.S. May Help India to Build Nuclear Power Plant By JOEL BRINKLEY March 16, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/international/asia/16cnd-rice.html?pagewanted=print&position= ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, March 16 - The United States may help India build one or more nuclear power plants, even as the Bush administration objects to India's proposal to construct a natural- gas pipeline from Iran, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her aides said during a visit with Indian government leaders in New Delhi today. Ms. Rice said the United States needed to do what it can to help India cope with its burgeoning energy needs including, it seems, doing little more than protest the plan for a pipeline from Iran. The United States maintains a trade embargo against Iran and is now engaged with Europe and the United Nations in an effort to convince Iran to end its nuclear weapons program. "We do have our concerns," Ms. Rice said at a joint news conference with Natwar Singh, the Indian foreign minister. "And we have communicated our concerns to the Indian government about gas pipeline cooperation between India and Iran." But she added, "We do need to look at the broader question of how India meets its energy needs." The pipeline idea was first proposed more than 10 years ago. The pipeline would run through Pakistan, but given the tensions between India and Pakistan the idea has not moved until recently, when India and Pakistan have begun looking for ways to cooperate. The $4.5 billion pipeline plan has risen as one possible project. India has long courted relations with Iran, despite American objections. "We have no problems of any kind with Iran," Mr. Singh said, standing beside Ms. Rice. "We need a lot of new additions to our sources of energy, and so the pipeline is important," though he added that "the dispute is rather hypothetical at this stage." Mr. Singh did acknowledge that India may have to rethink its pipeline plan, should the United Nations impose sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program. The pipeline disagreement stood out as the only significant snag in a day of meetings that both sides went out of their way to describe as warm and amicable. India is growing to be an ever-more important political and economic power. The Bush administration has worked hard to improve relations, for their own sake and as a balance to the administration's need to grow closer to Pakistan, an important ally in the war on terror. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, but the administration does not chastise either of them for that. A year ago, President Bush announced a plan for greater cooperation with India, including possible aid for civilian nuclear power plants. That topic came up again today. Ms. Rice and Mr. Singh both said they discussed the possible sale of F-16 fighter jets to India, though they said no decisions were made. Ms. Rice said she expected to have similar discussions with Pakistan, which has an aging fleet of F-16's. For the last three years, the United States has sold Pakistan spare parts for those planes, but now Pakistan wants to replace them. -------- korea North Korea lashes out at Condoleezza Rice, rules out nuclear talks SEOUL (AFP) Mar 16, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050316103123.a0u6ybcg.html North Korea lashed out at US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Wednesday for calling the communist country an "outpost of tyranny" and ruled out new talks over its nuclear ambitions. "It is inconceivable for the DPRK (North Korea) to go out for the talks before it is delisted as 'an outpost of tyranny,'" a foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement published by the North's official Korean Central News Agency. The statement came as Rice headed to the region for talks on how to end a prolonged standoff over North Korea's nuclear weapons drive. Rice arrives in Tokyo on Friday ahead of visits to Seoul and Beijing. The spokesman said North Korea was being pressured to expand its nuclear arsenal in the face of US efforts to crush the Stalinist regime, adding that it would only resume talks if Washington dropped its hostile stance towards Pyongyang. "It is, therefore, entirely just for the DPRK to steadily bolster its nuclear arsenal for self-defence in order to protect its ideology and system and the peace and stability in the region as it has already clarified." Pyongyang declared afresh on February 10 that it had nuclear weapons and withdrew indefinitely from the disarmament negotiations. Rice has refused to back down from her criticism of North Korea, which inflamed Pyongyang amid international efforts to bring it back to the negotiating table. During a stop-off in India Tuesday, Rice warned North Korea it was becoming increasingly isolated and said Pyongyang's return to six-party talks was the only way to end the standoff. The North Korean spokesman urged Washington to "behave realistically and wisely if it wishes to resume the six-party talks." He said North Korea would not deal with "such woman bereft of any political logic." "Her reckless remarks showed to the world what type of a woman she is," the spokesman said. "It is quite illogical for the US to intend to negotiate with the DPRK without retracting its remarks listing its dialogue partner as 'an outpost of tyranny,'" he added. Rice's visit to South Korea on Saturday and Sunday coincides with US-South Korean military exercises which North Korea has denounced as nuclear war games. The week-long drills involve mock battles aimed at evaluating command capabilities with US and South Korean troops mobilized for anti-commando operations and computer war games. Since abandoning talks last month, North Korea has since sent mixed signals on its willingness to return to the negotiations, with leader Kim Jong-Il saying Pyongyang would resume dialogue if "conditions" are met. The two Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan have met three times to try to resolve the nuclear standoff that erupted in 2002 when the United States accused the North of operating a secret uranium-enrichment program. The talks made little progress, with the final round held in June 2004. North Korea boycotted a fourth round scheduled for September last year. Washington believes North Korea possesses one or two crude bombs and may have reprocessed enough plutonium from spent fuel rods at its Yongbyon nuclear complex for half a dozen more. ---- US must build trust with North Korea, China says BEIJING (AFP) Mar 16, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050316110718.jvof3902.html The United States and North Korea need to show more mutual trust, China said Wednesday after Washington told it to "pick up the pace" to ensure talks resume on Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. "At present the difficulties facing the six-party talks are mainly due to mutual distrust and misgivings between North Korea and the United States," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said. "All the concerned participants in the six-party talks, especially the main parties involved, should take the necessary responsibility, show flexibility, sincerity and patience and make common and active efforts." Liu was commenting on remarks made in a congressional hearing in Washington Tuesday by Christopher Hill, who is expected to oversee the US effort in the talks as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs. "It's our view that China, as the host of this process, should make sure they get everyone to the table," said Hill of the talks that have been derailed since June following a decision by Pyongyang to pull out of the negotiations. "We need to see some progress here. And if we don't, we need to look at other ways to deal with this," said Hill. "We've got to pick up the pace here." Liu countered that Beijing has all along been making efforts to restart the talks and that its role has been praised by the international community. "In order to push forward the six-party talks, realize a nuclear-free Korean peninsula and safeguard peace and stability on the peninsula, China has all along been actively mediating and done a lot of work to persuade and promote the talks," Liu said. "China will continue to actively mediate and will make unremitting efforts for the early resumption of negotiations and progress in the talks." South Korea, Japan and Russia have also been involved in the discussions. On Wednesday Stalinist North Korea lashed out at US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for calling it an "outpost of tyranny" and again ruled out any new talks, as she embarked on a six-nation tour of Asia. "It is inconceivable for the DPRK (North Korea) to go out for the talks before it is delisted as 'an outpost of tyranny'," the official (North) Korean Central News Agency quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as saying. The spokesman also said North Korea was being pressured to expand its nuclear arsenal in the face of US efforts to crush it, adding that it would only resume talks if Washington dropped its hostile stance. The North declared on February 10 that it had nuclear weapons and withdrew indefinitely from the disarmament negotiations. -------- missile defense NATO To Protect Its Troops With Anti-Missile Defense System By 2010 Brussels (AFP) Mar 16, 2005 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-05m.html NATO announced Wednesday that it would protect its deployed troops with a new single theater missile defense system by 2010. "NATO has agreed to give itself a single deployable theatre missile defense capability to give protection to troops against incoming missiles," a NATO official said. "It will combine (existing) national systems (such as the US-made Patriot missile)." The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the system would be a first and would cap 10 years of talks on the issue. "The importance of being able to defend deployed troops against theatre-range ballistic missiles, such as SCUD missiles, was made apparent during the 1990s," NATO said in a communique. "As a number of foreign nations continue working on ballistic missile programmes, as well as developing chemical, nuclear, and biological warheads for those missiles, the need for effective defences has increased." The NATO official said the Western alliance planned to spend roughly 650 million euros on the project. The decision to launch the program, which will involve all 26 allied members, was made last Friday but only announced Wednesday. -------- pakistan Rice Seeks Details on Pakistani's Nuclear Help to Iran By JOEL BRINKLEY and STEVEN R. WEISMAN March 16, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/international/asia/16pakistan.html?pagewanted=print&position= NEW DELHI, March 15 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to press President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan for more information on the help a rogue Pakistani scientist, A. Q. Khan, is believed to have given Iran to develop a nuclear weapons program, a senior administration official said Tuesday. Speaking on the eve of talks that Ms. Rice plans to hold with Indian and Pakistani leaders on the first leg of her trip to Asia, the official said that Pakistan had been helpful in the past on sharing information from its own investigation of Dr. Khan, but that the administration wanted more. "We have been getting good cooperation from the Pakistanis," the official said when asked about the investigation into Iran. "They have been pursuing this. Of course we always want more. We always discuss nonproliferation with the Pakistanis. I am sure we will discuss it this time. I am sure A. Q. Kahn will come up." The official did not specify what sort of information the United States wanted. But there is heightened interest in what European and American officials have said was a document recently turned over to international investigators showing that Iran had discussed with Dr. Khan's network the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons technologies some 18 years ago. A European diplomat said last month that the discussions had included an offer by Mr. Khan's representatives to provide technologies that included the process of casting uranium metal, a critical step toward making a bomb. Other administration officials say they have not been entirely satisfied that Pakistan has told the United States everything it knows about Dr. Khan's dealings, and that Pakistan's refusal to let American investigators talk with him has hampered their investigation. Last month, Porter J. Goss, the director of central intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration was "further exploring our opportunities to learn about Mr. Khan and what he has done." He said he was unable to give details in public but that "many new things" had recently been uncovered and that "we have found that in covering those things that we have not got to the end of the trail." Like other officials, Mr. Goss said he was satisfied with Pakistani cooperation, but he declined to provide details in a public setting, citing security and intelligence sensitivities. The Bush administration has used a conciliatory approach toward Pakistan since the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, choosing to overlook or play down irritants - like the lack of cooperation on the A.Q. Khan investigation and the slowness of General Musharraf to return his country to democracy - because of cooperation that Pakistan has extended in combating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. At the same time, however, mounting concerns about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons ambitions have sharpened the need to push Pakistan for more help in addressing that problem, administration officials say. Another item on Ms. Rice's agenda in India and Pakistan was likely to be the desire of both countries to buy jet fighter aircraft from the United States, Indian and Pakistani diplomats said. The diplomats said the United States was considering a request by Pakistan for the sale of more F-16 fighters, dropping the ban on the sale of planes and spare parts imposed in 1990 and tightened in 1998, as a result of Pakistan's development and subsequent testing of a nuclear weapon. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Ms. Rice was "expected to signal" an American "willingness" to sell jets to Pakistan and India, but the Indian and Pakistani officials said they had received no such indication, only that the United States was prepared to discuss the matter. An aide traveling with Ms. Rice declined to discuss any specific military matters, other than to say that the security concerns of both countries would be discussed on her trip. Pakistan purchased 40 F-16's in the 1980's, at a time when it was considered a frontline state against the Soviet Union and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Since 1990, several planes have deteriorated and Pakistan now has about 32 planes operating, according to Brig. Gen. Shafqaat Ahmed, defense counselor in the Pakistani Embassy in Washington. Pakistan has asked for more planes and more spare parts periodically for many years, but in the past the United States did not want to do anything to encourage the military buildup between India and Pakistan. But now the United States is working cooperatively with India on several military fronts, including some joint training exercises, and may be more willing to consider the sale to Pakistan, General Ahmed said. General Ahmed and the Indian official, who spoke on condition that he not be identified because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations, said that since both India and Pakistan now possessed missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, selling advance fighters that could deliver bombs was no longer considered destabilizing to the nuclear balance. As well as India and Pakistan, Ms. Rice's trip is taking her to Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea and China. A primary mission during the latter part of the tour is to talk over new strategies for persuading North Korea to rejoin the six-nation nuclear disarmament talks. The Bush administration is heavily dependent on China, as North Korea's only important ally, in its effort to restart the nuclear talks. But at the same time, China is agitating for renewed arms sales from Europe, something President Bush has made clear he opposes. On her plane traveling to New Delhi, Ms. Rice said she hoped China's law approved this week authorizing a military attack on Taiwan if the island moved toward independence would dissuade Europe from resuming its weapons sales. "I hope it will remind the Europeans that there are still tensions in the region," she said, speaking to reporters on her plane. "It is not a time to end the embargo." European leaders say lifting the embargo, which was imposed in 1989 after China's crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square, would be an important way to improve business and political relations with China. The parties to the disarmament talks have not met since June, and some experts say the negotiations are dead. On Tuesday, North Korea threatened to increase the size of its nuclear arsenal, "to cope with the extremely hostile attempt of the U.S. to bring down" its government, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said, according to the official KCNA news agency. Asked about North Korea's latest statement, Ms. Rice said Tuesday that she would not try to "get inside the psyche of the leaders in Pyongyang," but added that the latest statement was intended to distract attention from the demands to return to the talks. "I don't think the North Koreans should be allowed to change the subject," she said. Ms. Rice said the efforts of the last year had not been wasted. North Korea, she added, is even more isolated now than a year ago, and "the unity of message and purpose" among the nations involved in the talks "has been very clear." The United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea are the other parties to the talks. Joel Brinkley reported from New Delhi for this articleand Steven R. Weisman from Washington. ---- Pakistan Rejects New Nuclear Procurement Charges Wed Mar 16, 2005 02:29 AM ET (Reuters) By David Brunnstrom http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7914728 ISLAMABAD - Pakistan on Wednesday rejected charges that it had developed new illicit channels to upgrade its nuclear weapons program and said it was interested in joining an influential anti-proliferation group. Diplomats and nuclear experts told Reuters in Vienna this week that Pakistan was using illicit channels to upgrade its nuclear weapons capability, despite efforts by the U.N. nuclear watchdog to shut down all illegal procurement avenues. "This story is inaccurate and baseless," said Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Jalil Abbas Jilani. "Pakistan's nuclear program is purely indigenous and does not rely on foreign sources." Jilani said a team from the 44-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, a body that aims to control nuclear exports, had asked to visit Pakistan and this had been accepted. "Pakistan is prepared to interact with the NSG and to become a member so that we work together to promote nuclear non-proliferation goals," Jilani said. He did not say when the visit would take place. Despite Islamabad's denials, analysts say that since Pakistan is outside the 1968 global nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Islamabad has no choice but to buy nuclear components on the black market. Pakistan first successfully tested a nuclear weapon in 1998 and remains under a strict embargo by the NSG, whose members include the world's major producers of nuclear-related equipment, such as the United States, Russia and China. Global concerns about Islamabad's nuclear program were triggered when it was revealed that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, used a clandestine procurement network to supply Iran, Libya and North Korea with nuclear technology. IRANIAN CONTROVERSY Last week Pakistan admitted that the now-disgraced Khan had supplied Iran with centrifuges used to produce enriched uranium for nuclear power plants or arms. But it subsequently rejected reports quoting diplomats in Vienna that Islamabad would hand over used centrifuge components to the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency to help determine whether Iran's atomic program is aimed at producing weapons, as Washington suspects, or is entirely peaceful as Tehran says. The fresh controversy comes as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was due in Islamabad later on Wednesday to discuss Pakistan's key role in the U.S.-led war on terrorism with President Pervez Musharraf. Rice was also expected to discuss nuclear proliferation during her visit, but U.S. officials say Washington has been generally satisfied with Pakistan's investigations and will not pressure Musharraf too hard given Khan's status as a national hero. Rice's trip comes as the U.S. government is considering selling F-16s fighter jets to both India and Pakistan, a move that would be a final step toward tacit acceptance of both countries' possession of nuclear weapons. Washington blocked a sale of a batch of F-16s to Pakistan in the 1990s as a sanction against Islamabad's nuclear program. (Additional reporting by Zeeshan Haider) ---- Pakistan to raise nuclear group membership with US Secretary of State ISLAMABAD (AFP) Mar 16, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050316073808.26qakk50.html Pakistan wants to join an international group fighting the spread of nuclear weapons and is likely to raise the issue during a visit by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, officials said Wednesday. The South Asian nation's bid to join the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers Group comes despite growing international concern over a black market run by the disgraced father of Pakistan's own atomic programme. "We would like to join it so as to promote nuclear non-proliferation," foreign ministry spokesman Jalil Abbas Jilani told AFP. Rice arrives here later in the day for talks with military leader President Pervez Musharraf and other key figures after meeting Indian leaders in New Delhi. Another foreign ministry official told AFP on condition of anonymity that Pakistan was likely to raise the issue during talks with the Secretary of State. The Nuclear Suppliers Group was set up in 1975 and includes the United States and four other nuclear powers which are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- Britain, France, China and Russia. It aims to prevent nuclear exports for commercial and peaceful purposes from being used to make nuclear weapons. Members voluntarily coordinate their export controls governing transfers of civilian nuclear material, equipment and technology to non-nuclear-weapon states. Pakistan admitted last week that its top nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, provided Iran with centrifuges but insisted the government was not involved in the deal. Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium for warheads. Khan has been under house arrest since 2003 after confessing to giving nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. He was pardoned by President Musharraf and Pakistan has refused to let the UN atomic energy agency question him. Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in May 1998 after rival India conducted similar detonations. The spokesman hit out at a western media report that Pakistan was trying to revive the nuclear black market to improve its atomic programme. "This is inaccurate and baseless. Pakistan has its indigenous programme and does not rely on nuclear black market for upgrading the programme," Jilani said. The report from Vienna Tuesday quoted diplomats and nuclear experts as saying that Pakistan was trying to secure material through new middlemen to update its nuclear weapons programme. -------- terrorism INSIGHTS: Nuclear Terrorism: Identifying and Combating the Risks {Editor's Note: Director General of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei delivered this address today at the opening of the International Conference on Nuclear Security: Global Directions for the Future hosted by the Government of the United Kingdom.} By Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei LONDON, UK, March 16, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2005/2005-03-16-inselb.asp Security strategies, for many centuries, have been based on boundaries: the strategic placement of cities and borders to take advantage of natural barriers; defenses that relied on walls, trenches and armadas; and the use of ethnic, religious or other groupings to distinguish friend from foe. In the 20th Century, the advent of airplanes, submarines and ballistic missiles began to undermine this approach to security - by enabling the remote delivery of destruction on a scale previously not envisioned. But the change that has altered the international security landscape the most drastically is, in fact, globalization. The global community has become interdependent, with the constant movement of people, ideas and goods. Many aspects of modern life - communication, the global marketplace and, most recently, the rise in international terrorism - clearly indicate that our understanding of and approaches to national and international security must be adjusted, in keeping with new realities. Nuclear Security and the Protection Against Nuclear Terrorism The security of nuclear and other radioactive material and associated technologies has taken on heightened significance in recent years. The IAEA has been active in the field of nuclear security for many years, but as you are all aware, the events of September 2001 propelled the rapid and dramatic re-evaluation of the risks of terrorism in all its forms - whether related to the security of urban centres, industrial complexes, harbours, oil refineries, air and rail travel, or activities involving nuclear and radiological material. Terrorist attacks since that time, in Spain, Indonesia, the Russian Federation and elsewhere, have continued to keep these concerns in the forefront of our collective consciousness. For those of us in the nuclear field, it has become obvious that our work to strengthen nuclear security is both vital and urgent - and that we must not wait for a ´watershed´ nuclear security event to provide the needed security upgrades. International cooperation has become the hallmark of these security efforts. While nuclear security is and should remain a national responsibility, some countries still lack the programmes and the resources to respond properly to the threat of nuclear and radiological terrorism. For these countries, international cooperation is essential to help them strengthen their national capacities. International cooperation is also essential to our efforts to build regional and global networks for combating transnational threats. Understanding the Risks The IAEA has categorized four potential nuclear security risks: the theft of a nuclear weapon; the acquisition of nuclear materials for the construction of nuclear explosive devices; the malicious use of radioactive sources - including in so-called "dirty bombs"; and the radiological hazards caused by an attack on, or sabotage of, a facility or a transport vehicle. These risks are real and current, but they are not all the same. While the probability of a nuclear explosive device being acquired and used by terrorists is relatively small, it cannot be dismissed, and the consequences would be devastating. On the other hand, a dirty bomb would likely have far less impact in terms of human life, but the relative accessibility of radiological sources make it more likely that such an event could occur. Some experts share the view of the Director General of the United Kingdom Security Service, who said in August 2003: "It will only be a matter of time before a crude version of a [chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear] attack is launched at a major Western city." To date, the IAEA´s own database on illicit trafficking has recorded, since 1993, over 650 confirmed incidents of trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive material. Last year alone, nearly 100 such incidents occurred, 11 of which involved nuclear material. While the majority of trafficking incidents do not involve nuclear material, and while most of the radioactive materials involved are of limited radiological concern, the number of incidents shows that the measures to control and secure nuclear and other radioactive materials need to be improved. But effective and credible approaches to nuclear security are essential not only for detecting and responding to illicit trafficking, but also for the protection of nuclear power plants, research reactors, accelerators, and the array of nuclear and other radioactive materials that support these and other nuclear applications. To optimize the effectiveness of these efforts, it is important to prioritize - to focus on those facilities and activities where the risk is greatest - and to maintain a balance between security needs and the many benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology. For example, the recent increase in the denial of shipments of radioactive material by commercial carriers, while driven by perceived security concerns, can be a matter of equally significant humanitarian concern - particularly when such shipments involve radionuclides intended for use in life-saving medical applications. While we should be committed to ensuring the security of nuclear and other radioactive materials globally, we should seek solutions that will equally ensure the continued delivery of the benefits that these materials and related applications provide. IAEA Nuclear Security Plan of Activities The IAEA´s nuclear security plan is founded on measures to guard against thefts of nuclear and other radioactive material and to protect related facilities against malicious acts. Our work has three main points of focus: prevention, detection and response. Our first objective is to assist States in preventing any illicit or non-peaceful use of nuclear or other radioactive materials - including acts of terrorism. This requires: effective physical protection of these materials in use, storage and transport; protection of related nuclear facilities; and strong State systems for accounting for and control of nuclear material. The IAEA has been providing a range of international advisory service missions, training workshops and technical guidance documents - on nuclear security, physical protection, ´design basis threat´ assessments, and nuclear material accounting, to assist States in implementing these preventive measures. A preventive focus has also been given to securing vulnerable nuclear and other radioactive material. Working with Russia and the USA, we are in the process of implementing seven contracts to dismantle and transport a number of disused vulnerable sources to more secure locations. Over 20,000 curies of sealed sources from Bolivia, Côte d´Ivoire, Haiti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Malaysia, Panama, Sudan and Thailand have been conditioned for long term storage or shipped back to the original suppliers. We expect the volume of these and other high priority assistance efforts to increase. The second objective relates to detection - ensuring that we have systems in place that can help countries to identify, at an early stage, illicit activity related to nuclear materials or radioactive sources. To this end, we have been assisting countries from many regions in training customs officials, installing better equipment at border crossings, and ensuring that information on trafficking incidents is shared effectively. The Agency database on illicit trafficking, now with a total of 80 participating countries, has proven helpful in identifying patterns of trafficking activity. Third, we have been working with national governments and international organizations to establish and strengthen programmes to ensure that, in the event that illicit activity occurs - including acts of terrorism involving nuclear material or radioactive sources - the response can be prompt and well coordinated. To date, most such responses have involved helping governments with the recovery of radioactive sources that have been stolen or lost. The bulk of this nuclear security activity has occurred in the past three years. Since September 2001, working in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America, we have conducted more than 125 security advisory and evaluation missions, and convened over 100 training courses, workshops and seminars. IAEA Member States and other organizations have been generous in providing financial and in-kind resources to fund the Agency´s security related activities. Since September 2001, the Agency´s Nuclear Security Fund has received over $35 million from a total of 26 countries - as well as from the European Union and the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) - and many countries have provided in-kind support. IAEA Member States from every region have hosted workshops and regional training courses, participated in source recovery missions, provided technical insights on how engineered safety features at nuclear facilities can enhance security against sabotage, and contributed to the development of Agency guidelines and recommendations. Cooperation with Other Organizations and Efforts I find it gratifying that in all three areas of focus - prevention, detection and response - international cooperation has been facilitated by the efforts of international organizations, including those that have cooperated with the IAEA in putting on this conference: Interpol, Europol, the European Commission, OSCE and the World Customs Organization. Clearly, the benefits of IAEA assistance - and the reach of our limited resources - can be maximized by coordinating our activities with other international and regional organizations, as well as through the use of regional partnerships. More than a year ago, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, which includes initiatives focused on keeping nuclear and other radioactive material out of the hands of extremist groups. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative has been working to systematically address each facility around the world that possesses high risk nuclear and radiological materials. And many governments have already responded to UN Security Council resolution 1540, which, inter alia, called on all States to develop and maintain effective border controls and law enforcement efforts to detect and combat illicit trafficking, and to refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, use or transfer nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or their delivery systems. The Agency stands ready to assist States wishing to strengthen their legislative and technical infrastructures in response to resolution 1540, by providing legal and technical advice, training and peer reviews. Each of these efforts, properly coordinated and carried out, directly supports the overall objective of identifying and combating the risks of nuclear terrorism. Focus of Future Efforts While much progress has been made in the past three years, it is clear that the imperatives that first led to the development of the IAEA´s nuclear security plan have not lost their relevance or urgency. One of the purposes of this conference is to take stock of how far we have come, and I would hope that you would all provide your input on the vulnerabilities that still exist and the priorities for moving forward. The Agency has been conducting a major review of its nuclear security activities, and the main elements of a revised plan of activities are already emerging. One aspect of the new plan is to complete the international corpus of legal instruments, as well as relevant recommendations and guidelines. A key legal instrument is the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM). For a number of years, work has been progressing on a draft amendment to the CPPNM that would strengthen its existing provisions and expand its scope to cover, inter alia: the physical protection of nuclear material used for peaceful purposes, in domestic use, storage and transport; and the physical protection of nuclear material and peaceful nuclear facilities against sabotage. In response to the request by a majority of the States Parties to the Convention, I have convened a diplomatic conference to be held in July to consider and adopt the proposed amendments. In 2003, the IAEA General Conference also endorsed a revised Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources, and last year endorsed the associated guidelines on the import and export of radioactive sources. More than 70 countries have signaled their intent to follow the provisions of this Code. A second aspect of the new plan will be to give greater emphasis to the implementation of these instruments and associated guidelines. The Agency has already been assisting States with concrete action to improve physical protection, upgrade detection and response procedures, and improve human resource capabilities. But the extensive evaluation of the past few years has shown that gaps and unevenness in application remain. We will be giving greater focus to coordinated efforts to identify and plug those gaps, and to work towards universal application of harmonized standards based on these international instruments. The associated upgrades will be dependent on the availability of sufficient funds, provided with the flexibility necessary to be distributed in accordance with Member State needs and capacities. A third point of focus will be to enhance the sustainability of nuclear security programmes in Member States. This will include helping States establish the needed regulatory frameworks, assisting in the implementation of international guidelines, and addressing continued training needs. The Agency has also begun to develop Integrated Nuclear Security Support Plans with individual Member States, as frameworks for helping to address their nuclear security needs over the longer term. Conclusion At the outset of this statement, I emphasized that security strategies could no longer be effective if based solely on the concept of boundaries. And throughout this presentation, you have heard me discussing cooperation, assistance, regional and international networks, and the importance of learning from each other. In effect, what we are discussing is a "security culture" - a mindset that, while providing the impetus for local and regional action, thinks globally and is fully capable of extending across borders. Ultimately, our success will only be as strong as our weakest link. {The International Conference on Nuclear Security was organized by the IAEA in co-operation with the European Union, the European Police Office, International Criminal Police Organization, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, World Customs Organization} -------- treaties News Analysis: Bush seeks to alter global nuclear pact By David E. Sanger The New York Times Wednesday, March 16, 2005 http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/03/15/news/nukes.html WASHINGTON Behind President George W. Bush's recent shift in dealing with Iran's nuclear program lies a less visible goal: to essentially rewrite the main treaty governing the spread of nuclear technology, without actually renegotiating it. In their public statements and background briefings in recent days, Bush's aides have acknowledged that Iran appears to have the right - on paper, at least - to enrich uranium to produce electric power. But Bush has managed to convince his reluctant European allies that the only acceptable outcome of their negotiations with Iran is that it give up that right. In what amounts to a reinterpretation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Bush now argues that there is a new class of nations that simply cannot be trusted with the technology to produce nuclear material, even if the treaty makes no such distinction. So far the administration has not declared publicly that its larger goal with Iran is to remake a treaty that dates to the early 1960s - one that the United States largely inspired under the cold war banner of "Atoms for Peace." To state publicly that Iran is really a test case of Bush's broader effort, a senior administration official said, "would complicate what's already a pretty messy negotiation." But just three days before the White House announced its new approach to Iran - in which it allowed Europe to offer broader incentives in return for an agreement to ask the United Nations for sanctions if Iran refused to give up the ability to make nuclear material - Bush issued a statement that left little doubt about where he was headed. The statement was advertised by the White House as a routine commemoration of the treaty's 35th anniversary, and a prelude to a meeting in May in New York to consider its future. It never mentioned Iran by name. But after praising the past accomplishments of the treaty, also known as the NPT, in limiting the spread of nuclear arms, Bush went on to say: "We cannot allow rogue states that violate their commitments and defy the international community to undermine the NPT's fundamental role in strengthening international security. "We must therefore close the loopholes that allow states to produce nuclear materials that can be used to build bombs under the cover of civilian nuclear programs," he said. On Sunday, Bush's new national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, made clear the connection with the Iran crisis. Yes, he said on CNN, the Iranians claimed their nuclear work was entirely for peaceful purposes. He cited no new evidence of a secret Iranian project to build a bomb, though that is exactly what the CIA and officials like Hadley insist is happening. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency said they joined in the suspicion, but had no compelling evidence. But Hadley emphasized that Iran's leaders "keep their secrets very well." They hid much of their enrichment activity from international inspectors for 18 years, then insisted it was not really for weapons, he said. He said that secretiveness "raises serious suspicions" about Iran's true intent. Now, he said, the Europeans have come around to the view that "the best guarantee is for them to permanently abandon their enrichment facilities." Bush could have called for renegotiating the treaty. But in background interviews, administration officials said they had neither the time nor the patience for that process. By the time all 189 signers come to an agreement, said one official who left the White House recently, "the Iranians will look like the North Koreans, waving their bombs around." "We can't afford to make that mistake again," the official continued. North Korea has declared it is no longer a party to the treaty, though it signed it. Israel, India and Pakistan never signed it. After a visit to Tehran last week for a conference that the Iranian government sponsored to explain its nuclear ambitions, George Perkovich, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said he had concluded that Bush had the right instinct, but might not be taking the right approach. "The Iranians have decided to go on the offensive and simply assert their right, even if the treaty doesn't explicitly say that they have a right to enrich their own uranium," Perkovich said Monday. The view expressed by Iran's nuclear negotiators, he said, amounted to "we're not hiding it, we're not embarrassed by it, and no one is going to take our right away." At the heart of Bush's concern is a fundamental flaw in the treaty. As long as nations allow inspections and declare their facilities and nuclear work, they get the International Atomic Energy Agency's seal of approval and, often, technical aid. But there is nothing to prevent a country, once it has learned how to enrich uranium or reprocess spent nuclear fuel rods, from withdrawing from the treaty and moving full-bore toward a bomb. North Korea did exactly that two years ago, and the CIA now estimates it has produced bomb fuel for six or eight nuclear weapons. While Bush and the director general of the agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, have different proposals to deal with the problem, they agree that established nuclear nations should supply fuel to countries that need it. While this would help ensure that no nation could secretly produce bomb-grade fuel, smaller countries say they should not be dependent on the West or international consortiums for a major source of energy. A little more than a year ago, after the arrest of Abdul Qadeer Khan - the Pakistani nuclear engineer who helped arm Iran, North Korea and Libya - Bush announced a proposal: In the future, the world would not allow countries to manufacture nuclear fuel. He exempted any nation already producing it - meaning the United States, many European nations and Japan, among others. So far, Bush has done little to turn that proposal into legal language, and so far he has garnered almost no support. But the nuclear clock is ticking, and some of Bush's aides fear that Iran is heading the same way North Korea did in the 1990s - playing out the negotiations while its scientists and engineers pick up the skills they need, leaving open a withdrawal from the treaty in the future. The Iranians deny that, but admit they have built huge tunnels at some key sites, and buried other facilities altogether. Perkovich said that when Iranian officials had been asked about that at the conference, they had answered with a question of their own: "If you thought the Americans were going to bomb you, wouldn't you bury this stuff, too?" -------- u.n. International conference on nuclear security opens in London Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:39 AM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050316/wl_uk_afp/iaeanuclearsecurity_050316143942 LONDON - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) opened a three-day conference on boosting nuclear security and responding to the threat of terrorism. Over the course of three days, high-profile figures in the field of nuclear security, including US Senator Sam Nunn and IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, are due to speak, the IAEA said Wednesday. Nuclear security -- how to prevent proliferation of atomic weapons and stop them getting into the hands of terror groups -- has become a hot-button issue worldwide in recent years. No resolution or vote is expected at the conference. Other groups involved at the gathering include the European Union, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and international police forces. ---- UN's Nuclear Chief Tells Iran to Open Up More Wed Mar 16, 2005 07:46 AM ET (Reuters) http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ITNEBKV4RTONYCRBAEZSFEY?type=topNews&storyID=7919003 LONDON - The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog Wednesday hailed last week's offer by Washington of political concessions in European-led talks with Iran but said Tehran must open more to inspections for diplomacy to succeed. "I am not sure that the Europeans and Americans can go very far in their negotiations unless they are sure that the past chapter has been closed," Mohammed ElBaradei told a news conference in London. ElBaradei said Iran was doing the minimum required of it to fulfil its international obligations on nuclear inspections, but added that it would not be enough. "In light of more than 20 years of undeclared programs, I would like to see more than just playing by the book," he said. "I would like to see proactive transparency." Last week the United States threw its weight behind European efforts to persuade Iran to give up alleged nuclear weapons ambitions by offering to ease economic sanctions and support Tehran's bid to join the World Trade Organization. ---- Uranium Equals Kryptonite for Bush Nominee Congressman demands answers from Bolton over Niger fiasco by James Ridgeway March 16th, 2005 3:37 PM http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0511,webmondo3,62177,6.html WASHINGTON—Henry Waxman, the Democratic California congressman, charges that President Bush's U.N. Ambassador designate, John Bolton, participated in promoting the administration's phony story about Saddam Hussein negotiating to buy uranium for nuclear weapons from the African country of Niger. Subsequently, Waxman says, the State Department tried to cover up Bolton's involvement by using the designation "sensitive but unclassified" to conceal information about his role "in the creation of a fact sheet distributed to the United Nations that falsely claimed Iraq had sought uranium from Niger." Waxman, ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, describes Bolton's role in a letter to Republican committee chair Christopher Shays, from Connecticut. And its release comes as the Senate considers whether to confirm Bolton. The story goes likes this: On December 19, 2002, the State Department issued a fact sheet entitled "Ilustrative Examples of Omissions from the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council." It included eight key areas where the Bush administration faulted Iraq's weapons declarations to the U.N. on December 7, 2002. Under the heading "Nuclear Weapons," the fact sheet read: "The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?" Waxman points out this was a bogus claim, and notes that "both State Department intelligence officials and CIA officials reported that they had rejected the claim as unreliable." So, wondered Waxman, who in the State Department prepped the lie? On July 21, 2003, Waxman wrote then secretary of state Colin Powell, asking him for an explanation of Bolton's role. Bolton's title was under secretary for arms control and international security. On September 25, 2003, State responded: "Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John R. Bolton, did not play a role in the creation of this document." Later, Waxman and other committee members asked the State Department's inspector general for a chronology of just how the Niger claim came to be, which they were subsequently sent. Writes Waxman: "This chronology described a meeting on December 18, 2002, between Secretary Powell, Mr. Bolton and Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs. According to this chronology, Mr. Boucher specifically asked Mr. Bolton 'for help developing a response to Iraq's Dec. 7 Declaration to the United Nations Security Council that could be used with the press.' According to the chronology which is phrased in the present tense, Mr. Bolton 'agrees and tasks the Bureau of Nonproliferation,' a subordinate office that reports directly to Mr. Bolton, to conduct the work." The next day, the bureau sent one email to Bolton's office accompanying the fact sheet with the Niger claim, and two other e-mails mentioning the Niger connection. The Inspector General's chronology was marked "sensitive but unclassified" and the letter sent out along with it, says it "contains sensitive information, which may be protected from public release under the Freedom of Information Act." The letter asked that no "public release of this information" be made. At issue for Waxman is who among the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which will look into Bolton's record, will ask about the cover-up? Will anyone ask Powell? Boucher? What is the connection between Bolton and the smearing of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, the CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame? Wilson had been sent out to find out what the Niger deal was all about. When he discovered it was a phony, someone in the administration outed his wife as a covert agent, to writer Bob Novak and to other agents. A federal grand jury is now investigating this situation. Was Bolton involved in any of this? Be sure to watch this story of a cover-up taking place in plain view. Question is, will members of the federal grand jury see it? -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- arizona Caustic Spilled at Arizona Nuclear Power Plant PHOENIX, Arizona, March 16, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2005/2005-03-16-09.asp#anchor2 A caustic spill was reported Tuesday afternoon at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the largest nuclear electric generating site in the United States, located 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix in Maricopa County. "A commercial tanker truck was transferring caustic sodium hydroxide at Unit 1 when a drip was observed from the transfer hose at approximately 16:54 MST, Palo Verde staff reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "The spill was limited to approximately one quart outside of the spill containment berm," the staff wrote, before the truck was driven out of the protected area to return to Phoenix. A drip trail was discovered about an hour later along the path of the truck out of the protected area, including a puddle of about three gallons at the access point. The spill quantity on-site is not estimated to have approached a reportable quantity - 1,000 pounds - but due to the evidence that the truck was leaking while in transit to Phoenix, the Palo Verde Hazardous Materials Emergency Coordinator elected to notify the government agencies. The National Response Center, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Arizona State Police were notified in addition to the trucking company. When the company located the truck in its company yard, no leak existed, "suggesting the leakage was limited to the caustic that remained in the truck's discharge pipe after the transfer was stopped," Palo Verde staff wrote. Sodium hydroxide is very corrosive, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. When dissolved in water or neutralized with acid it liberates substantial heat, which may be sufficient to ignite combustible materials, the agency says. The Palo Verde spill did not result in a fire, however. "There was no impact to control room habitability and no safety systems, including essential ventilation, were actuated or required," the staff wrote. "The spill did not hamper site personnel in the performance of duties necessary for the safe operation of the nuclear power plant. -------- idaho From Potatoes to Plutonium Idaho's most infamous export might be about to change BY LESLIE FUGER, MARCH 16, 2005 Boise Weekly http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A480 Tim Frazier was raised near Dayton, Ohio, and spent his childhood within sight of the Department of Energy (DOE) Mound Site in nearby Miamisburg. Unfortunately, the plant is not only known for working to advance nuclear technology. It also caused extensive uranium contamination of the groundwater aquifer, and soil contamination including radium, tritium and plutonium-238. Despite problems associated with Mound over the years, Frazier grew up to manage the facility. "I have the utmost confidence in the DOE's construction and maintenance of nuclear facilities," he said. "I even moved my wife and two little girls closer to the site when I took over." Today, Frazier is the document manager for a proposed plutonium production consolidation project for the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and the DOE's technical expert on plutonium-238. (On February 1, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory-West became the Idaho National Laboratory.) Frazier was part of a DOE team that recently conducted "scoping" meetings in Idaho and surrounding states to answer questions and quell fears about the plan to bring all the plutonium-238 production to Idaho. Citizens attending the meetings stated concerns that bringing plutonium-238-sometimes referred to as the most deadly substance known to man-to Idaho would jeopardize the environment and health of residents around the INL facility in Eastern Idaho. Plutonium-238 is an isotope created after irradiating neptunium-237 with a nuclear reactor. It is 275 times more radioactive than weapons grade plutonium, since it decays much faster. Engineers harness the significant heat created by this rapid decay to generate electricity for radioisotope power systems, as well as unmanned NASA spacecraft like satellites and interplanetary probes. The Viking craft that landed on Mars in 1976 and the Cassini Space Probe were two crafts that relied on long-lived plutonium-238 batteries to power their scientific instruments. But Frazier says that many obstacles keep scientists from making the compact thermoelectric generators as efficiently as they should. "Currently the department produces these systems in a very inefficient and dangerous way," he says. "First we ship neptunium-237 from Idaho to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where it gets fabricated into targets. It is then shipped back to Idaho for irradiation, shipped nearly a thousand miles to Los Alamos in New Mexico for processing and finally trucked back to Idaho for construction of the radioisotope power systems. We want folks to know that we could make the process so much safer and cheaper by consolidating it in Idaho." The DOE claims that centering this entire process in Idaho will streamline nuclear production, improve safety issues dealing with transportation and potentially save millions of dollars. But according to Jeremy Maxand, the executive director of the nuclear watchdog group The Snake River Alliance, the DOE's claims are only half the story. "Idahoans are being asked to bear the burden of the cost and risk without being told the benefit," Maxand says. "It makes me highly suspicious that on one hand they sell this extremely hazardous process to Idahoans via sleek NASA space batteries, when in fact we've made them for decades using plutonium purchased from Russia's stockpile. Then in the next breath they'll say that the plutonium-238 produced in Idaho will be used for classified national security missions that are not space based at all." Frazier is guarded in his descriptions of the missions that would be supported by the $230 million proposed facility. He insists, however, "They are no non-military, non-defense related national security; the plutonium-238 will not be used in earth's orbit or for spy satellites, nor will they be in any way space based." As for the Russian plutonium, Frazier is more forthcoming. "Indeed," he says, "We have been allowed to purchase plutonium for NASA space missions from Russia, but we have made agreements with their government not to use it for our many national security purposes. Plus, just because the Russians happen to be our friends right now doesn't mean they will be in the future. The U.S. needs to decrease our reliance on their plutonium." Maxand, however, is still not convinced. "O.K., the DOE is proposing a project that could leave Idahoans breathing plutonium for the next 80 years and [they] won't tell us what its for," he says. "Lets talk about something they can't hide from the public. Plutonium-238 is lethal and difficult to contain. Is this secrecy going to benefit Idahoans given the DOE's well-documented and abysmal track record for worker, community and environmental safety?" Fears over secrecy are nothing new to the DOE. For over 40 years, the department operated the nation's defense nuclear weapons complex without any independent, external oversight. As a result, by the late 1980s, significant public health and safety issues had accumulated at many facilities. In response, Congress created an independent oversight organization, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The DNFSB is charged with providing advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy "to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety." It has also issued stern warnings to the DOE over the past decade about HEPA filtration systems, a safeguard intended to be the last line of defense for the public against toxic emissions. "The HEPA filtration and passive confinement ventilation systems widely used in nuclear facilities are not adequately capable of containing hazardous materials with confidence since they allow a quantity of unfiltered air contaminated with radioactive material to be released from an operating nuclear facility during accident scenarios," said the DNFSB. When asked about possible accidents like earthquakes, tornados and fires compromising a building that housed plutonium-238 in Idaho, Tim Frazier's only response is brief: "Those situations are highly unlikely." Unexpected events and accidents, however, have occurred. In 1957, for instance, a fire began in a glove box at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in Golden, Colorado. Combustible gases passed under pressure through ventilation ductwork, ignited the HEPA filters, and caused the exhaust system to explode. Plutonium contamination, spread throughout the building and outdoors through the ventilation system. Observers outside the building saw a "very dark" smoke plume 80 to 100 feet high billowing from the building. Another fire in 1969, again at Rocky Flats, spread through several hundred interconnected glove boxes in two connected buildings. Caused by the spontaneous ignition of a plutonium briquette, the blaze contaminated the two large buildings and exposed firemen to high doses of radiation. Off-site plutonium measurements after the accident were well above normal. More recently, in the summer of 2000, wildfires in the vicinity of the Hanford Nuclear Facility hit the highly radioactive waste disposal trenches. Airborne plutonium radiation levels in the nearby cities of Pasco and Richland, Washington, were reportedly elevated to1,000 times above normal. According to a 2004 report by the National Center for Environmental Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there is abundant evidence in areas surrounding the Los Alamos National Labratory-the site after which INL's complex would be modeled-that hazardous emissions are escaping the facility despite DOE's best efforts to contain it. The CDC concluded that the soil surrounding LANL contains as much as 100 times more plutonium than was previously estimated. According to the same report, Los Alamos County has an abnormally high rate of breast, melanoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, ovary, prostate, testicular and thyroid cancers, and Los Alamos residents, even those who have never worked at the lab itself, have more plutonium in their bodies than any one other county nationwide. Despite reassurances from government officials, many Idahoans remain unconvinced. And if attendance at the first round of public meetings is any indication of disapproval, the plutonium consolidation proposal could meet stiff resistance from all corners of the state. "Even under the best circumstances, plutonium is difficult to control and could have devastating health and environmental impacts on Idaho's people and environment," says Maxand. "Plutonium is a boomerang that has always come back to bite us, and this project will be no different." While the DOE is set to release the draft Environmental Impact Statement in late April, DOE officials maintain they intend on starting construction of the INL plutonium facility in October of this year. The Snake River Alliance is organizing public meetings across Idaho to inform people of the potential risks involved with such a proposal. -------- nevada Yucca Mountain documents may have been falsified, government says March 16, 2005 By H. JOSEF HEBERT ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2005/mar/16/031610207.html Take Poll: "Are you in favor of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada?" http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7351 WASHINGTON (AP) - Government employees may have falsified documents related to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project in Nevada, the Energy Department revealed Wednesday in a development that could jeopardize the project's ability to obtain a federal permit. The department said that during preparation for a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a number of e-mails were discovered, dating back to 1998 and 2000, in which an employee of the U.S. Geological Survey "indicated that he had fabricated documentation of his work." Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said the department had begun an investigation into what kind of information was falsified and whether it would affect the scientific underpinnings of the project. "If in the course of that review any work is found to be deficient, it will be replaced or supplemented with analysis and documents that meet appropriate quality assurance standards," said Bodman. He said he was "greatly disturbed" that work involving the project may have been falsified. The department said the questionable data involved computer modeling for water infiltration and climate at the Yucca site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. USGS Director Chip Groat said that the discovered e-mails "have raised serious questions about the review process of scientific studies done six years ago." The disclosure follows a string of other setbacks for the proposed waste dump. The Energy Department has delayed filing its license application to the NRC and now acknowledges that the planned completion of the facility by 2010 no longer is possible. Congress last year refused to provide all the money sought by the Bush administration for the project, and a federal appeals court rejected the radiation protection standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA is now developing new standards. Last month, the official in charge of the Yucca project resigned, citing personal reasons. Bodman said the questionable documents were part of the papers required by the NRC verifying the accuracy of earlier work in the project. He said Nevada officials had been advised. The Energy Department's inspector general also has been asked to investigate. "The fact remains that this country needs a permanent geological nuclear waste repository, and the administration will continue to aggressively pursue that goal," Bodman said. He said that "all related decisions have been, and will continue to be, based on sound science." ---- Statement From Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman March 16, 2005 U.S. Department of Energy http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?PUBLIC_ID=17629&BT_CODE=PR_PRESSRELEASES&TT_CODE=PRESSRELEASE WASHINGTON, DC -- The Department of Energy has learned that certain employees of the US Geological Survey (USGS) at the Department of the Interior working on the Yucca Mountain project may have falsified documentation of their work. This documentation is required as part of the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s quality assurance programs that verify the accuracy and credibility of work that has been completed. This documentation in question relates to computer modeling involving water infiltration and climate. “During the document review process associated with the Licensing Support Network preparation for the Yucca Mountain project, DOE contractors discovered multiple emails written between May 1998 and March 2000, in which a USGS employee indicated that he had fabricated documentation of his work. “The Department of Energy has initiated a scientific investigation of the data and documentation that was part of this modeling activity. If in the course of that review any work is found to be deficient, it will be replaced or supplemented with analysis and documentation that meets appropriate quality assurance standards to ensure that the scientific basis of the project is sound. We are conducting a thorough review of all work completed by the identified individuals to ensure that other work was not affected. “Additionally, we have informed the US Geological Survey and the State of Nevada. We have initiated an evaluation to determine if the systematic quality assurance improvements undertaken over the last four years are sufficient to prevent the reoccurrence of a similar situation. And we plan to reemphasize to project personnel the importance of strict adherence to quality assurance procedures. “I am greatly disturbed by the possibility that any of the work related to the Yucca Mountain Project may have been falsified. This behavior indicated in the emails is completely unacceptable, and I have referred this matter to the Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General for full investigation. “The safe handling and disposal of nuclear waste and the sound scientific basis for the repository safety analysis are priorities for this Administration and the Department of Energy. All related decisions have been, and will continue to be, based on sound science. “The fact remains that this country needs a permanent geological nuclear waste repository, and the Administration will continue to aggressively pursue that goal. We are committed to the safety and protection of the citizens of Nevada as we pursue the development of the Yucca Mountain project.” Media contact: Anne Womack-Kolton, 202/586-4940 Number: R-05-054 --- Statement by US Geological Survey Director Chip Groat March 16, 2005 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey http://www.usgs.gov/public/press/public_affairs/press_releases/pr2042m.html WASHINGTON, D.C.-The Department of Energy has notified the Department of the Interior that e-mails by United States Geological Survey employees have raised serious questions about the review process of scientific studies done six years ago on the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository located in Nevada. The employees studying water infiltration at the Repository, during the 1998-2000 period, are alleged to have committed improprieties after moving into the quality assurance phase imposed by the Department of Energy to begin the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process. The e-mails indicated that employees involved in studies of water infiltration and climate may have falsified documentation of their work. USGS Director Chip Groat has issued the following statement: "Serious questions have been raised about quality assurance practices performed in 1998-2000 by USGS scientists on the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository project for the Department of Energy. Two actions are underway to investigate these issues. First, I have referred the matter to the Inspector General for action. Second, I have initiated an internal review of the allegations. Once the facts are known, appropriate actions will be taken. USGS remains committed to maintaining scientific excellence." To receive USGS news releases go to http://www.usgs.gov/public/list_server.html to subscribe. http://www.usgs.gov USGS Home page Index of USGS News Releases U.S. Geological Survey, MS119 National Center, Reston, VA 20192, USA URL http://www.usgs.gov/public/press/public_affairs/press_releases/pr2042m.html Contact USGS Last Modification: Wednesday, 16-Mar-2005 17:27:37 EST U.S. Geological Survey Office of Communication 119 National Center Reston, VA 20192 Contact A.B. Wade Phone 703-648-4483 -------- new york Judge says nuclear plant company retaliated against NY whistleblower By WILLIAM KATES Associated Press Writer March 16, 2005, 9:01 PM EST http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--nuclearwhistleblo0316mar16,0,5018889.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- A New Orleans-based energy company retaliated against a former engineer for reporting safety problems at the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear plant and must give him his job back, a federal administrative law has ruled. Entergy engaged in "a rigorous and consistent pattern of discrimination" against Carl Patrickson before finally firing him in November 2003, U.S. Labor Department Administrative Law Judge Daniel Solomon concluded. Solomon ordered the Louisiana company to reinstate Patrickson and pay his legal fees. "Considering the many months that he has endured as an outcast from his industry, this is a great day for Carl, and for whistleblowers in general," Lawrence Ordway, Patrickson's attorney, said Wednesday. Entergy spokeswoman Bonnie Bostian said the company has appealed Solomon's ruling. She declined further comment, citing confidentiality laws. The company has maintained there are no safety problems at the FitzPatrick plant located by Lake Ontario, 45 miles north of Syracuse. Patrickson also is appealing the ruling for lost wages and damages. Ordway admitted the appeal process was likely to extend the case for at least another year. "Carl and his wife are not going anywhere. Entergy is not going to wear them down. They will not win this by attrition," Ordway said. Patrickson said the legal battle _ and 68 weeks of unemployment _ has been an emotional and financial strain but he was determined to persevere. "The problems are still there, and they still need to be fixed," said Patrickson, 54, of Mexico, N.Y., who worked at the plant for 14 years. In his complaint to the Labor Department, Patrickson claimed Entergy retaliated against him for raising a series of safety issues with plant managers and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, including a problem with an emergency cooling system that Patrickson said makes the plant vulnerable to a fire or a terrorist attack. He first raised safety concerns in 1991 when the plant was owned by the New York Power Authority, Patrickson said, and then went to the NRC in 1997 when the problems persisted. Entergy bought the plant in 2000. The NRC reviewed Patrickson's concerns and dismissed them as unwarranted. Entergy told Patrickson it was firing him because he failed to meet the terms of an employee performance improvement plan, a type of probation he had been placed on in April 2003. Before his firing, Patrickson said, the company required him to submit to unreasonable drug-testing and a psychological evaluation. Patrickson passed them all, Ordway said. Although a subsequent investigation by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration did not find any discrimination occurred, Solomon ruled that "the sequence of events demonstrates that Entergy used those performance problems as a pretext for discrimination." A spokesman for Citizens Awareness Network, a regional anti-nuclear grassroots organization, on Wednesday praised Patrickson's resolve and called on Entergy to drop its appeal and correct the problems. "The message Entergy sends workers is that you risk your career by trying to protect your community," said Tim Judson. On the Net: Citizens Awareness Network: www.nukebusters.org Entergy: http://www.entergy.com -------- ohio From Potatoes to Plutonium By Leslie Fuger (Freelancer) 3/16/2005 in Boise Weekly http://www.altweeklies.com/gyrobase/AltWeeklies/Story?oid=oid%3A147839 Tim Frazier was raised near Dayton, Ohio, and spent his childhood within sight of the Department of Energy (DOE) Mound Site in nearby Miamisburg. Unfortunately, the plant is not only known for working to advance nuclear technology. It also caused extensive uranium contamination of the groundwater aquifer, and soil contamination including radium, tritium and plutonium-238. Despite problems associated with Mound over the years, Frazier grew up to manage the facility. "I have the utmost confidence in the DOE's construction and maintenance of nuclear facilities," he said. "I even moved my wife and two little girls closer to the site when I took over." Today, Frazier is the document manager for a proposed plutonium production consolidation project for the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and the DOE's technical expert on plutonium-238. (On February 1, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory-West became the Idaho National Laboratory.) Frazier was part of a DOE team that recently conducted "scoping" meetings in Idaho and surrounding states to answer questions and quell fears about the plan to bring all the plutonium-238 production to Idaho. Citizens attending the meetings stated concerns that bringing plutonium-238-sometimes referred to as the most deadly substance known to man-to Idaho would jeopardize the environment and health of residents around the INL facility in Eastern Idaho. Plutonium-238 is an isotope created after irradiating neptunium-237 with a nuclear reactor. It is 275 times more radioactive than weapons grade plutonium, since it decays much faster. Engineers harness the significant heat created by this rapid decay to generate electricity for radioisotope power systems, as well as unmanned NASA spacecraft like satellites and interplanetary probes. The Viking craft that landed on Mars in 1976 and the Cassini Space Probe were two crafts that relied on long-lived plutonium-238 batteries to power their scientific instruments. But Frazier says that many obstacles keep scientists from making the compact thermoelectric generators as efficiently as they should. "Currently the department produces these systems in a very inefficient and dangerous way," he says. "First we ship neptunium-237 from Idaho to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where it gets fabricated into targets. It is then shipped back to Idaho for irradiation, shipped nearly a thousand miles to Los Alamos in New Mexico for processing and finally trucked back to Idaho for construction of the radioisotope power systems. We want folks to know that we could make the process so much safer and cheaper by consolidating it in Idaho." The DOE claims that centering this entire process in Idaho will streamline nuclear production, improve safety issues dealing with transportation and potentially save millions of dollars. But according to Jeremy Maxand, the executive director of the nuclear watchdog group The Snake River Alliance, the DOE's claims are only half the story. "Idahoans are being asked to bear the burden of the cost and risk without being told the benefit," Maxand says. "It makes me highly suspicious that on one hand they sell this extremely hazardous process to Idahoans via sleek NASA space batteries, when in fact we've made them for decades using plutonium purchased from Russia's stockpile. Then in the next breath they'll say that the plutonium-238 produced in Idaho will be used for classified national security missions that are not space based at all." Frazier is guarded in his descriptions of the missions that would be supported by the $230 million proposed facility. He insists, however, "They are no non-military, non-defense related national security; the plutonium-238 will not be used in earth's orbit or for spy satellites, nor will they be in any way space based." As for the Russian plutonium, Frazier is more forthcoming. "Indeed," he says, "We have been allowed to purchase plutonium for NASA space missions from Russia, but we have made agreements with their government not to use it for our many national security purposes. Plus, just because the Russians happen to be our friends right now doesn't mean they will be in the future. The U.S. needs to decrease our reliance on their plutonium." Maxand, however, is still not convinced. "O.K., the DOE is proposing a project that could leave Idahoans breathing plutonium for the next 80 years and [they] won't tell us what its for," he says. "Lets talk about something they can't hide from the public. Plutonium-238 is lethal and difficult to contain. Is this secrecy going to benefit Idahoans given the DOE's well-documented and abysmal track record for worker, community and environmental safety?" Fears over secrecy are nothing new to the DOE. For over 40 years, the department operated the nation's defense nuclear weapons complex without any independent, external oversight. As a result, by the late 1980s, significant public health and safety issues had accumulated at many facilities. In response, Congress created an independent oversight organization, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The DNFSB is charged with providing advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy "to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety." It has also issued stern warnings to the DOE over the past decade about HEPA filtration systems, a safeguard intended to be the last line of defense for the public against toxic emissions. "The HEPA filtration and passive confinement ventilation systems widely used in nuclear facilities are not adequately capable of containing hazardous materials with confidence since they allow a quantity of unfiltered air contaminated with radioactive material to be released from an operating nuclear facility during accident scenarios," said the DNFSB. When asked about possible accidents like earthquakes, tornados and fires compromising a building that housed plutonium-238 in Idaho, Tim Frazier's only response is brief: "Those situations are highly unlikely." Unexpected events and accidents, however, have occurred. In 1957, for instance, a fire began in a glove box at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in Golden, Colorado. Combustible gases passed under pressure through ventilation ductwork, ignited the HEPA filters, and caused the exhaust system to explode. Plutonium contamination, spread throughout the building and outdoors through the ventilation system. Observers outside the building saw a "very dark" smoke plume 80 to 100 feet high billowing from the building. Another fire in 1969, again at Rocky Flats, spread through several hundred interconnected glove boxes in two connected buildings. Caused by the spontaneous ignition of a plutonium briquette, the blaze contaminated the two large buildings and exposed firemen to high doses of radiation. Off-site plutonium measurements after the accident were well above normal. More recently, in the summer of 2000, wildfires in the vicinity of the Hanford Nuclear Facility hit the highly radioactive waste disposal trenches. Airborne plutonium radiation levels in the nearby cities of Pasco and Richland, Washington, were reportedly elevated to1,000 times above normal. According to a 2004 report by the National Center for Environmental Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there is abundant evidence in areas surrounding the Los Alamos National Labratory-the site after which INL's complex would be modeled-that hazardous emissions are escaping the facility despite DOE's best efforts to contain it. The CDC concluded that the soil surrounding LANL contains as much as 100 times more plutonium than was previously estimated. According to the same report, Los Alamos County has an abnormally high rate of breast, melanoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, ovary, prostate, testicular and thyroid cancers, and Los Alamos residents, even those who have never worked at the lab itself, have more plutonium in their bodies than any one other county nationwide. Despite reassurances from government officials, many Idahoans remain unconvinced. And if attendance at the first round of public meetings is any indication of disapproval, the plutonium consolidation proposal could meet stiff resistance from all corners of the state. "Even under the best circumstances, plutonium is difficult to control and could have devastating health and environmental impacts on Idaho's people and environment," says Maxand. "Plutonium is a boomerang that has always come back to bite us, and this project will be no different." While the DOE is set to release the draft Environmental Impact Statement in late April, DOE officials maintain they intend on starting construction of the INL plutonium facility in October of this year. The Snake River Alliance is organizing public meetings across Idaho to inform people of the potential risks involved with such a proposal. -------- south carolina First U.S. MOX Fuel Begins Journey to South Carolina PARIS, France, March 16, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2005/2005-03-16-09.asp#anchor1 A cargo of 140 kilograms (308 pounds) of U.S. weapons-grade plutonium in the form of nuclear fuel, mixed uranium-plutonium (MOX) has completed the first leg of its journey from France to the United States. The armed convoy left the Areva plutonium fuel factory at Marcoule, north of Avignon, between early Tuesday morning. It travelled around 1,000 kilometer (620 miles) over land to Areva's la Hague plutonium complex in Normandy and arrived Tuesday night. The nuclear cargo will be repackaged and taken in the coming days to Cherbourg for sea transport to the U.S. port of Charleston, South Carolina. The MOX fuel was approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission earlier this month for use in Duke Energy's Catawba Nuclear Power Station near York, South Carolina. It is part of the U.S.-Russian program to convert weapons-grade nuclear materials to civilian use. Greenpeace activists tracked the transport as it neared la Hague, to alert the public and local authorities to the safety and security risk it presents and to voice opposition to the proliferation threat posed by such trade in nuclear weapons materials. "This whole plutonium program is about the survival of the nuclear industry in France, the U.S. and Russia," said Yannick Rousselet of Greenpeace France. "Instead of proliferating more plutonium around the planet, governments need to take action to shut down this industry before catastrophe strike." Greenpeace rejects the transport and use of all nuclear weapons materials and is calling for an international treaty that bans the further production and use of weapons-usable fissile materials such as plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Greenpeace says the convoy travelled over major French highways "without adequate protection and packaging, and will also present a risk when at sea." The security of plutonium transports will also be discussed at an IAEA nuclear security conference in London this week see http://www.iaea.org for further details. -------- utah NRC chief's comments anger foes of nuclear waste By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News Wednesday, March 16, 2005 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600118944,00.html State officials and activists opposed to the proposed storage of high-level nuclear waste in Utah are dismayed by the attitude of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission toward safety risks of the project. But a spokeswoman for the company proposing to build the facility, Private Fuel Storage, said the nuclear industry has shown it is safe to transport and store such wastes. Nils A. Diaz, chairman of the NRC, does not believe undue risks would be posed by 40,000 casks of spent nuclear fuel if they are sent to a temporary storage plant in Utah. PFS proposes to build the facility in Tooele County on land owned by the Skull Valley band of the Goshute Indians. Located about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, it would store highly radioactive spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants across the country. Diaz said residents of the Wasatch Front would not suffer health or environmental damage because of the storage, even if a terrorist attack breached some of the containers. They "pose no radiological hazard with the present weaponry" available to terrorists, he said. The concentration of canisters could make it so an attack by aircraft could damage a few that were knocked together, he said. But even if some were breached, Diaz added, radiation leakage would be confined to the immediate area, not reaching more than two miles beyond the site. But suppose a train transporting spent fuel rods was attacked in a more populated setting, said Jason Groenewold, director of the Health Environment Alliance of Utah. "If that happens in the heart of the Wasatch Front on our rail lines, that would be devastating to our economy and to our community," Groenewold said. Estimates are that shipments of nuclear power plant radioactive wastes "would travel past the homes of approximately 50 million Americans as nuclear waste is transported to the West," he said. Groenewold said Utah's congressional delegation should stand firmly with Nevada and insist that waste must be stored in the areas where it was generated. Nevada officials have long fought the establishment of a permanent high-level waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain. Sue Martin, spokeswoman for PFS, said a facility like the one the company proposes building "clearly involves potentially hazardous materials." But the nuclear power industry has developed "the experience and the expertise to know that these materials can be transported and stored safely," she said. "This is not a new technology that we are proposing," she said, noting it has been in operation for more than 20 years in some locations. "In fact, in the whole history of the commercial nuclear power industry in this country, there has never been a radiation related injury or fatality." According to Diane Nielson, executive director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, the NRC's own licensing board found a year ago that the risk of an Air Force F-16 crashing into a storage site in Utah would be greater than one in a million — the cutoff point for risk, beyond which a license could not be issued. But the board reanalyzed the situation and asked what would happen in the case of such an accident, and concluded that the risk of radiation was not high enough to stop the plant. The board made a 2-1 decision, she said. The nuclear engineer on the board, who understood the technical problems, said this is a significant risk, she said. "We think the nuclear engineer got it right," Nielson added. "Regarding the other safeguard-homeland security issues, the response of the NRC really hasn't been sufficient at this point," she said. Chip Ward, a Utah author and longtime activist concerned about PFS, denounced Diaz' position. "The notion that if terrorists hit that storage facility or if a plane crashes into it, there's no hazard for us downwind, is self-evidently silly," he said. He called the NRC an enabler for the nuclear industry. "If you ever wondered if the NRC has a shred of credibility left, you should no longer have doubts," he said. Steve Erickson, director of the activist group Citizens Education Project, said a catastrophic breach of a cask is of low probability. "It's still a risk that is not worth taking at this time," he said. Erickson has a video produced by contractors who wanted to sell a sheath around a containment cask to prevent penetration by a shoulder-fired missile, he said. "Before the sheath was put around the cask, it (the missile) blew an 8-inch-diameter hole into it. So I'm skeptical about that assertion." Studies show that if a cask were breached, in the worse-case scenario, "that would result in massive evacuations, latent cancer deaths and billions of dollars in cleanup." Just cleaning up could take years, Erickson said. Utah "should not be a dumping ground for waste, including high-level nuclear waste," said Lawson Legate, the Sierra Club senior southwest regional representative, whose office is in Salt Lake City. "If it's safe to transport and it's safe to store above ground in Utah, it should be safe to store in the various locations across the country where it was generated." "Almost sends me back to childhood," commented Jay Truman, founder and director of the advocacy group Downwinders. Living 100 miles downwind from the Nevada Test Site, he would hear pronouncements from the Atomic Energy Commission on the radio: "There is no danger, we repeat, there is no danger." That happened, Truman said, "as that morning's fallout clouds blew by overhead." E-mail: bau@desnews.com -------- vermont VY, state disagree on levels Methodology differs on radiation report By CAROLYN LORIé Brattleboro Reformer Staff Wednesday, March 16, 2005 http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~2764992,00.html# BRATTLEBORO -- Officials at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee have not been using the method they agreed to for reporting radiation levels at the fence line. This came to light recently when one of the Vermont Department of Health monitors recorded elevated radiation levels at the fence line and was compared to data collected by Entergy. Instead of using its fence line monitors -- known as thermoluminescent detectors -- to report radiation levels to the state, plant engineers rely on data from radiation monitors located in the plant. That data is then used to calculate what the radiation level along the fence line should be. State law requires radiation levels at the perimeter of the plant grounds to not exceed 20 millirem a year. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows that level to be 25 millirem, in testimony before the Vermont Public Service Board, Entergy agreed to stay within the state's limits. It was also during a hearing before the Public Service Board that Vermont Yankee officials testified that they would use their own fence line monitors to record and report the data. In a March 11 letter to plant site vice president Jay Thayer, the commissioners of the Vermont Departments of Public Service and Health wrote: "Entergy's methodology for determining compliance and the state's methodology for determining compliance with the Health Department standard are yielding disparate results." Entergy was directed to do a "prompt review and analysis of methods for measuring and monitoring compliance" with the state's fence line radiation limit. According to Dr. Paul Jarris, commissioner of the health department, it is not yet clear if the plant did exceed the 20 millirem limit because of the conflicting data between the state and Entergy. If it turns out that Vermont Yankee did exceed the limit, the company must submit a plan to correct the problem with an "aggressive implementation timeline." Department of Health officials will be taking part in the analysis. Jarris said there is no immediate danger to the public. State nuclear engineer Bill Sherman said Vermont Yankee's fence line calculations not only disagreed with the state's monitors but was also in conflict with its own fence line monitors. Entergy officials would not confirm or deny this, stating only that they were "looking into aspects of both methods to insure that the issue is addressed." A report on the matter is expected by April 1. While state officials are not speculating about why there may be an increase in radiation levels at the fence line, New England Coalition expert witness Arnold Gundersen said it may be related to modifications made for the proposed power increase. According to Gundersen, part of the uprate-related modifications done during the more recent refueling outage included putting in a larger high pressure turbine. The larger turbine can hold more steam coming out of the reactor core. In the steam is the radioactive isotope nitrogen 16, which breaks down quickly. In the process of breaking down the isotope emits gamma rays. Because there are more gamma gays in the turbine, there are more being admitted into the atmosphere. It is the level of gamma rays that are recorded at fence line. Gundersen also said that if the uprate is approved and Vermont Yankee begins producing 20 percent more power, there could be a 37 percent increase in the radiation level around the plant. Under Vermont law, if Vermont Yankee exceeds the 20 millirem limit, it must either scale back the operation of the plant or shield the source of the radiation to lower the exposure. ---- State challenge in VY uprate case dismissed By CAROLYN LORIé Wednesday, March 16, 2005 Brattleboro Reformer Staff http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8862~2764994,00.html BRATTLEBORO -- The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dismissed one of the state's legal challenges in the Vermont Yankee uprate case. On Oct. 18, 2004, the Vermont Department of Public Service filed a late contention -- after the five it originally filed -- challenging a calculation plant officials included in their uprate application. The calculation had to do with the ability of plant operators to act in time to keep the core covered, in the event of an accident. If Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee is allowed to produce 20 percent more power, the amount of time it would take for the core to be exposed during an accident would drop from 25.3 minutes to 21.3 minutes. In the uprate application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, plant officials claimed that operators could start the cooling systems that would keep the core covered within 15 minutes. The claim was based on a shutdown analysis that was done but it had not yet been verified. Verification was expected on Dec. 1, 2004. The state, however, charged that the application was not in compliance with NRC regulations because it had not verified its calculations but was instead relying on assumptions. Furthermore, the state argued that not only was verification needed but it had to verify the calculations according to NRC regulations. While the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -- a quasi-judicial body that presides over licensing hearings -- accepted the state's challenge, it limited it to the need for verification. It rejected the state's request that the method of proving the calculation and the conclusions reached also had to be proven accurate. On Dec. 8, 2004, Entergy officials submitted the report to the NRC. In it, plant officials stated that a training program guide had been developed for the operators and that all six licensed operators crews had been trained. It also stated that each crew took part in a timed dry run of the new procedure and demonstrated that the cooling systems could be started within "approximately 15 minutes." Because the verification had been completed, the board dismissed the contention. According to state nuclear engineer Bill Sherman, the Department of Public Service wanted the issue kept open until the NRC reviewed the data. He added that the department is reviewing its options, one of which would be to file a new contention focused solely on the conclusions of the verification process. In other Vermont Yankee news, the NRC staff reported to the board that they did not yet have a schedule for completing several reports the board requested. According to documents filed, the staff could not provide a schedule due to the "continued delays in the submission of necessary application supplements" from Vermont Yankee. When asked why there was a delay, Rob Williams, spokesman for the plant, said that staff and contractors "were taking the time necessary" to insure that all the information was accurate and complete. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Rice sees China's move on Taiwan as sign for EU to forgo arms sales March 16, 2005 By Anne Gearan ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050315-111754-7742r.htm NEW DELHI -- China's new law authorizing military force against Taiwan could make Europe think twice about selling new weaponry to the Chinese, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday. Miss Rice, in Asia for talks this week, also said she will not let North Korea play the United States and its allies against each other in an attempt to hang onto its nuclear weapons program. She has a long agenda in Beijing later this week, a visit made more delicate by China's decision to codify a threat to attack Taiwan if the island declares independence. The Bush administration criticized the move, and Miss Rice said she will discuss it with Chinese leaders. Miss Rice said the law may make European nations reconsider resuming weapons sales that were suspended after the deadly 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square. So far, the United States has been unable to persuade the European Union to continue the embargo, despite a major diplomatic offensive by Miss Rice. Today in New Delhi, Miss Rice will promote expanding defense ties with India, and later with Pakistan, but is expected to stop short of announcing fighter plane sales to the nuclear-armed rivals, U.S. officials said. On China, the Bush administration says more and better weaponry for the country would upset the region's security balance, and could mean the United States might face improved Chinese firepower if forced to defend Taiwan from a mainland attack. "The Europeans ... know very well our views on the arms embargo, that this is not a time to end the arms embargo," Miss Rice told reporters en route to India, the first stop on her one-week trip. "I would hope it would at least remind the Europeans that there are still serious security issues in this region." Miss Rice may use her visits to India and Pakistan to discuss new sales of F-16 fighter planes to the neighboring, rival countries. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said no announcement of new weapons sales was expected during the trip. Miss Rice, who will make her first trip to Afghanistan before stops in East Asia, said she will raise U.S. demands for democratic or human rights reforms at every stop, including Beijing. China insisted yesterday that its new law is meant to promote peaceful unification with Taiwan, but Miss Rice said, "It's our responsibility to say to both the parties that unilateral moves that increase tensions are really not helpful." As for North Korea, Miss Rice blamed the destitute country for its diplomatic isolation, and said international diplomacy remains the best way to persuade the communist regime to give up its nuclear ambitions. "The six-party framework is the best and most reliable way to deal with the North Korean program, because it has all of the important neighbors at the table," Miss Rice said. "What the North Koreans would like is to get into a bilateral discussion with the United States so that one by one they can cut separate deals on this issue, and we're not going to allow them to do it." ---- U.S. Alleges 18 Plotted To Smuggle Soviet Arms Associated Press Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A03 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38611-2005Mar15.html NEW YORK, March 15 -- U.S. authorities charged 18 people in an alleged scheme to smuggle grenade launchers, shoulder-fired missiles and other Russian military weapons into the United States, officials announced Tuesday. The arrests resulted from a yearlong investigation in which an FBI informant posed as an arms buyer with ties to al Qaeda. The case, which took investigators to South Africa, Armenia and the Republic of Georgia, included wiretaps on seven phones and intercepts of more than 15,000 calls, according to prosecutors, the FBI and police. The informant, an explosives expert, contacted the FBI after he was approached by a man who said he had access to weapons from the former Soviet Union and believed the informant could find a willing buyer, federal prosecutors said. Using a digital camera, members of the ring, which included Armenians and South Africans, provided pictures of the weapons they said they had available for sale, prosecutors said. The pictures, apparently taken in Armenia, showed antitank missiles, a Russian missile launcher and an antitank rifle, among other weapons, officials said. Seventeen of the 18 people charged were in custody Tuesday, arrested in New York, Los Angeles or Florida, authorities said. Prosecutors alleged that the defendants were preparing to import the weapons, including antitank missile systems, into the country from Eastern Europe. The FBI is working with Armenian and Russian authorities to secure the weapons, authorities said. A criminal complaint unsealed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan charged five men with conspiring to transport destructive devices and 13 others with weapons trafficking for their alleged roles in supplying machine guns and other assault weapons destined to be sold to the informant. According to the complaint, the informant met defendants Artur Solomonyan and Christiaan Dewet Spies on several occasions in New York to discuss the weapons deals. Solomonyan, an Armenian citizen who lives in New York and Los Angeles, and Spies, a South African citizen who lives in New York, were arrested Monday night at a Manhattan hotel after meeting one last time with the informant to finalize their plans before leaving the country to obtain the weapons, prosecutors alleged. If convicted, each would face a prison term of up to 30 years. ---- Arms Network Is Broken Up, Officials Say By JULIA PRESTON March 16, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/nyregion/16arms.html?pagewanted=print&position= Law enforcement authorities have broken up a network of international arms smugglers who sold black-market assault rifles in the United States and were plotting to import military weapons - including anti-aircraft missiles and antitank guns - from Eastern Europe, federal and New York City officials announced yesterday. The arms dealers sold the weapons to a confidential informer working with the F.B.I. who told them he was buying the arms for Al Qaeda, said David N. Kelley, the United States attorney in Manhattan, at a news conference. Mr. Kelley said the dealers were not associated with any terrorist organization but were selling the weapons to make money. The officials charged that the arms ring was led by Artur Solomonyan, an Armenian, and Christiaan Dewet Spies, a South African, who have been living illegally in New York. In cellphone conversations secretly recorded by the F.B.I., the men said they intended to buy the more sophisticated weapons primarily from the Russian military but also from sellers linked to the armed forces in Ukraine and Georgia, Mr. Kelley said. Although no terrorists were directly involved, the officials said the case represented a sobering warning that there were dealers in the illegal international arms market capable of importing battlefield weapons to the United States and ready to sell them to terrorists. "These defendants may not have been terrorists themselves, but they've shown a transparent willingness to do anything with anybody so long as it generates income for their organization," said Andrew Arena, a special agent in charge of the Criminal Division of the F.B.I. in New York. Mr. Kelley unsealed a federal criminal complaint for weapons trafficking yesterday against 18 people he said participated in the arms network. The two accused ringleaders and 15 other defendants were arrested by the F.B.I. and the local police Monday night and yesterday morning in roundups in New York City, Los Angeles and Miami, the officials said. The remaining defendant, identified as Armand Abramian, 27, was being sought in California. Mr. Solomonyan, 26, protested that he was not guilty as he was escorted yesterday into Federal District Court in Manhattan. "I was trapped in this thing," he said. "I don't know what's going on." Also named in the complaint was his brother, Levon, 24. The arrests came after a yearlong investigation in which the confidential informer secretly recorded hours of conversations with the defendants, and the F.B.I. taped more than 15,000 calls on seven telephones, officials said. During the year, they said, the arms ring sold the informer eight illegal weapons, mostly military assault rifles, including two AK-47's and an Israeli-made Uzi. The dealers delivered three of the guns in New York City, three in Los Angeles and two in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in transactions that were monitored by the F.B.I. In recent weeks, the defendants made a $2.2 million deal to sell the informer more powerful, mainly Russian-made weapons, Mr. Kelley said. They gave the informer photographs of the weapons, which they said they were holding somewhere in Eastern Europe and were ready to import by ship to the United States. The photos, which officials displayed yesterday, included images of two SA-7b Strella surface-to-air heat-seeking anti-aircraft missiles and a Russian AT-4 Spigot antitank guided missile and launcher. Early in their discussions, Artur Solomonyan told the informer he could obtain enriched uranium that could be "used in the subway," Mr. Kelley said. But he said the subject was "never followed up," and there was no evidence that the arms ring ever trafficked in nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. "It never happened," Mr. Kelley said. Mr. Spies, 33, told the informer that he had ties to the Russian mafia, the complaint says. But none of the defendants are Russian; they include people from Georgia, Italy and France, as well as several Americans. Mr. Kelley said that officials suspected they were buying arms from "rogue folks within Eastern European military circles" but that it was still not clear whether they were members of the military or black marketeers. According to the complaint, the F.B.I. informer began meeting a year ago with Mr. Spies, whom he had known for several years, and Mr. Solomonyan. The informer, who does not speak Russian, had provided information to American authorities in a separate case three years ago, the officials said. The first meeting between the informer and the two accused of leading the weapons ring took place in the sauna and then the hot tub at a day spa in Brooklyn, the complaint says. Mr. Solomonyan told the informer that his contacts were former officials of the K.G.B., the Soviet intelligence service, the complaint says; he said he hoped to acquire weapons from military operations in Chechnya, where Russian forces have been fighting a separatist insurgency. In one secretly recorded cellular phone conversation, Mr. Solomonyan said he had never made an arms deal before and worried that the informer, who he thought was an arms broker, would think he was too young, according to the complaint. The arrests began Monday night, when Mr. Solomonyan and Mr. Spies went to a meeting with the informer in Manhattan, where they had been told he would give them false immigration green cards so they could leave the United States to pick up the promised weapons. Instead, they were met by F.B.I. and New York police agents. Mr. Arena, the F.B.I. official, said the case showed that it was shortsighted to contend that that agency should focus exclusively on combating terrorism and turn its attention away from international organized crime. The defendants' "knowledge of smuggling routes, their access to weapons and their facility with financial trickery are the things terrorists need to turn a deadly dream into deadly reality," he said. -------- prisoners of war Report: 108 Died In U.S. Custody Associated Press WASHINGTON, March 16, 2005 http://delerone.net/riot-folk/Mark%20Gunnery%20-%20Sticking%20To%20The%20Union.mp3 Some 65,000 prisoners have been taken during the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (AP) At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel. The figure, far higher than any previously disclosed, includes cases investigated by the Army, Navy, CIA and Justice Department. Some 65,000 prisoners have been taken during the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although most have been freed. The Pentagon has never provided comprehensive information on how many prisoners taken during the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have died, and the 108 figure is based on information supplied by Army, Navy and other government officials. It includes deaths attributed to natural causes. To human rights groups, the deaths form a clear pattern. "Despite the military's own reports of deaths and abuses of detainees in U.S. custody, it is astonishing that our government can still pretend that what is happening is the work of a few rogue soldiers," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "No one at the highest levels of our government has yet been held accountable for the torture and abuse, and that is unacceptable." To the Pentagon, each death is a distinct case, meriting an investigation but not attributable to any single faulty military policy. Pentagon officials point to a number of military investigations which found that no policy condoned abuse. Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. John Skinner said the military has taken steps to reduce the chance of violent uprisings at its prisons and the use of excessive force by soldiers, and also has improved the health care available to prisoners. "The military has dramatically improved detention operations, everything from increased oversight and improved facilities to expanded training and the availability of state-of-the-art medical care," he said in a statement. ©MMV, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. -------- space Pentagon Has Far-Reaching Defense Spacecraft in Works Bush Administration Looking to Space to Fight Threats By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A03 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38272-2005Mar15?language=printer The Pentagon is working to develop a suborbital space capsule within the next five years that would be launched from the United States and could deliver conventional weapons anywhere in the world within two hours, defense officials said. This year, the Falcon program will test a launcher for its Common Aero Vehicle (CAV), an unmanned maneuverable spacecraft that would travel at five times the speed of sound and could carry 1,000 pounds of munitions, intelligence sensors or other payloads. Among the system's strengths is that commanders could order a CAV -- an unpowered glide vehicle -- not to release its payload if they decided not to follow through with an attack. The first-generation CAV, expected to be ready by 2010, will have "an incredible capability to provide the warfighter with a global reach capability against high payoff targets," Gen. Lance W. Lord, commander of Air Force Space Command, told the House Armed Services Committee last Wednesday. Within the next three years, the Falcon program hopes to enter a second stage of the effort: flight-testing two versions of a reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle, sometimes referred to as a space plane, that could travel a suborbital path, about 100,000 feet high, carrying a CAV anywhere in the world. Unlike a missile, the vehicle could return to its base after releasing the CAV to deliver bombs or intelligence sensors. The Falcon program vehicles "will improve the military's ability to quickly position intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance payloads, while reducing its reliance on forward and foreign basing," Anthony J. "Tony" Tether, director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee last week. While most public attention today focuses on meeting threats abroad with traditional land, sea and air forces, the Falcon program reflects how the Bush administration is increasingly looking to space to meet dangers it anticipates. The use of space "enables us to project power anywhere in the world from secure bases of operation," says the Pentagon's national defense strategy, which Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed on March 1. Among the key goals in the strategy paper are "to ensure our access to and use of space and to deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries." The strategy paper, done every four years, provides the policy basis on which the armed services plan their research, development and acquisitions of weapons systems. This year's strategy, Rumsfeld wrote, "emphasizes the importance of influencing events before challenges become more dangerous and less manageable." In congressional appearances over two weeks, Lord, Tether and other senior Pentagon officials have described a variety of new space initiatives for meeting challenges such as updating intelligence and communications satellite programs and even fielding systems that would allow the United States to temporarily silence enemy satellites if the need arose. Space communications have already become important to U.S. warfighting. As Lord put it, "Our most recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq prove our nation relies on capabilities coming from and through space more than ever before." For example, more than 60 percent of all communications at the height of Operation Iraqi Freedom came through satellites, which also guided munitions to targets and today transmit intelligence from the United States directly to troops fighting in the field. Looking to the future, the defense strategy calls for the use of space vehicles that provide capabilities beyond the current intercontinental missiles to thwart any future adversaries that move to prevent U.S. use of land or sea bases. Such abilities, Lord told the House members, are dubbed "prompt global strike" and represent "a top priority for our space and missile forces." Because CAVs, unlike missiles, can be recalled, they could be launched toward a potential target even before a final decision was made to attack. The system could, Lord said, "deliver a conventional payload precisely on target within minutes of a valid command and control release order." The capability offered by CAV would also reduce the need for overseas bases and enable the United States "to react promptly and decisively to destabilizing or threatening actions by hostile countries and terrorist organizations," according to DARPA's early solicitation for bids put out in mid-2003. John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a nongovernmental defense think tank, said yesterday that the Falcon and CAV programs will allow the United States "to crush someone anywhere in world on 30 minutes' notice with no need for a nearby air base." In addition to creating attack weapons, the Pentagon is working on new defense systems to protect the ever-more-important satellites the United States has in space. "I think everybody that I know in the United States military and the Department of Defense understands the important role that our space assets play in our national security," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee last Thursday. Last October, the Pentagon announced deployment of its first mobile ground-based system that could temporarily disrupt satellite-based communications from an enemy satellite. The counter-communications system uses powerful electromagnetic radio frequency energy to silence transmissions from a satellite in a way that is reversible if the need passes. Two more units are due later this year. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- courts / tribunals Detroit Hazwaste Executive Sentenced to 27 Months DETROIT, Michigan, March 16, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2005/2005-03-16-09.asp#anchor4 Gazi George, former vice president of the City Environmental facility in Detroit, was sentenced today to 27 months imprisonment and a fine of $60,000, after pleading guilty to felony violations of the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). During the period from September 1998 until August 1999, George and a convicted co-conspirator allowed millions of gallons of untreated waste to flow into the sewers of Detroit, and from there to the Detroit River. In addition, thousands of tons of hazardous waste were sent to a landfill that was not designed to handle hazardous waste. George's guilty plea was entered on September 24, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A federal indictment filed August 21, 2003 charged George and facility operations manager Donald Roeser with violating the Clean Water Act by bypassing treatment and tampering with a monitoring device, and violating the RCRA by causing the transportation of hazardous waste to unpermitted facilities and making false statements. The two men were also charged with conspiracy to violate those laws. In December, 2004, Roeser was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $60,000. City Environmental was a waste treatment facility on Frederick Street in Detroit, Michigan. It was in the business of receiving, treating, hauling and disposing of liquid and solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste. City Environmental was authorized to introduce pollutants to the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) system pursuant to a permit that the DWSD issued to the facility. City Environmental's permit set forth limits on the types and concentrations of pollutants that the company could discharge. The permit also required that City Environmental regularly take samples of its effluent to determine whether the facility was in compliance with permit requirements. In order to comply with permit discharge requirements, City Environmental was required to treat much of the wastewater before discharging it into the sanitary sewer. But treatment did not take place. "The sentence imposed on Gazi George sends a strong message that intentional violation of environmental laws enacted to protect public health and the environment will not be tolerated," said Thomas Sansonetti, Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division "Dr. George's sentence serves as a reminder that those who intentionally violate our environmental laws do so at their peril. We will continue to do what we can to deter individuals and businesses from committing this type of crime," added U.S. Attorney Stephen J. Murphy, III. -------- justice Military Recruiters Target Campus Activists by Hadas Thier and Katrina Yeaw ZNET March 16, 2005 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=35&ItemID=7453 On Wednesday, March 9, I (Hadas Thier) and two other students from the City College of New York (CCNY), Justino Rodriguez and Nicholas Bergreen, were brutalized and arrested by campus security guards for peacefully protesting the presence of military recruiters at CCNY’s “career fair.” We were charged with misdemeanor counts of assaulting an officer, resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace, among other things. Hospital records from Mt. Sinai confirm that Bergreen and Rodriguez suffered multiple contusions and post-concussion syndrome. Our court date is set for April 5. What was the reaction of CCNY’s administration to these events? Without so much as a phone call to see if we were alright, or to find out our side of the story, Gregory H. Williams, the president of our college, sent an email to the entire faculty and student body repeating the allegations against us as if they were facts. “The confrontation escalated and several of the demonstrators grabbed and hit the officer. At this point, the three students involved in the attack on the officer were arrested,” he wrote. Perhaps his previous job experience as a small-town sheriff filled him with an innate sympathy for security forces. Nevertheless, Williams is now the president of an institution of higher learning. Debate, dissent, and yes, even protest, must not only be tolerated in education, they should be nurtured and encouraged. On the same day, Students Against War at San Francisco State University, a chapter of the Campus Antiwar Network, along with other student groups, organized a demonstration against military recruiters on our campus. Two hundred students rallied in Malcolm X Plaza and then marched inside the Cesar Chavez Student Center to confront Army and Air Force recruiters. For over 3 hours, students chanted down the recruiters and then surrounded them with a peaceful teach-in. The Army recruiters left within forty-five minutes. The Air Force recruiters held out longer, but ultimately gave up and left—without any new recruits. The following day, March 10th, military recruiters returned to the SFSU. When two activists attempted to hand out anti-recruitment leaflets by the recruiters’ tables, eight police officers surrounded them and forcibly removed them from their own student center, pushing them and twisting one activist’s arm. When the other activist asked why she was being forced to leave, she was pushed into a doorway, told she was causing a fire hazard by standing there, and then kicked out of the building. The military recruitment debate is heating up. With unemployment for Black men currently standing at 50 percent in New York, Harlem -- and CCNY in particular -- is bound to be a priority target for military recruiters. “Counter-recruitment” has become a national issue (see “Counter-Recruiters Shadowing the Military,” USA Today, March 7), and it’s working. Between these efforts, and widespread anger about the war, recruitment is down. According to a March 6 Reuters report, “The regular Army is 6 percent behind its year-to-date recruiting target, the Reserve is 10 percent behind, and the Guard is 26 percent short.” The military newspaper Stars and Stripes reports that African-American recruitment is down 41 percent since 2000. Counter-recruitment efforts have taken off from New York to Seattle and the military has clearly become concerned. At William Patterson University in New Jersey, an activist was arrested for simply handing out counter-recruitment leaflets. Twice last semester, CCNY student protesters drove military recruiters off of Colin Powell’s alma mater with peaceful protests. This time campus security was ready. “We didn’t even get through one round of chanting,” according to Tiffany Paul, a junior at CCNY and a member of the Campus Anti-War Network (CAN), who was one of the protesters. “We were completely peaceful. It was the officers who were violent.” On Friday, March 11, I (Hadas Their) was informed that I had been suspended from the University for “posing a continuing danger,” and was banned from even setting foot on campus, pending a hearing to take place sometime in the next seven days. On the same day, Carol Lang, a CCNY staff member, was picked up in her office and arrested in connection with Wednesday’s protest and also charged with assault. At SFSU a university spokesperson informed reporters that groups involved in the protest will be suspended and some of the individual students will also face discipline. Sean O'Neill, a veteran who returned from Iraq last year after serving with the Marines, spoke out in defense of the SFSU students who helped organize the counter-recruitment protest, saying, "Do students have the right to protest? Of course they do! Are you saying that people can't protest anything now? Anyone who's taken even a cursory glance at the Constitution will tell you that we have the right to protest whatever we want...As a vet, I don't take any offense! Anyone who doesn't want me over there is a friend in my book." Bush claims that his occupation of Iraq represents “democracy is on the march” in the Middle East. Will that include the right to protest? Certainly not for the 100,000 Iraqis killed by the U.S. since the March 2003 invasion, or the more than 1500 dead American soldiers. Blood and oil don’t mix and they don’t create democracy. Here in the U.S., high school and college student activists all over the country can take up the fight for peace and democracy and organize to kick recruiters out of their schools. Like the lunch counter sit-ins in Greensboro 45 years ago that challenged segregation in dozens of communities across the nation, you can get started opposing the recruiters at your school with just a few friends. Getting the military out of our schools and replacing them with real educational opportunities is our generation’s fight. No one will do it for us. We owe it to ourselves, the Iraqis, and the American soldiers dying for a lie. To find out what you can do to help, write to cityfreespeech@earthlink.net and SFSUfreespeech@gmail.com or go to CAN’s website www.campusantiwar.net Hadas Thier is a student at City College of New York. Katrina Yeaw is a student at San Francisco State University ---- Family of Rachel Corrie Sues Israeli Government and Caterpillar Inc. Two Years After She Was Crushed by Military Bulldozer Democracy Now Wednesday, March 16th, 2005 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/16/1458237 Today is the second anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie - the American peace activist killed by an Israel military bulldozer when she attempted to block the demolition of a Palestinian home in Gaza. Now, her family is suing the State of Israel and Caterpillar - the U.S. firm that manufactured the bulldozer that crushed her. We speak with Rachel Corrie's father and older sister and the attorney representing them in the suit against Caterpillar. [includes rush transcript] Today is the second anniversary of the death of Rachel Corrie. On March 16, 2003, the American peace activist was killed when she attempted to block an Israeli military bulldozer from demolishing the home of a Palestinian doctor in Gaza. Eye-witnesses say Rachel was sitting directly in the path of the bulldozer holding a megaphone and wearing a fluorescent jacket when it ran her over, crushing her to death. She was 23 years old. A U.S. congressional resolution demanding an independent inquiry into Rachel's death was buried in committee for months before it expired at the end of the 108th Congress, leaving the Israeli military's investigation - which cleared itself of any wrongdoing - as the only official investigation. Now, on the second anniversary of her death, Rachel Corrie's family is suing the State of Israel and the Israeli military. In the lawsuit - which was filed in Haifa Tuesday - the family is asking for roughly $324 thousand in direct damages, as well as punitive damages. They also said they have yet to receive all of the material from the IDF investigation. This comes as Amnesty International today called on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to support an independent investigation of Rachel Corrie's death. In a separate lawsuit, the Corrie family is also suing Caterpillar, Incorporated - the US firm that manufactured the bulldozer that crushed Rachel. The federal suit alleges that Caterpillar violated international and state law by providing specially designed bulldozers to the IDF that it knew would be used to demolish homes and endanger people. In response, Caterpillar released a written statement saying, "Caterpillar shares the world's concern over unrest in the Middle East and we certainly have compassion for all those affected by political strife. However, more than 2 million Caterpillar machines and engines are at work in virtually every region of the world each day. We have neither the legal right nor the means to police individual use of that equipment." In a moment we will be joined by Rachel Corrie's father, Craig and her older sister, Sarah. But first we wanted to bring you Rachel Corrie speaking just days before her death. She spoke at a mock trial for George W. Bush in Gaza on March 5, 2003, held by a group called the Young Palestinian Parliament. * Rachel Corrie, speaking in Gaza on March 5, 2003. * Sarah Corrie Simpson, Rachel Corrie's older sister. * Craig Corrie, Rachel Corrie's father. * Jennie Green, senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. AMY GOODMAN: In a moment, we'll be joined by Rachel Corrie's father, Craig, and her older sister, Sarah, but first we wanted to bring you Rachel Corrie, speaking just days before her death. She spoke at a mock trial for George W. Bush in Gaza on March 5, 2003, that was held by a group called the Young Palestinian Parliament. RACHEL CORRIE: George Bush -- George W. Bush was born on July 6, 1946 in New Haven, Connecticut, to George Herbert Walker Bush and Barbara Bush. He grew up in Texas and went on to own a small oil company, Arbusto Energy, which later became part of a larger oil company, Harken Energy. Both oil companies did business in Colombia and had connections to the Colombian government when it was massacring its civilian population. George Bush went on to work on his father's campaign for president and then to become the governor of the State of Texas. During the time when George W. Bush was governor of the State of Texas, Texas was one of the last states of the United States of America in terms of provision of health care to its people, in terms of environmental quality, in terms of education, and it was also the state with the highest number of inmates sentenced to death on death row, predominantly African American men. AMY GOODMAN: Rachel Corrie, speaking 11 days before her death in Gaza. We're joined in Washington, D.C. by Rachel Corrie's father, Craig Corrie, and her older sister, Sarah Corrie Simpson. In New York we're joined by Jennie Green, the senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who is representing the family in the lawsuit against Caterpillar. Later in the program, we'll hopefully be speaking with Washington Congress member Adam Smith. I want to begin with Sarah Corrie. Your thoughts on this second anniversary of your sister's death? SARAH CORRIE SIMPSON: First of all, just hearing Rachel's voice, I think, on that tape you just played brings everything back sort of in a rush, so it's hard to comment after that. I think today, as we're walking through Congress here in Washington, D.C., we're trying to not only remember Rachel and remember why Rachel was in Rafa, but also remember the people that she was there for, and particularly the family of Dr. Samir. And for me, that is really the most important information that I hold with me today. It's not only Rachel's image, but also the image of Dr. Samir and his three children that were in the home that day that Rachel was trying to protect. AMY GOODMAN: Craig Corrie, can you talk about the lawsuits? I mean, the last 24 hours, you filed two lawsuits against the state of Israel and also against Caterpillar, and this latest news that Condoleezza Rice has called for a full investigation. CRAIG CORRIE: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the last part of that, but we did file a suit first in Israel and, of course, we were advised to do that by the then Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State, who said that the State Department could not help us in trying to find out what happened to Rachel and that we would have to sue in Israel. Of course, we worked for two years to have our government take responsibility for finding out what happened and, of course, the Israeli government has ultimate responsibility for telling us how they happened to kill Rachel. Two years did not get any help in that. We found out recently that, of course, the F.B.I. would have to do an investigation in the United States. We found out recently that the F.B.I. doesn't even have a file on Rachel. She doesn't exist in their system. So we had to do something ourself. Our family has suffered. We have suffered economically as kind of the least of it, but we can be compensated economically for that. So in terms of Israel, we are forced to do that, and we tried to do whatever we could other than that. AMY GOODMAN: I just wanted to -- I just want to correct something I said. Amnesty International is calling on Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, to call for an independent investigation. Have you gotten anywhere with that over this two years? CRAIG CORRIE: Essentially, no, not yet. We are still working with that. We'll be talking to some people in Justice and in the F.B.I. tomorrow, and we would like to pursue that. We think that's the responsibility; when a U.S. citizen is killed, I think one of the first responsibilities of our government is to find out how that happened. And so, I'm disappointed that they cannot do that. AMY GOODMAN: Well, aren't they – isn’t the Israeli military saying that they didn't see Rachel Corrie when the Israeli military bulldozer ran over her and then backed up over her again, crushing her twice? CRAIG CORRIE: Well, they have said that and, of course, they have also said that they didn't run over her. They said that she was killed by a wall falling on her. They have said a number of things. That's why we need an independent investigation. AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break, but when we come back, we'll continue to talk about Rachel Corrie, the circumstances of her death. AMY GOODMAN: We are joined in Washington by Sarah Corrie Simpson and Craig Corrie, the father and sister of Rachel Corrie, who died two years ago today. Jennie Green in our New York studio, is an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. Jennie, can you explain the Caterpillar lawsuit that has been brought in the last 24 hours against the U.S. company that made the Israeli military bulldozer? JENNIE GREEN: Yes. The Caterpillar lawsuit charges Caterpillar with its role in the war crimes, the extra-judicial execution of Rachel, her wrongful death, and the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that she suffered before her death. We have charged Caterpillar, because as other U.S. courts have held, corporations, when they take part in human rights violations and war crimes, they can also be held liable. AMY GOODMAN: We asked a representative of the Israeli government to join us on the show and also Caterpillar, and both declined, though they did make the statement, "We have neither the legal right nor the means to police individual use of that equipment," Caterpillar did. What about that? I mean, they can't control who uses the equipment. JENNIE GREEN: Well, the issue is they do control. They do profit from where their Caterpillar tractors are sold. And the argument that we have made, the allegations in the lawsuit, are that the attack on Rachel Corrie, as Sarah laid out, this was not a single incident, but a pattern of demolitions of Palestinian homes. Homes were demolished when Palestinians were still in there, and Caterpillar was on notice. They knew from reports from the United Nations, from human rights organizations, from citizens contacting them directly, that their equipment was being used for very dangerous purposes in Gaza, throughout the West Bank, yet they continued to ship that equipment. They continued to sell it. We have no information that they put any restrictions on it, that they attempted to address the horrific uses to which their equipment was being put. And the fact is is that U.S. courts have held that when a company knowingly provides substantial assistance in the commission of human rights violations, they can be held accountable. AMY GOODMAN: Craig Corrie, have you spoken with Caterpillar? I know some peace groups have called for a boycott of Caterpillar over the death of Rachel Corrie. CRAIG CORRIE: We wanted to speak with Caterpillar. We wrote a letter about a year ago to their chairman, and asked to speak with him. We even pointed out we would be in Peoria to speak with him with a few other people, and no, he declined to speak with us, and in fact, I think I counted 17 riot police out in front of their building to keep my wife and I, and my wife’s no more imposing than my daughter, from coming in and speaking to them, so we have asked that they pay attention to this. And they have said, of course, that they cannot control what happens to their bulldozers after they sell them. But I certainly agree that they're responsible for continuing to supply the parts, for continuing to sell bulldozers, and they're responsible for knowing how those bulldozers have been used, as well as may be used in the future. To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359. ---- Rep. Adam Smith: "The Israeli Government Did Not Do a Satisfactory Investigation" Into Rachel Corrie's Death Democracy Now Wednesday, March 16th, 2005 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/16/1458246 We speak with Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), who delivered a letter from the Corrie family to Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, calling for an independent investigation into Rachel Corrie's death. [includes rush transcript] * Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) AMY GOODMAN: We're joined on the telephone now by Washington Congress member Adam Smith, who took a letter to the office of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, on your behalf. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Congressman Smith. REP. ADAM SMITH: Thank you for having me on. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about this letter that you delivered? What did it say? REP. ADAM SMITH: Well, I mean, the Corries have, I think, explained very well their concerns, and I share them, that basically the Israeli government did not do a satisfactory investigation, and frankly, we want them to do a satisfactory investigation. In essence, that's what the letter said. It pointed out some specifics of the inadequacies of the investigation and just requested that they actually do the full and thorough investigation and hold people accountable for their actions. And -- AMY GOODMAN: What was their response? REP. ADAM SMITH: You know, “Thank you.” I mean, I don't want to exaggerate here. It's not likely that they're going to take the letter and, you know, all of a sudden do things differently. But I think it's really important that representatives of the U.S. government make it clear to Israel that we disagree with the way they have handled the situation. They continue to try to put pressure on them to handle it better. I also think it's important that our own State Department takes steps. Congressman Brian Baird and I, among others, have cosponsored legislation for us as a nation at the State Department to do our own investigation with the cooperation of the Justice Department, which they have not yet done. You know, that, too, would be a step forward. So, I think it's just -- it's all part of the process of making sure that this issue continues to be in the public consciousness and that people understand that it's not done and it's not satisfactorily been completed. AMY GOODMAN: The letter also contained a quote of, well, then Secretary of State's Chief of Staff Wilkerson saying that an investigation needed to be done. REP. ADAM SMITH: I think, actually, the quote was a little bit stronger than that, that found that the investigation was -- I forget the exact phrasing, but anyway -- inadequate, that basically, we had wanted a full, you know, a full and fair investigation. We don't think we have gotten one yet. Please move forward. AMY GOODMAN: There is going to be a subcommittee hearing on the State Department's human rights report, that you're going to speak at on behalf of the Corries on Thursday. What are you going to say? REP. ADAM SMITH: I'm going to attend. I never know exactly -- we have witnesses and so forth, and I'm not the chair or ranking member on the committee, so I never know when they're going to get to me. But, you know, I will be there and certainly try to speak. And I will say the same thing to them that I just said you to. AMY GOODMAN: And -- REP. ADAM SMITH: That we do not have a, you know, full and complete investigation. I think we need to continue to put pressure on the Israeli government to do one, and also to do one ourselves. AMY GOODMAN: Brain Avery, another peace activist who had his jaw shot almost off by the Israeli military, has gone to Israel to demand justice. Tom Hurndall was shot by an Israeli soldier a month after Rachel died, and he ultimately died. Now, his father is a lawyer from Britain. He went and did an investigation himself, because he wasn't satisfied with the investigations that were being done. Many feel it's because of his legal skills that, in fact, a soldier was indicted for the death of his son. Craig Corrie, what are your thoughts on that? CRAIG CORRIE: Well, I think that was largely due to Anthony's legal skills and the time that he spent there. Of course, they had to spend a lot of time in Israel to try and get Tom to the position where he could come back home. I also note that the – there was a coroner's inquest in Tom's case and also in James Miller's case, and -- who is another person that was killed about the same time Rachel was and within about two miles of Rachel. And so, the London police are doing an investigation. AMY GOODMAN: James Miller, being the cameraman who had gone from Iraq to Gaza to -- or to the Occupied Territories, not sure where he was killed, but killed as he was filming children. CRAIG CORRIE: Yes. He was, I think, just about two miles to the west of where Rachel was killed, along that same border with Egypt and in Rafa. And at any rate, the London police are doing an investigation themselves into the death of those two British citizens, and in fact, have come to our country to talk to an American citizen who was a witness not only to Tom's killing, but also to Rachel's. It seems to me if England can send policemen here to investigate Tom's killing, that we should surely be able to talk to that same witness in our own country about what happened to Rachel. AMY GOODMAN: What other leverage do you think or pressure can be brought Congress member Adam Smith, and what about the very close relationship that the U.S. has with Israel, certainly has clout -- I think Israel, the number one recipient of U.S. foreign aid? REP. ADAM SMITH: Yes. That's true. It's very, very difficult. Certainly, we want to continue to make the point, but there are many, many issues going on right now in the Middle East with, you know, the Israeli planned pullout of Gaza, you know, with the sudden break in the peace process. At least in a more positive way than it was before, there are, you know, many, many issues and many difficulties, but that doesn't mean that they can't deal with this one. And I think we need to continue to make that point. AMY GOODMAN: What are your thoughts on the divestment campaigns that are being waged on college campuses to divest -- that the U.S. government should not be supporting Israel? The World Council of Churches, also the Presbyterian Church? REP. ADAM SMITH: I don't support that. I don't think that we should divest and walk away from Israel. While there are certainly many things they have done wrong, they are also in a very, very difficult situation. You know, they are -- their existence is threatened and, in fact, not recognized by a good many of their neighbors. And I think we need to continue to try to work on that relationship. Now, obviously, there are aspects of it, certainly, the cases that you have laid out, where U.S. citizens or British citizens are harmed or killed over there, they need to do an adequate job of investigating it. And I think what's coming out in the Corrie case and those other cases that you mentioned is they don't. We certainly need to put pressure on them to change that. But, you know, relationships are very, very complex in international policy. I don't think it would be wise or fair or the right policy to say, okay, we're just not ever going to deal with Israel again. There's too much else going on. We need to try to do both. AMY GOODMAN: By the way, just the latest news on the case of James Miller, the journalist who was killed, the Israeli army has told the family of the British journalist that the soldier responsible will face minor disciplinary charges, despite the investigator's suspicion he illegally shot Miller two years ago. His wife said the family intends to bring a civil action for damages against the Israeli army and seek judicial review of the decision not to prosecute the soldier for murder. How much support, Adam Smith, do you have, for -- in Congress, in the Senate -- for demanding an investigation of the death of Rachel Corrie? REP. ADAM SMITH: You know, it's hard to say. I forget how many cosponsors there were on the resolution that Congressman Baird and I introduced. I want to say it was a fairly high number. There's a fair number of people who are paying attention to this, then trying to move it forward, but really, it's Congressman Baird and I who are focused on it. Yes, it is an issue, but fortunately, you know, for other members of Congress, they have a lot of other issues, as well, and how do we make sure that we keep this up on the front burner. That's why tomorrow's hearing is so important. That is something where other members of Congress will see, maybe on C-span, it will get some attention. That's what we're trying to do now, is to keep attention on the issue so we can get as many supporters as possible and try to move it forward. AMY GOODMAN: Craig and Sarah Corrie, the father and sister of Rachel, what are you doing in Washington now, and what kind of response have you gotten from Congress and the Senate in calling for an investigation? SARAH CORRIE SIMPSON: First, just to respond to what Congressman Smith was saying, I think there were 78 sponsors on HCR111 which was the resolution in the House to bring an investigation, an independent investigation, into Rachel's killing, and we were very grateful for that resolution. We have been told that having 78 members of the House sign on to that bill was very significant. Oftentimes in cases like these, you would not see maybe even 10 or 15 names go on to a bill that would have sort of this political issue raised. So, we were very pleased with that, and I think a lot of that also did come from people around the United States calling in to their Congresspeople, and educating them about this issue. And I think that’s really what we're doing here in Washington, DC. We continue to educate. On the Senate side, our family has met, I believe, with all of the Foreign Relations Committee members. There's possibly one that we have not met with, but we have requested meetings from every office. Many of those offices we have been back to a second time. We have met with many of the members from the Judiciary Committee, as well, and as well as some members from the Budget Committee. And that was our focus in coming to Congress. We have had three of my aunts here, as well as my uncle and my father and I, this time around. We were also here back in December. We were here in September. My aunts and uncle were here back in the summer. I think each time we come, we hold approximately 40 meetings in that time. I think we have approximately 16 meetings a day where we're just running from one office to another, speaking with staff people, trying to get face time with members to just let them know about Rachel, let them know about the lack of an investigation in this case, and oftentimes trying to let them know specifically about Dr. Samir and his family and put a face on who those people were in that house that Rachel was trying to defend. AMY GOODMAN: Any last comment, Jennie Green, attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, who is bringing the suit against Caterpillar? JENNIE GREEN: Yes. I'd like to specifically ask Representative Smith whether there might be anything that Congress could do to increase the regulation on a corporation such as Caterpillar so that they cannot continue to claim that, well, they don't know where their products are going. Could there be an investigation into their activities, and ultimately, could their activities that we have talked about already be regulated? AMY GOODMAN: Congress member Smith? REP. ADAM SMITH: I really don't know. This is actually -- you know, moments before I sat down was the first I heard that Caterpillar was going to be involved in this way, this lawsuit was being filed. So I would have to look into it before I could give an intelligent answer on that. So, but I certainly will. I have to run, actually, but -- AMY GOODMAN: Thank you, Congress member Smith. REP. ADAM SMITH: Thanks for the opportunity. JENNIE GREEN: Thank you very much. We would be happy to work with you further on that. AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to give Craig and Sarah Corrie a final comment at this point on the second anniversary of Rachel's death. CRAIG CORRIE: Well, you know, Amy, I'm sitting here looking and I wish the viewers out there could see a picture of the Nasrallah family and their children. They're standing where their home used to stand where Rachel was killed. And when I first saw this picture, it was just taken a few days ago. They're remembering Rachel two years after she was killed. And yet, they have had their home destroyed. The first thing that came to my mind is how much these children have grown since I have seen them. Of course, what the world doesn't really remember is those children were behind the wall that Rachel was standing in front of and had that bulldozer continued on its path, these children wouldn't have grown. And so, I hope that I can look at pictures every year of the Nasrallah children and see their smiles and see them continue to grow and become the sort of citizens of the world that we would all wish they could become. AMY GOODMAN: On that note, I want to thank you all very much for being with us. Sarah and Craig Corrie in Washington, DC. They're lobbying Congress members, and in New York, Jennie Green of the Center for Constitutional Rights. To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359. -------- POLITICS -------- corruption Justice DeLayed? Ethics Controversy Swirls Around House Majority Leader Democracy Now Wednesday, March 16th, 2005 http://www.soundclick.com/stations/stations.cfm?id=121461 House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) - one of the most powerful members in Congress and a prolific fundraiser for his party - is again under fire for potential ethics violations. We host a debate with Chellie Pingree of Common Cause and Stephen Moore of the Free Enterprise Fund. [includes rush transcript] House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, is - again - under fire for potential ethics violations. Congressman Delay is one of the most powerful members in Congress and a prolific fundraiser for his party. Last year, the Texas Republican was admonished three times by the House Ethics Committee - once for what they labeled as "inappropriate behavior" - for trying to influence a House member's vote. In the past few weeks, other allegations have surfaced. These include a Justice Department and Senate committee investigation into whether a group of Republican lobbyists - who are close to DeLay - provided trips abroad for Delay, his wife, and other Republican lawmakers to influence legislation. A 2001 trip that Delay made to South Korea was paid for by an organization registered as a foreign agent. House rules prohibit a foreign principal or lobbyist from paying the travel expenses of House members. Also, The National Journal revealed evidence, which showed that Congressman DeLay illegally accepted money for travel expenses from Jack Abramoff. Abramoff is a GOP lobbyist who is himself under investigation for billing $82 million dollars in lobbyist services to Indian tribes. At the same time - in Texas - a local grand jury has indicted two of DeLay's political associates on charges involving illegal campaign contributions. The New York Times recently reported that Delay was actively involved in raising money for the political committee, which is the focus of this on-going investigation. Delay has continually denied any wrongdoing. Speaking at a weekly session with reporters he said, "With all the partisan politics of personal destruction that the Democrats have announced and have carried through on, I have yet to be found breaking any House rules. It is very unfortunate that the Democrats have no agenda. All they can do is try to tear down the House and burn it down in order to gain power." * Chellie Pingree, president and CEO of Common Cause, a national non-partisan advocacy organization. * Stephen Moore, President of the Free Enterprise Fund. Moore has known Delay for 20 years. He previously was the Cato Institute's Director of Fiscal Policy Studies, and continues to serve as a Cato Senior Fellow. AMY GOODMAN: To talk further about Tom DeLay, we're joined in Washington by two guests. Chellie Pingree is with us, the president of Common Cause; and Stephen Moore, president of the Freedom Fund Institute. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! CHELLIE PINGREE: Thank you. STEPHEN MOORE: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: I want to start with Chellie Pingree of Common Cause. Can you lay out what the allegations are against Tom DeLay? CHELLIE PINGREE: Well, actually, I think you have done a very good job of talking about what the current concerns are, both the golfing trip to Scotland and the close ties to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is also being investigated, and the South Korea trip, which perhaps was paid for by a foreign agent, which would have been illegal. And one of the enormous challenges right now is -- kind of the irony here is the Republican leadership of the House, including the extremely powerful majority leader, have basically dismantled the ethics process. And years ago they stopped the opportunity for outside groups such as Common Cause, which routinely filed ethics complaints with the commission. They took away our ability to do that, so the only people who can police them are the Ethics Committee, and because they have dismantled this committee, the majority leader can’t even go in front of them now to find out if there are ethics violations or not. So there's actually no way to currently investigate this, except for a Justice Department or outside criminal investigation. So, there's sort of an irony here. Here you have these very complicated questions being asked about the ties both to the two things you mentioned, and then the continuing investigation of TRMPAC, which the Ethics Commission earlier, when it was still functioning, decided to set aside waiting to see if there were indictments in that case. So there's actually nowhere to go to resolve these issues, and yesterday, you had the Majority Leader Tom DeLay, coming forward and saying, sure, I'd like to have these looked into, and prove that they have done nothing wrong, but in fact, they’ve fired the Chair of the Commission. They took away two members of the Ethics Committee. They got rid of senior staff, one of whom had been there almost 20 years. And there is no functioning body to investigate this. AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Moore, president of Freedom Fund Institute, respond. STEPHEN MOORE: It's the Free Enterprise Fund. Thank you for having me. I have known Tom DeLay for 20 years. I think he's one of the most honorable and honest men I have known in politics, and I have known a lot of politicians over the last two decades. I think that this is an orchestrated smear campaign against Tom DeLay. It's being orchestrated by liberal groups who do not agree at all with Tom DeLay's conservative agenda, groups like Common Cause and many of the liberal media, including The Washington Post and The New York Times have a vendetta, I believe, against Tom DeLay. And I think that what's important for your listeners and viewers to understand is that Tom DeLay is an extremely effective leader of the House. Some people think he's the most – the strongest leader in 50 years in the House. He's also a strong conservative, and he promotes a very strong social and economic conservative agenda. That's one of the reasons that liberals, I think, have their claws out for him. And he's right, that he has not been convicted or proven to be in violation of any House rules yet, and yet you’ve got a lot people who want to throw him out, just based on allegations. AMY GOODMAN: Well, for example, what about the 2001 trip that DeLay took to South Korea, paid for by an organization registered as a foreign agent, which is against House rules? STEPHEN MOORE: Right. Well, in that instance, I have talked to DeLay's staff on that particular allegation, and they basically say that there was a third party, a 501c3 organization which had basically said that it was going to pay for the trip. And so, if there was any error here in terms of who paid for the trip, number one, it was inadvertent error, and number two, it was contrary to Tom DeLay's knowledge and what he had been told. Again, I think if there was a mistake made here, which there may have been, it wasn't Tom DeLay's fault. It was the fault of this third party organization, which was supposed to be paying for the trip. AMY GOODMAN: And what about the National Journal revelations that showed DeLay illegally accepted money for travel expenses from Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist, who is also himself under investigation? STEPHEN MOORE: That allegation is simply untrue; that DeLay never received any payments from Jack Abramoff. You know, you’ve seen all of these allegations that have been made. I mean, my goodness, one of the allegations that was made against DeLay -- just so people can realize how foolish some of these are and unfair they are -- one was that he illegally profited from a charitable event that he held. Tom's number one interest in terms of philanthropy is foster care. And he had a very large fundraiser in New York at the New York Convention and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for foster care, and then liberal groups come along and say, well, you benefited yourself from this, you got lobbyists to pay for it. I think some of the charges are just really over the top. AMY GOODMAN: Chellie Pingree can you explain the whole Jack Abramoff controversy and how it ties to Tom DeLay? CHELLIE PINGREE: Well, again, there is an investigation ongoing of Jack Abramoff, who’s accused of basically bilking Indian tribes of millions of dollars and then handing much of that out in political money. Both Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Scanlon are close political allies of Majority Leader DeLay, and Mr. Scanlon was a former press secretary. So, these are not sort of distant, you know, “see you down the hall” relationships. These are people who have been very close over time, and again, there still are allegations that this trip to Scotland, a golf trip, where first there was a visit to a think tank, and then there was a visit to a golf trip. A lot of money was spent, and perhaps Majority Leader DeLay can explain what kind of congressional work was going on on the golf trip, but I think that is something he has to explain to people. There are also allegations of a reimbursement of these expenses through Jack Abramoff, and again, these get into some of the technical details of the ethics process, but nobody believes that when you are a member of Congress, an elected official, and as Stephen has said, a very high and powerful elected official, that either you or your staff don't have the responsibility to know both who is paying for the trips and whether they're legitimate. No one in politics is allowed to get away with saying, “I didn't know.” There is no don't ask, don't tell policy here. This is your responsibility to know. And again, as you mentioned earlier, the Ethics Committee last fall admonished Congressman DeLay for three violations, one of which you mentioned, one was trading influence on the Energy Bill, one was misuse of the FAA around the whole question about the legislators in Texas who left the state over the redistricting issue. One was the question about a potential bribe on the floor around Medicare. These are a long term pattern of abuse of the ethics process, which again often is seen in people who have tremendous amount of power in Washington. And the whole reason we have oversight here is so that there could be serious questions asked. And in fact, the last time the Ethics Committee was functioning and asked these questions, they said yes, something has gone wrong here. That was not a Democratic smear. That was a bipartisan Ethics Commission, and in fact, there was retaliation against him. Now, we have more allegations coming to light, and non-partisan groups such as Common Cause and a variety of other groups, Judicial Watch, other organizations coming forward and saying, you know, to have a faith in the elected members of the Congress, you have to have a strong process and be able to investigate these things, which I think bring up real questions, very close ties to this particular Republican administration, but real issues that have to be raised. STEPHEN MOORE: You know, I certainly agree with Chellie that we need to put teeth back into the Ethics Committee, and you're exactly right about that. As a Republican, I'm troubled by the fact that Republicans, as they have become settled in with power, they're starting to reverse a lot of the Congressional reforms that they put in place in 1995, when they swept the Democrats out. So, that is troubling to me, but some of these allegations, I just think, are extremely unfair. I mean, to say that this was a golfing trip that he took to Scotland. I mean, there was business done on this trip. He did meet with foreign business leaders and so on, and he also – you know, if you were to say, look, it's a junket if you go play golf, you would have to evict two-thirds of the members of Congress, because that's one of the things they do. Now, that may not be right, but it's something that's very commonplace in Congress. Another allegation -- AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Moore and Chellie Pingree, we have to break, but we're going to come back to the other allegation you want to address. Stephen Moore is president of the Free Enterprise Fund. Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking about the controversy that is swirling around Tom DeLay. We are joined by the president of Common Cause, Chellie Pingree, as well as the president of the Free Enterprise Fund, Stephen Moore. We encourage folks to stay with us through this hour, as we also talk about Rachel Corrie, on the second anniversary of her death. Well, what about what is happening to the Ethics Committee right now? The House, facing new controversy around the travel of the Majority Leader, and other lawmakers left with no mechanism for investigating improper behavior by its members. When Democrats shut down the Ethics Committee by refusing to accept Republican rules changes that restrict the panel's power. Stephen Moore? STEPHEN MOORE: Well, as I said, I oppose those measures, although I think the Democrats have basically said, unless we get everything we want, we're not going to have an Ethics Committee. That's been part of the problem, too. So I think both sides share some blame here. But I wanted to just make this one other point about the unfairness of some of these allegations. One of the points that Chellie and others have been making about Tom DeLay is that he was taking gifts from lobbyists, and then he was voting in favor – and promoting the legislation that the lobbyists were in favor of. Well, look, this is something that happens every day. It would be like saying Ted Kennedy was guilty of some impropriety because he took money from labor unions and then voted for the labor union agenda. I think just the fact that somebody takes a contribution from a lobbyist and then supports that agenda does not necessarily mean that there was some sort of quid pro quo. I mean, Tom DeLay is a very good fund-raiser. I think that's one of the reasons that Democrats have their claws out for him right now. AMY GOODMAN: Isn't it true that some Republicans are jumping ship, quite concerned. I mean, Tom DeLay wanted to change the rules around a -- around someone who has a ranking position in the House, remaining in office even if they get indicted. Ultimately, the Republicans balked at this. STEPHEN MOORE: Let me give you context to that, because I’m not really in favor of that. I do think if someone is indicted, they should give up their leadership position, but this is a special case where what's happening in Texas right now is because of the redistricting that happened in Texas where Republicans picked up six additional seats, because they made the boundaries more competitive and fairer, quite frankly, there was a lot of anxiety and a lot of anger in Texas. What you have got in Texas is this special prosecutor, who I think is a rogue prosecutor, who is out to get DeLay, and there are a lot of people who are worried that he is going to just going to grandstand, indict DeLay, and then he would have to stand down as Majority Leader, and his political career would be ruined. So that's the special circumstance where people just don't have any trust and any confidence in the competence of this prosecutor in Texas. CHELLIE PINGREE: Well, we should go back to that, because you know, the -- AMY GOODMAN: Chellie Pingree. CHELLIE PINGREE: Yes, sorry. On the TRMPAC investigation, which is -- again the Ethics Commission when it was functioning, the actual Ethics Committee decided to set aside any opinion on that until the investigation was completed, and you can argue whether or not that's a partisan question, but the real issue is whether corporate money was taken and put into a state PAC and used for improper purposes. Again, it's a little bit complicated about what it was actually used for, but there's still serious questions being raised. There have been two indictments of close associates of Majority Leader DeLay, and that would be a serious violation of the law in Texas. So, there is an actual issue there, and again, even Republicans, as you mentioned, thought that this proposal to say that if you were a member of leadership, and you were indicted, you should be automatically allowed to hold your position, even Republicans backed down at the final hour when that was brought to light. STEPHEN MOORE: You know, even if that one allegation were true, though, the Texas one that you are mentioning about TRMPAC, it's important for people to understand, Tom DeLay was not even a trustee of that PAC. He was an advisor to the PAC. He did not raise money for the PAC. So even if every allegation was true about TRMPAC violating the law, which I think is questionable, why is Tom DeLay being held accountable for the actions of an organization that he didn't even head? CHELLIE PINGREE: Well, again, the courts will decide that, and an appropriate ethics process would decide that. I mean, I don't think that organizations like ours are trying to sit here as judge and jury, but we’re just saying, without an appropriate process, you can’t even get to the bottom of those decisions. STEPHEN MOORE: I agree with that, but here's the thing. I mean, when you talk about process, how is it fair – I mean, right now, Tom DeLay is under fire from Democrats. There's increasing pressure in the media for him to step down, and how is that a fair process? He has not been -- none of these allegations have been proven yet. And he may have to step down simply because people are throwing flaming arrows at him. CHELLIE PINGREE: In the political process, when you are an elected official, one, you are held to a somewhat higher standard. STEPHEN MOORE: True. CHELLIE PINGREE: It's fine for you to say, oh, they all do this, they take the money, and then they vote in favor of their allies. Well, if there is a pattern of it, and if it's sufficient enough, again, to have a commission like the Ethics Commission where members of your own party say, you know, these things look like inappropriate uses of your position, this is not just hearsay and allegation. This is -- these are actual concrete examples that happened over and over again and enough to both draw questions in the minds of the public, and I think as we are seeing, even questions in the minds of the members of his own party, who are starting to say, you know, is this making us look bad when we are the people who need to have the faith of the public ... STEPHEN MOORE: Certainly -- CHELLIE PINGREE: ... and run the Congress? STEPHEN MOORE: Certainly, the Republicans want to get this off the front page. It's not good headlines for the Republicans that all of these allegations are being made. I do think because of his conservatism, he is being especially prosecuted here, and also I think, who's going to want to be in a leadership position in the future if you get that position, and people try to, you know, character assassinate you and destroy your reputation? That, I think, is what’s happening with Tom DeLay. I do think is he going to survive this. I think he's going to come out stronger, and I think in a few years, he will be the Speaker of the House. AMY GOODMAN: Chellie Pingree, final comment. CHELLIE PINGREE: You can call it a character assassination, but again, you know, the ethics process has been one of the most important things we’ve had, and it's worked against Democrats and Republicans. I mean, certainly, President Clinton, the use of the Lincoln bedroom, Jim Wright, Speaker of the House from Texas came under some of the same concerns. And the fact is we depend on this process to be fair. We need to have a functioning Ethics Commission. STEPHEN MOORE: I’m in favor of that. CHELLIE PINGREE: So, in fact, if none of these allegations are true, and they're not proven in a criminal court, and the body itself decides that they're not worthy of further concern, then the Speaker should -- the Majority Leader should walk away with no tarnish. AMY GOODMAN: The Ethics Committee is the only committee that is even Democrat and Republican, so it would take one Republican crossing over? CHELLIE PINGREE: Absolutely, but as you recall, that's what happened earlier. There was a bipartisan decision of the committee, but then Congressman Hefley, who was the chair of the commission, who has continued to speak out on the importance of having bipartisan ethics rules, he was removed as chair of the committee. So, again -- AMY GOODMAN: Removed by who? CHELLIE PINGREE: By Speaker Hastert, who works very closely with Majority Leader DeLay. So it looks like that what you have got here is Republican leadership deciding to dismantle the entire process, and it feels like the fox guarding the henhouse. AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Moore, do you think it was proper to remove him? STEPHEN MOORE: You know, I don’t know. He was the only Republican who was publicly split. Out of 232 in the House, he was the only one who split with Tom DeLay publicly. So there was a lot of annoyance with him. But I will say this, you know, there is also a lot of anger on the Republican conservative side of the angle that all of the Democrats want to talk about for the last couple of weeks is Tom DeLay. They don't -- they have no agenda. They have no agenda on Social Security reform, they have no agenda on tax reform, they have no agenda on budget control, they have no agenda on tort reform. And so, this kind of obstructionist agenda that is holding up legislation in Congress is being exacerbated by all these allegations. AMY GOODMAN: Though you yourself have said you are becoming increasingly concerned. STEPHEN MOORE: Well, I’m only concerned about the fact that this -- that every day the headlines are about Tom DeLay. I think The Washington Post and New York Times really are out to get DeLay, and sometimes when that happens, even if you are innocent, you know, there's an old saying: where do you get your reputation back. Even if you are innocent, in this town, just being -- having allegations against you can destroy you. AMY GOODMAN: On that note, I want to say thank you very much. We are going to have to leave it there. CHELLIE PINGREE: Thank you. STEPHEN MOORE: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause and Stephen Moore, president of the Free Enterprise Fund. To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359. -------- Egypt Egypt Activists Say Real Reform Would Bar Mubarak From Race By Daniel Williams Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A19 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38297-2005Mar15.html CAIRO -- After digesting President Hosni Mubarak's proposal for multi-candidate elections this year, opposition groups say that it does not go far enough to ensure a competitive vote and that one way to ensure a real free-for-all campaign is for Mubarak not to run. Although Mubarak proposed last month that the constitution be amended to allow a competitive race instead of a referendum on a single candidate, the details are still vague. Mubarak's ruling National Democratic Party, which dominates the Egyptian legislature and local governments, has floated the possibility of allowing only officials of authorized political parties to run. Officials have also suggested a requirement that parliament and local councils approve nominees. Parliament is due to pass new election rules in May. Mubarak has yet to declare his candidacy, but party officials have indicated he will be the nominee. Mubarak has ruled Egypt for 24 years and would bring to any presidential race the vast advantages of incumbency: name recognition, access to news media and control of the government bureaucracy and police, opponents say. "This is so far all just a big maneuver by Mubarak to avoid the missile of reform," said Mustafa Mazen, a member of Tomorrow, a recently authorized party that promotes democracy and free-market economics. Its leader, Ayman Nour, was arrested in January for allegedly forging documents needed to apply for official authorization. Nour, who was released Saturday on $1,800 bail, has said he intends to run for president. Some opposition leaders have described Mubarak's announcement as a step toward instituting the kind of system used for many years in Tunisia, where a dominant party led by an autocrat is surrounded by small, tame and essentially decorative parties. President Zine Abidine Ben Ali, who has ruled Tunisia for 17 years, won 95 percent of the vote in last year's presidential election against three challengers. "Mubarak must not run again," said Magdi Hussein, head of Egypt's Labor Party. "He is the problem, not the solution. We don't want the Tunisia model here." "Mubarak's original proposal is far less than what the reform movement wants, and now conditions are being cooked up to make it completely meaningless," said Aida Seif Dawla, a human rights activist and member of a loose coalition of opposition forces called Kifaya, which is Arabic for "enough." "It's another coronation of Mubarak," Dawla said. Since Mubarak announced his reforms, organizers have staged two or three small anti-government rallies a week. Drawing 15 to 100 participants, the demonstrations have been dwarfed regionally by the massive rallies in Lebanon's capital, Beirut, for and against the presence of Syrian troops there. A Labor Party protest last week in Cairo was typical. A clutch of 50 anti-government demonstrators paraded on a sidewalk near parliament. About 350 helmeted police officers, armed with truncheons, confined them to a 25-yard-long space between the Hegazi Cafeteria and the Sons of Omar fruit stand. Every once in a while, a protester would make a feint toward breaking through the police cordon. After minimal shoving, he would return to the confines of the sidewalk to shouts of "Down with Mubarak!" and "Freedom, where are you?" Although the numbers are small, the anti-Mubarak tone of the rallies is a novelty for Egypt. The attention they garner on Arab satellite television and Western newspapers upsets government officials and some reformers who believe that Egypt will democratize at a pace best managed by the establishment. Mubarak's decision has been under-appreciated, said Hala Mustafa, editor in chief of the Al-Ahram Democracy Review. It is closing the door to the politics of one-man rule that have characterized Egypt for almost 53 years, said Hala, whose publication is part of the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, a government-backed research group. "The president wanted to give a signal of comprehensive reform. This was the first signal for the transitional period," she said. Government officials note that, by implication, Mubarak's announcement ended the automatic accession of military leaders to Egypt's presidency. Mubarak and his predecessors, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, came from the military. This aspect of reform has not been emphasized because of a taboo on discussing the military's role in politics, officials said. Mohammed Kamal, a university professor and a member of the ruling party's policies committee, said he expected the party to issue plans for further reforms as part of its election platform. The reforms would be designed to strengthen secular political parties while maintaining a prohibition on their religious counterparts, Kamal said. By most accounts, the largest opposition group is the Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned from political activity but nonetheless maintains the largest base of popular support. "The goal is to enhance political parties and keep out religious-based parties that eventually would undermine democracy in Egypt," Kamal said. Osama Baz, a veteran presidential adviser, cautioned that continued U.S. pressure would be counterproductive. "If people suspect this is American-inspired, they would resent it," he said. A gradual approach, Baz said, is necessary so that "society will learn the philosophy and concept of democracy." Baz also predicted that reform would stop short of opening the door to parties built around Islam. "The Muslim Brotherhood would not win," he said, "but if they are let into the election, it would establish a principle." -------- propaganda wars 2 Years After Invasion, Poll Data Mixed Doubts About War, Optimism for Iraqis By Dan Balz and Richard Morin Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37812-2005Mar15.html Two years after President Bush led the country to war in Iraq, Americans appear to be of two minds about the situation in the Middle East: A majority say they believe the Iraqis are better off today than they were before the conflict began -- but they also say the war was not worth fighting in the first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The January elections in Iraq have helped to shift public opinion in a positive direction about the future of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, with a clear majority of Americans (56 percent) saying they are now confident that Iraqi leaders can create a stable government -- a dramatic turnaround since just before the elections. The poll also shows that more Americans believe the war has improved the chances of democracy spreading in the Middle East than believe it has diminished those prospects. Despite the optimism about the future, the poll suggests there has been little change in the negative public opinion about the decision to go to war. Fifty-three percent of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, 57 percent said they disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq, and 70 percent said the number of U.S. casualties, including more than 1,500 deaths, is an unacceptable price. The mixed assessment of the situation in Iraq comes near the second anniversary of the U.S. invasion. It offers a benchmark for measuring the shifts in public opinion that have occurred since Bush launched the war despite opposition from much of the rest of the world. Along with judgments about the war in Iraq, the poll found little appetite for military action against other states Bush has targeted for criticism, including Iran and North Korea. But with Iraq moving toward greater self-governance, Bush does not appear to be under great pressure to remove U.S. forces immediately -- despite criticism of how he has handled the situation there. The poll also comes in the midst of encouraging signs throughout the Middle East, with tensions between Israelis and Palestinians reduced, popular support and international pressure for an end to Syria's occupation of Lebanon, and tentative steps toward democracy in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Bush has reaped some of the credit for the changes underway in the region, having made the promotion of democracy there and elsewhere the central theme of his second-term foreign policy agenda. Over the past two years, Americans rallied around Bush in the initial stages of the war but grew increasingly disillusioned as stepped-up insurgent attacks a year ago turned the conflict bloodier. Today, Americans offer a more nuanced assessment of the experience there and its impact both on the United States and the Middle East. Deep partisan divisions remain, with Republicans positive about the decision to go to war and Democrats strongly negative. Foreign policy experts said they found the seemingly conflicting views about the past and the future consistent with long-standing attitudes about the use of U.S. military force. For starters, Americans rank promoting democracy abroad at or near the bottom of acceptable reasons for using military force. "People just think this is not our mission, that we should not be the democracy policemen," said James B. Steinberg, vice president and director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution. "Even though they think they [the Iraqis] are better off, they're leery about the U.S. going out and doing these things." Walter Russell Mead, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the attitudes make it less likely that the Bush administration or future administrations will use the promotion of democracy to justify conflicts. "Americans don't like putting Americans in harm's way and fighting wars for humanitarian reasons," he said, adding in an interview: "It means, by and large, the United States will not be spreading democracy at the point of a bayonet. There really isn't long-term mass support in public opinion for that kind of war." But Bush's advocacy on behalf of democracy in the Middle East may be winning over skeptical Americans, and some advocates of the war believe that could have a lasting effect on opinions. One of those supporters, William Kristol, editor and publisher of the conservative Weekly Standard, said negative judgments about the decision to go to war are understandable, even defensible, given that the administration used the threat of weapons of mass destruction as a cause for war and then never found any in Iraq. Nor, he said, did Bush anticipate or prepare the public for what turned out to be a far deadlier and longer period of U.S. occupation. -------- us politics Bush's News Conference on Iraq, Social Security and the World Bank March 16, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics/16text-bush.html?pagewanted=print&position= TRANSCRIPT Following is a transcript of President Bush's news conference on Wednesday, as provided by the White House. Excerpts from the conference are here. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for giving me a chance to come by and say hello. I'm preparing for my trip out of town for Easter -- the Easter week, and I thought I'd share some thoughts with you and answer some questions. I am looking forward to continuing my dialogue with the people on Social Security. It's important for the American people to understand that I believe the Social Security system has worked well, that Franklin Roosevelt did a positive thing when he created the Social Security system, but that I am deeply concerned about the Social Security system for younger Americans. And I believe we're making progress on convincing the American people of two things: One, nothing will change for seniors, those who have retired or near retirement; and secondly, that we must work together to make sure the system works for a younger generation of Americans. That's progress. As I said -- I think I told you all earlier that one of my missions in the Social Security debate was to set that issue before the people so the people fully understand why I was addressing it, in other words, why -- I fully understand some in Washington are saying, why would the President bring this up, it's a difficult issue, it may cause us to have to make a tough vote. I'm making that case to the people, and will continue to do so -- in Florida on Friday, and then we'll head out West from Crawford and then back to Crawford for my meetings with Prime Minister Martin and President Fox. I urge the members to go out and, when they go home, to talk to their constituents not only about the problem, but about solutions. I urge members to start talking about how we're going to permanently fix Social Security. Members, I hope, would not talk about a Band-Aid solution, but I think it's important for them to talk about a permanent fix, something that will last forever. I think the voters will appreciate people who come up with constructive suggestions, not statements merely in opposition of some ideas. And so this is -- part of what I wanted to share with you is that I'm -- I'm actually enjoying myself on these trips. I hope you're enjoying traveling with me. It's -- I like to get out of Washington, I like to discuss big issues, I like to remind people that my job is to confront problems, and I will continue to talk about Social Security for the next period of time. Iraq had a meeting today of its transitional national assembly. It's a bright moment in what is a process toward the writing of a constitution, the ratification of the constitution, and elections. And I want to congratulate the Iraqis for their assembly. And it's -- we've always said this is a process, and today was a step in that process. And it's a hopeful moment, I thought. I am looking forward to seeing you down there in Crawford, those of you lucky enough to be able to travel with me. I wish you all a happy Easter. And I'll be glad to answer some questions. Q Mr. President, the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq once had 38 countries contributing troops. And now that number has fallen to 24. And yesterday, Italy said that it was going to start pulling out some forces in September. How can you keep the coalition from crumbling? And is it time to think about a timetable for pulling out some U.S. troops, given that the Iraqi parliament was seated today, and you're making progress in training some forces? THE PRESIDENT: Well, actually I called Silvio Berlusconi on another matter, which may or may not come up during this press conference. It's -- I'll give you a hint. I called him about the World Bank, and -- (laughter) -- and discussed my nominee, and -- but he brought up the issue of Italian troops in Iraq and said, first of all, he wanted me to know that there was no change in his policy, that, in fact, any withdrawals would be done in consultation with allies and would be done depending upon the ability of Iraqis to defend themselves. And I said, are you sure I can say this to the press corps that will be wanting to know what took place in our conversation? He said, absolutely. So I think what you're going to find is that countries will be willing -- anxious to get out when Iraqis have got the capacity to defend themselves. And that's the position of the United States. Our troops will come home when Iraq is capable of defending herself. And that's generally what I find to be the case, Terry, when I've talked to other allies on this issue. And we're making progress. I've talked to General Casey quite frequently. And he keeps us abreast of the progress being made. One of the things -- one of the issues in terms of Iraqi troops being able to defend their country is the ability to stand up chains of command. I think I've shared this with you before, and it's still an issue that they're working on. There's officer training schools, plus the ability for a command to go from a civilian government to a military chain of command, down to the lower ranks of troops. And there's positive signs that have taken place in the development of the Iraqi security forces, and there's still work to be done. Our allies understand that. But I say "anxious to come home," every -- nobody -- people want their troops home, but they don't want their troops home if it affects the mission. We've gone -- we've made a lot of progress. It's amazing how much progress has been made, thanks in large part to the courage of the Iraqi people. And when I talk to people, most understand we need to complete the mission. And completing the mission means making sure the Iraqis can defend themselves. Q So you don't think it's crumbling, the coalition? THE PRESIDENT: No, quite -- quite to the contrary, I think the coalition is -- has been buoyed by the courage of the Iraqi people. I think they've been pleased and heartened by the fact that the Iraqis went to the polls and voted and they're now putting together a government, and they see progress is being made. And I share that sense of enthusiasm about what's taking place in Iraq. Yes, Steve. Q Yes, sir. The Iranians have dismissed the European incentive as insignificant. Should more incentives be offered? How long do they have until you take their case to the Security Council? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I -- first of all, I want to thank our European friends for taking the lead on this issue, telling the Iranians that they should permanently abandon any enrichment or reprocessing to make sure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. Let me review the bidding on this, if I might, just kind of the history, right quick. Iran has concealed its -- a nuclear program. That became discovered, not because of their compliance with the IAEA or NPT, but because a dissident group pointed it out to the world, and -- which raised suspicions about the intentions of the program. You can understand why. It's a non-transparent regime, they're run by a handful of people. And so suspicions were raised. And as a result of those suspicions, we came together with friends and allies to seek a guarantee that they wouldn't use any nuclear program to make weapons. A lot of people understand that if they did have a weapon, it would create incredible instability; it wouldn't be good for world peace. And so the best way to do that -- and this is where we are in the talks -- was to say to the Iranians that they must permanently abandon enrichment and reprocessing. And the EU 3 meant it. And now we're waiting for an Iranian response. Q So how long do you -- how long do you wait? When do you go to the Security Council? THE PRESIDENT: The understanding is we go to the Security Council if they reject the offer. And I hope they don't. I hope they realize the world is clear about making sure that they don't end up with a nuclear weapon. David. Q Mr. President, you say you're making progress in the Social Security debate. Yet private accounts, as the centerpiece of that plan, something you first campaigned on five years ago and laid before the American people, remains, according to every measure we have, poll after poll, unpopular with a majority of Americans. So the question is, do you feel that this is a point in the debate where it's incumbent upon you, and nobody else, to lay out a plan to the American people for how you actually keep Social Security solvent for the long-term? THE PRESIDENT: First of all, Dave, let me, if I might correct you, be so bold as to correct you, I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally. I have laid out principles, I've talked about putting all options on the table, because I fully understand the administration must work with the Congress to permanently solve Social Security. So one aspect of the debate is, will we be willing to work together to permanently solve the issue. Personal accounts do not solve the issue. But personal accounts will make sure that individual workers get a better deal with whatever emerges as a Social Security solution. And the reason why is because a personal account would enable a worker to, voluntarily, by the way -- this is a voluntary program, you can choose to join or choose not to join. The government is not making you do that, it's your option, and you can decide whether or not you want to put some of your own money aside in a conservative mix of stocks and bonds to earn a better rate of return than that which you would earn -- your money would earn inside the Social Security system. And over time, that compounds, it grows, and you would end up with a nest egg you could call your own. And so I think it's an interesting idea, and one that people ought to discuss to make sure the system works better for an individual worker. But it's very important for people to understand that the permanent solution will require Congress and the administration working together on a variety of different possibilities. Q But, sir, but Democrats have made it pretty clear that they're not interested in that. They want you to lay it out. And so, what I'm asking is, don't -- THE PRESIDENT: I'm sure they do. The first bill on the Hill always is dead on arrival. I'm interested in coming up with a permanent solution. I'm not interested in playing political games. (Laughter.) I'm interested in working with members of both political parties. Q Would you say if you're specifically supportive of an income test for the slowing of future benefits? Could that get some kind of bipartisan consensus going? THE PRESIDENT: David, there's some interesting ideas out there. One of the interesting ideas was by the fellow -- by a Democrat economist name of Posen. He came to visit the White House -- he didn't see me, but came and tossed some interesting ideas out, talking about making sure the system was progressive. We're open for ideas. And I -- look, I can understand why people say, make -- force the President to either negotiate with himself, or lay out his own bill. I want to work with members of both political parties. And I stood up in front of the Congress and said, bring your ideas forward. And I'm looking forward to people bringing ideas forward. That's how the process works. I'm confident we'll get something done. See, the American people want something done. They don't like partisan politics; they don't like people saying, I'm not going to accept so-and-so's idea because it happens to come from a particular political party. What they want is people coming together to solve this problem. John. Q Mr. President, the price of oil is at record levels, well above the $28 price point that you would prefer. The price of gasoline is projected to go above $2.50 this spring. How concerned are you that this could start to affect the American economy? Is there more you could do to talk with oil-producing nations to get the price at the wellhead down? And is there more you could do, since part of the problem is refining capacity, to encourage oil companies who haven't built a new refinery in 20 years to start increasing their capacity domestically? THE PRESIDENT: No, I am concerned about the price of energy. I'm concerned about what it means to the average American family when they see the price of gasoline going up. I'm concerned what it means to small businesses. I'm worried about the price of natural gas, particularly given the sense that because a lot of utilities now rely upon natural gas to provide electricity for their consumers. And I have been worried about this since 2001, when I first showed up in Washington, D.C. I'm concerned about the relationship between the demand for oil -- our growing economy's demand for oil, but more particularly, the demand for oil from -- or energy, in general, from countries like China, fast-growing countries that are consuming a lot of raw materials and natural resources. And it is of concern, John. And that's why I went to the Congress and asked them to join in a comprehensive energy plan, which they have yet to do. I would hope that when members go back to their districts and hear the complaints of people about the rising price of gasoline, or complaints from small business owners about the cost of energy, that they will come back and, in the spirit of -- in a proper spirit, get a bill to my desk that encourages conservation and continue to find alternative sources of energy. The -- and by the way, the modernization of the electricity grid is an important part of the energy bill. I, frankly, don't think we need a lot of incentives for energy companies in the energy bill. The incentive is price. That's plenty of incentive for people to go out and find additional resources. I hope Congress passes ANWR. There's a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books. In terms of world supply, I think if you look at all the statistics, demand is outracing supply, and supplies are getting tight. And that's why you're seeing the price reflected. And hopefully, there will be more conservation around the world, better conservation around the world, as well as additional supplies of energy. One thing is for certain; we've got to use our technology to, over time, evolve away from reliance upon oil and gas, and at the same time use our technologies to make sure we can use our plentiful resources like coal in an environmentally friendly way. I went to Columbus, Ohio the other day and talked to the person responsible for the FutureGen plant, which is an innovative use of technology for there to be emissions-free coal-burning plants. That would not only be helpful to the United States, it would be helpful for the world -- developing nations to be able to use this technology. This is going to be a subject, by the way -- was a subject of interest in my trip to Europe. In the councils of the EU, we talked about how we can work together on technological developments to change habits and change supply of the energy mix for the world. And this will be a topic of -- at the G8, as well. Yes. Q Mr. President, could I follow up? Everybody else has had a chance to follow up. THE PRESIDENT: I know, I'm trying to break the habit. (Laughter.) Sorry, it's not you, Roberts. Don't take it personally. (Laughter.) Q I never do, sir. THE PRESIDENT: That's good. Neither do I. Q Mr. President, can you explain why you've approved of and expanded the practice of what's called rendition, of transferring individuals out of U.S. custody to countries where human rights groups and your own State Department say torture is common for people under custody? THE PRESIDENT: The post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack. That was the charge we have been given. And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured. That's the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves. We don't believe in torture. And -- Q As Commander-in-Chief -- THE PRESIDENT: Sorry, what -- make Roberts feel terrible. Q That's all right. THE PRESIDENT: No, no, you shouldn't make -- Q It doesn't bother me at all. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: Elisabeth. Q As Commander-in-Chief, what is it that Uzbekistan can do in interrogating an individual that the United States can't? THE PRESIDENT: We seek assurances that nobody will be tortured when we render a person back to their home country. Elisabeth. Q Paul Wolfowitz, who was the -- a chief architect of one of the most unpopular wars in our history -- THE PRESIDENT: (Laughter.) That's an interesting start. (Laughter.) Q -- is your choice to be the President of the World Bank. What kind of signal does that send to the rest of the world? THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I think people -- I appreciate the world leaders taking my phone calls as I explained to them why I think Paul will be a strong President of the World Bank. I've said he's a man of good experiences. He helped manage a large organization. The World Bank is a large organization; the Pentagon is a large organization -- he's been involved in the management of that organization. He's a skilled diplomat, worked at the State Department in high positions. He was Ambassador to Indonesia where he did a very good job representing our country. And Paul is committed to development. He's a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job in the World Bank. And that's why I called leaders of countries and that's why I put him up. I was pleased to see that Jim Wolfensohn, earlier today, made a very strong comment about Paul's candidacy. Jim Wolfensohn has done a fine job in leading the World Bank. He's represented the World Bank with a lot of class and a lot of dignity, and I think his comments are very important comments for -- for people to get to know Paul better before the -- before the vote is taken. Jim. Q Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader, has been admonished three times by the House Ethics Committee, is currently embroiled in several controversies involving a lobbyist who happened to be a pretty big fundraiser for your two campaigns. Do you have the full confidence in Tom DeLay, his tactics and his leadership role in the Republican Party? THE PRESIDENT: I have confidence in Tom DeLay's leadership, and I have confidence in Tom DeLay. And I am -- we've worked closely with Tom DeLay and the leaders in the House to get a lot done during the last four years, and I'm looking forward to working with him to get a lot done during the next four years. We've got a big agenda. We've got to get an energy bill out of the House; we've got to get more legal reform out of the House; we've got to get a Social Security reform package out of the House; got to get a budget out of the House. There's a lot going on. And Speaker Hastert and Leader DeLay and Whip Blunt are close allies and people with whom we're working to get a lot done. Q Mr. President, you have spoken out about the need for owners, coaches and players in all sports to stop steroid use. And you've also voiced reservations about government getting too involved in that. And as you know, Congress is issuing subpoenas to Major League baseball players during spring training. Do you think that that's an abuse of power, or is it appropriate, in your view? THE PRESIDENT: Well, Congress generally has an independent mind of its own. I spoke out and was pleased to see that baseball responded, and they've got a testing policy in place for the first time ever -- a firm testing policy in place. And it's very important that baseball then follow through and implement the testing and, obviously, deal with those who get caught cheating in the system. And the hearings will go forward, I guess. I guess that's the current status. But I'm wise enough not to second-guess the intentions of the United States Congress. I do appreciate the public concern about the use of steroids in sports, whether it be baseball or anywhere else, because I understand that when a professional athlete uses steroids, it sends terrible signals to youngsters. There's -- we've had some stories in my own state, one of the newspapers there pointed out that they thought there was steroid use in high schools as a result of -- in order to make sure these kids, at least in the kid's mind, could be a better athlete. It's a bad signal. It's not right. And so I appreciate the fact that baseball is addressing this, and I appreciate the fact that the Congress is paying attention to the issue. This first started, of course, with Senator McCain, who basically said, get your house in order. And baseball responded, and my hope is the system will work. Q You have no problem with the subpoenas? THE PRESIDENT: No. Carl. Q Mr. President, your judicial nominees continue to run into problems on Capitol Hill. Republicans are discussing the possibility of ending the current Democratic filibuster practice against it. And Democrats yesterday, led by Minority Leader Harry Reid, went to the steps of the Capitol to say that if that goes forward, they will halt your agenda straight out. What does that say about your judicial nominees, the tone on Capitol Hill? And which is more important, judges or your agenda? THE PRESIDENT: Both. I believe that I have a obligation to put forth good, honorable people to serve on the bench, and have done so. And I expect them to get a up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. This isn't a new position for me, or the -- I've been saying this for the last several years. And they ought to get a vote. They're getting voted out of committee, but they're not getting a vote on the floor. And I don't think it's fair to the candidates, and I don't think it's fair to the administration for this policy to go forward. And so, hopefully, the Senate will be able to conduct business and also get my nominees a vote -- an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. Yes, sir. John. Q Sir, on Social Security, what is the time line that you want to see for action by Congress on a bill? When do you start to get worried about not getting something done this year? And also, if I can add, would you be willing to drop personal accounts in order to get a bill? THE PRESIDENT: Personal accounts are very important for the individuals. It's a -- you know, it's interesting -- David quoted some poll -- there's all kinds of polls. For every poll you quote, I'll quote another one. It's kind of the way Washington works these days. They poll everything. The one I read the other day said people like the idea of personal accounts. I think people like the idea of being able to take some of their own money -- in other words, government says, you can decide, as opposed to, we'll decide for you, you get to decide if this is in your interest. And you get to decide whether you want to set some of your money aside in an account that will earn a better rate of return than that which will be earned in the Social Security system. That's an important part of making sure the system works for the individual. I repeat, personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution. They make the solution more attractive for the individual worker. And that's important for people for understand, John, and that's why it's very important for Congress to discuss this issue. In terms of timetables, as quickly as possible -- whatever that means. No, I am going to -- one of the things that I think is very important for people to understand is that I believe that we have a duty to work on big problems in Washington, D.C., and so I'm going to continue working on this. And it's, I guess -- I'm not going to go away on the issue, because the issue is not going to go away. The longer we wait, the more difficult it is to solve the problem. And, listen, I fully understand it's a difficult issue; otherwise it would have been solved a long time ago. And I understand some members don't -- view this as a tough vote. In other words, why did you bring it up, it's a tough vote? And -- but that's just not the way I think, John. I think we have a duty. I truly do. This is -- now is the time to get this solved. I remember 1983, we've got a 75-year solution. It wasn't a 75-year solution that they came up with. It was a -- I like the spirit of people coming together from both parties to sit down and see if they couldn't solve the immediate problem, but it wasn't a 75-year solution because we're talking about it now. And in 2018, the situation starts to get worse because more money is coming into the system -- I mean, more money is going out of the system than coming in. You know, one thing about Social Security -- I'm sorry to blow on here, but now that you asked -- a lot of people in America think there is a trust: your money goes in, the government holds it, and then the government gives your money back when you retire. That's just not the way it works. And it's important for the American citizens to understand. It's a pay-as-you-go system. And right now, we're paying for a lot of programs other than Social Security with the payroll tax coming in, thereby leaving a pile of IOUs. And part of why I think a personal account is an attractive option for a younger worker is that there will be real assets in the system at this point in time. I also will continue reminding people, when it comes to personal accounts, that the system oftentimes doesn't work for a widow. You know, if a wage-earner dies prior to 62, there are no spousal benefits available until 62. If the spouse -- both spouses work, the spouse that survives will get the higher of his or her Social Security benefits, or the death benefits, but not both. In other words, somebody's contribution to the system just goes away. And a personal account will enable somebody to leave behind an asset base to whomever he or she chooses. And that's an important concept for people to understand. Peter. Q Mr. President, your administration recently called on the Texas courts to review some death -- some death penalty cases down there. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q And during your State of the Union you talked about the importance of DNA evidence, and you talked about the possibility that maybe there were inequities in the system and the lawyers that represent death row inmates. I'm wondering if this represents a change in your feelings about the death penalty since you were governor of Texas. And if there are the possibilities -- the possibilities exist of problems, why not call on -- for a moratorium? THE PRESIDENT: No, I still support the death penalty, and I think it's a deterrent to crime. But I want to make sure, obviously, that those subject to the death penalty are truly guilty. And that's why I talked about what I talked about, and why I made the decision I made. I think, regardless of your position on the issue, one of the things we got to make sure is that we use, in this case, technology, DNA technology, to make sure that we're absolutely certain about the innocence or guilt of a person accused. Yes. Q Mr. President, are you trying to send a message to the IRA by not inviting Gerry Adams and the other Northern Ireland politicians tomorrow? THE PRESIDENT: I talked to Bertie Ahern about this and -- at the EU, and he just asked who was coming to the events, which -- I said, you are, for certain. And we wanted to make sure that we honored those in civil society in Ireland who are contributing positively to the peace process. And that's what we'll be doing on this particular trip. It's very important that people understand that the parties must renounce violence. There's a -- the Good Friday Agreement laid out the way forward for peace in Northern Ireland, and this administration and our government strongly supports those steps. But tomorrow's message will be, we want to thank those in civil society who are working hard to achieve a peaceful resolution. Q By inviting the widow -- the sisters, rather, of this man who was killed -- THE PRESIDENT: That's part of the statement -- a very strong part of the statement. And I'm looking forward to meeting these very brave souls. They've committed themselves to a peaceful solution. And hopefully, their loved one will not have died in vain. I mean, out of the -- hopefully, some good will come out of the evil perpetuated on this family. Yes, sir. Q Mr. President, yesterday you said that Hezbollah could prove it is not a terrorist organization by laying down arms and supporting peace. How willing and flexible, and under what conditions are you able to, as you promote democracy in the Middle East, encourage parties like Hezbollah to discontinue the use of terrorism as a tactic? THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think -- let me make sure that you put my answer into full context. I first said that Hezbollah is on the terrorist list for a reason: because they have killed Americans in the past, and they -- they're a violent organization. And the question was about Lebanon, and let me take a step back, if I might, on this question, because it's important for the American people to understand our policy. Our policy is this: We want there to be a thriving democracy in Lebanon. We believe that there will be a thriving democracy, but only if -- but only if -- Syria withdraws not only her troops completely out of Lebanon, but also her secret service organizations, intelligence organizations -- not secret service, intelligence organizations. I am concerned, and the world should be concerned that the intelligence organizations are embedded in a lot of government functions in Lebanon, and there needs to be a complete withdrawal of those services in order for there to be a free election. And we will -- this government will work with a -- elected leaders of a free, truly free Lebanon, and looking forward to it. I like the idea of people running for office. There's a positive effect when you run for office. Maybe some will run for office and say, vote for me, I look forward to blowing up America. I don't know, I don't know if that will be their platform or not. But it's -- I don't think so. I think people who generally run for office say, vote for me, I'm looking forward to fixing your potholes, or making sure you got bread on the table. And so -- but Hezbollah is on the terrorist list for a reason, and remain on the terrorist list for a reason. Our position has not changed on Hezbollah. Judy. Q President Bush, a court ruling in California this week has revived debate over same-sex marriage. You support a constitutional amendment to ban such marriages. But it's not something you talk about nearly as often as Social Security and many other issues. Will you put some muscle behind that effort this year? Or is it something you'd prefer not to deal with? THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven't changed my position. And as a matter of fact, the court rulings are verifying why I took the position I took, and that is I don't believe judges ought to be deciding this issue. I believe this is an issue of particular importance to the American people and should be decided by the people. And I think the best way to do so is through the constitutional process. I haven't changed my mind at all. As a matter of fact, court rulings such as this strengthen my position it seems like to me. People now understand why I laid out the position I did. Q What can you do to promote action on that amendment? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I -- the courts are going to promote a lot of the action by their very rulings. People will understand that -- the logic behind the decision I made. And no matter what your position is on the issue, this is an issue that should be decided by the people, not by judges. And the more that judges start deciding the issue, I'm confident the more the people will want to be involved in the issue. This is a very important issue for the country and one that obviously needs to be conducted with a great deal of sensitivity and concern about other people's feelings. But this is -- it's an issue I feel strongly about. Yes, Stretch. Q Mr. President, you faced a lot of skepticism in the run-up to the Iraq war, and a lot of criticism for miscalculating some of the challenges of postwar Iraq. Now that the Iraq elections seem to be triggering signs of democratization throughout the broader Middle East, do you feel any sense of vindication? THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I fully understand that as long as I'm the President I will face criticism. It's like part of the job. Frankly, you wouldn't be doing your job if you didn't occasionally lay out the gentle criticism. I welcome constructive ideas as to how we might do our job better. So that doesn't bother me. And, therefore, since it doesn't bother me and I expect it, I don't then seek vindication. Look, history -- shall I give you my talk on history and presidencies? Okay, thank you. I don't -- what's interesting is George Washington is now getting a second, or third, or fifth, or tenth look in history. I read the Ellis book, which is a really interesting book, and -- "His Excellency," it's called. And McCullough is writing a book on George Washington, as well. People are constantly evaluating somebody's standing in history, a President's standing in history, based upon events that took place during the presidency, based upon things that happened after the presidency, based upon -- like in my case, hopefully, the march of freedom continues way after my presidency. And so I just don't worry about vindication or standing. The other thing, it turns out, in this job you've got a lot on your plate on a regular basis, you don't have much time to sit around and wander, lonely, in the Oval Office, kind of asking different portraits, how do you think my standing will be? (Laughter.) I've got a lot to do. And I like to make decisions, and I make a lot of them. But, you know, look, the people who deserve the credit in Iraq are the Iraqi citizens that defied the terrorists. Imagine what it would be like to try to go vote thinking that there could be a suicide bomber standing next to you in line, or somebody would lob a shell or a mortar at you. The courage of the Iraqi citizens was just overwhelming, I thought. It's easy for us to vote. The question is, what it would be like to vote if you were fearful for your life. Parts of the country people were getting messages that said, if you vote we'll find somebody you love and take care of them. And yet they defied these terrorists. It was a powerful moment in the history of freedom. People in the world got to see what it means to -- for a group of people that have been downtrodden to rise up and say, I want to be free. Now, there's a lot of work to be done, and I'm sure there will be some opinions about what takes place during the next nine months, as the constitution is written, and whether or not the elections move forward as smoothly as some think they should. Obviously, there's concern now I read about -- occasionally reading, I want you to know, in the second term -- that -- your stories, that is -- that they haven't formed a government yet. But I take a different look. First of all, obviously, there will be a government formed, but I think it is interesting and -- to watch the process of people negotiating and worrying about this and worrying about that, and people seeking out positions as to their stands on issues that will be relevant to the future of Iraq. It's a wholesome process. And it's being done in a transparent way. I mean, you've got the press corps all over them, watching every move, which is a positive example for others in the region. And that's important. It's important for people in that region to see what is possible in a free society. And I firmly believe that the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan -- I believe there will be a Palestinian state; I believe we'll be able to convince Syria to fully withdraw, or else she'll be isolated -- fully withdraw from Lebanon, or else she'll be isolated -- I believe those examples will serve as examples for others over time. And that will lead to more peace. And that's what we want. Yes, Carl. Q Mr. President, do you also think it will lead to America's reputation being restored? Earlier this week you brought Karen Hughes back at ambassador rank to address the question of antipathy to America around the world -- THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q -- particularly the Muslim world. What does that entail? THE PRESIDENT: Well, it entails a couple of things, Carl. It entails people understanding why we do things we do. You know, for example, there was -- I think we had the image of wanting to fight Muslims -- the United States stood squarely against a religion, as opposed to a society which welcomes all religions. And, in fact, we're fighting a handful of people relative to the Muslim population that wanted to -- I used to say -- hijack the religion. People need to understand we're a compassionate nation and we care deeply about suffering, regardless of where people live. And the -- you know, President Clinton and President Bush 41 did a fine job of helping the world see the great compassion of America when they went on the -- went on their trips in the areas ravaged by the tsunamis. It is very important for us to have a message that counteracts some of the messages coming out of some of the Arab media -- some of it coming out, partly, because of our strong and unwavering friendship with Israel. You know, Israel is an easy target for some of the media in the Middle East, and if you're a friend of Israel, you become a target. And since we're not going to abandon our alliance with Israel, there's a -- there was some churning in the press, and there was some unhelpful things being said. And so part of that is to make sure people understand the truth. And that is, in this particular issue, you bet we're going to stand by Israel. But we also believe the Palestinians have the capability of self-governance in a truly democratic state that will live side-by-side with the Israelis in peace. And so Karen is going -- one, I want to thank her for coming back from Austin. It's very hard, if you're a Texan, to abandon Austin for anywhere else, and -- or Texas for anywhere else. Secondly, I applaud Secretary Rice's decision to include Karen in the process. I thought that was very wise of her to call upon Karen's talents. And Dina Powell, from my office, an Egyptian American, is also going over, leaving the White House compound to work with Karen, because she believes deeply in the American experience, in American values, and wants to share those values with people around the world. And, you know, I think when people also see, Carl, that we do what we say we're going to do -- for example, that we helped feed the hungry and that we believe all folks should be free and that women should have an equal say in society. I think when people see we actually mean that, and then when it comes to fruition, it will help people around the world better understand our good hearts and good nature. Yes, Ken. Q Mr. President, earlier this year, you told us you wanted your administration to cease and desist on payments to journalists to promote your agenda. You cited the need for ethical concerns and the need for bright line between the press and the government. Your administration continue to make the use of video news releases, which is prepackaged news stories sent to television stations, fully aware that some -- or many of these stations will air them without any disclaimer that they are produced by the government. The Comptroller General of the United States, this week, said that raises ethical questions. Does it raise ethical questions about the use of government money to produce stories about the government that wind up being aired with no disclosure that they were produced by the government? THE PRESIDENT: There is a Justice Department opinion that says these -- these pieces are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy. And I expect our agencies to adhere to that ruling, to that Justice Department opinion. This has been a longstanding practice of the federal government to use these types of videos. The Agricultural Department, as I understand it, has been using these videos for a long period of time. The Defense Department, other departments have been doing so. It's important that they be based on the guidelines set out by the Justice Department. Now, I also -- I think it would be helpful if local stations then disclosed to their viewers that that's -- that this was based upon a factual report, and they chose to use it. But evidently, in some cases, that's not the case. So, anyway. Q The administration could guarantee that's happening by including that language in the pre-packaged report. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I don't -- oh, you mean a disclosure, "I'm George W. Bush, and I" -- Q Well, some way to make sure it couldn't air without the disclosure that you believe is so vital. THE PRESIDENT: You know, Ken, there's a procedure that we're going to follow, and the local stations ought to -- if there's a deep concern about that, ought to tell their viewers what they're watching. Q Mr. President, do you think there should be regime change in Iran? And if so, what are you prepared to do to see that happen? THE PRESIDENT: Richard, I believe that the Iranian people ought to be allowed to freely discuss opinions, read a free press, have free votes, be able to choose amongst political parties. I believe Iran should adopt democracy; that's what I believe. Q Mr. President -- THE PRESIDENT: Yes, ma'am. Q Thank you, sir. Do you believe that nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments should continue to be displayed on federal property or in schools? THE PRESIDENT: We had a display of the Ten Commandments on the statehouse grounds in Texas, and I supported that display. Q Mr. President, back to Social Security, if I may. You said right at the top today that you urged members of Congress to go out and talk about the problem with their constituents. THE PRESIDENT: About solutions to the problem. Q But also to talk about solutions. It's that part of it I want to ask about. Aren't you asking them to do something that you really haven't been willing to do yet? THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm interested in -- first of all, I have laid out, in the State of the Union address -- I haven't looked at all previous State of the Union addresses, but I think I'm the first President ever to say, all options are on the table, and named a series of options. I think. Now, maybe somebody could go back and find out -- if you've got some idle time on your hand, you might want to go read previous State of the Union addresses and see if that's true. I don't believe members should go write a bill, but I do believe a member should start discussing ideas with constituencies about how to solve the problem, as opposed to blocking ideas -- to say, here are some ideas, and come back and present them. That's what's happening, by the way. There's a lot of members are talking about different concepts. I've called a lot of them into the White House compound, I've listened to them. There's a variety of ideas. And that's positive. I view that as a positive sign that members of Congress, one, take the problem seriously -- I thought it was helpful yesterday when the United States Senate said that Social Security is a serious problem that requires a permanent solution. And now it's time for people, when they get back from Easter, having talked to different constituency groups, to come back and sit down and start sharing ideas about how to move the process forward. And my pledge is that I will not take somebody's idea and use it as a political weapon against them. That's what's changed in this debate. In other words, the Social Security -- they used to call it the third rail of American politics, because when you talked about it, you got singed, at the minimum. And it's now time to talk about it in a serious way, to come up with a permanent solution. Yes, Jackson. Q Mr. President, you talked earlier about going -- THE PRESIDENT: I can't call on Herman and not on Jackson. Q Thank you. You talked about going to the Security Council if Iran turns down this EU 3 deal. Iran says they're not making nuclear weapons. Are we looking at a potential military confrontation with Iran? THE PRESIDENT: No, we've got a lot of diplomacy, you know. There's a lot of diplomacy on this issue. And that's why I was so pleased to be able to participate with our friends, France and Great Britain and Germany, to say to the Iranians, we speak with a common voice, and we share suspicions because of your past behavior. And the best way to ensure that you do not develop a nuclear weapon is for you to have no enrichment of plutonium -- of -- have no highly enriched uranium program or plutonium program that could lead to a weapon. That's what we've said. And we just started the process -- we just had the discussion. How long ago was I in Europe? Maybe 10 days, or so? Two weeks? About two weeks? I mean, it takes a while for things to happen in the world, David. I mean, I know there's a certain impatience with a never-ending news cycle. But things don't happen on -- necessarily overnight the way some would like them, you know, solve this issue and we go to the next issue. There's a certain patience required in order to achieve a diplomatic objective. And our diplomatic objective is to continue working with our friends to make it clear to Iran we speak with a single voice. Listen, whoever thought about modernizing this room deserves a lot of credit. (Laughter.) Like, there's very little oxygen in here anymore. (Laughter.) And so, for the sake of a health press corps and a healthy President, I'm going to end the press conference. But I want to thank you for giving me a chance to come by and visit. I wish you all -- genuinely wish you all a happy Easter holiday with you and your family. Thank you. Q Can I get that follow-up now? THE PRESIDENT: What? -------- ENERGY -------- coal China's Deadly Mines By Cecil E. Roberts Wednesday, March 16, 2005; Page A23 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38567-2005Mar15.html Last year more than 6,000 miners died in fires, floods and explosions in China's coal mines. That's a staggering average of 16 deaths per day. Sadly, this average was dwarfed on Valentine's Day, when 214 coal miners perished in a single violent explosion at the Sunjiawan mine in northeastern Liaoning province. It was China's worst coal mine disaster in several decades. The United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) mourns the tragic loss of these Chinese miners, and we join the world in calling on China to get serious about coal mine health and safety and stop this madness. In developing nations such as China, India and Ukraine, the growing number of coal mine accidents -- and deaths -- constantly reminds the UMWA of why coal miners' health and safety must take priority over increased operator profits -- both here and abroad. The world's ever-increasing demand for cheap energy cannot be allowed to supersede the need for coal miners to have the best health and safety protections available. In the United States we have been fortunate that the number of coal mining deaths has declined steeply. In the early 20th century, the number of deaths in America's coal mining industry nearly equaled the numbers that some of these developing nations are experiencing today. Things are much better now, and I attribute a large part of the nation's turnaround to the activism and diligence of UMWA members nationwide. They fought long and hard to win passage of the 1969 Coal Mine Safety and Health Act, and because of that legislation, coal mining deaths have declined significantly in the United States. In 2003, a new generation of Chinese leaders publicly indicated their support for increased worker safety protections. The new leaders even enacted the country's first national safety laws. But judging by last year's 6,000-plus coal mining deaths -- and now the Valentine's Day explosion -- it is clear that China's leaders still have a very long way to go, particularly with respect to the nation's coal mining industry. What is also clear is that it is way past time for China's actions to start matching its rhetoric. The UMWA calls on the Bush administration, Congress and world leaders to put far more pressure on China to begin implementing true health and safety protections for the country's coal miners and all its other workers. We believe the conditions many Chinese coal miners are forced to work under today may be worse than the conditions American coal miners endured from the late 1800s to the early-to-mid-1900s. That is an outrage, and it must be immediately rectified. Another way China should address the problem is to allow its workers to belong to legitimate, free trade unions. Many pro-business and anti-worker forces continue to denounce organized labor's relentless pursuit to ensure that America's trade agreements include worker protections. What is happening in China's coal industry is a perfect example of why we will continue to do so. Workers' lives depend on it. The writer is international president of the United Mine Workers of America. -------- energy U.S. backs Kazakhstan-China gas pipeline By David R. Sands THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 16, 2005 http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050315-093334-6051r.htm The United States would support a Chinese plan to build a major new pipeline to export natural gas from Kazakhstan, said the State Department's point man on Caspian energy issues. But Ambassador Steven Mann told a forum of regional business representatives last week that the United States has deep reservations about the sale of neighboring Georgia's main gas pipelines to Russia's state-controlled monopoly Gazprom, saying the deal could jeopardize Georgia's energy independence. Faced with a booming economy and soaring energy demand, China last week reopened talks with Kazakh officials about a transborder gas pipeline, a link that would supplement an oil pipeline project set to start oil flowing in 2006. "Geopolitically, this could be a good thing. We would support this," Mr. Mann said of the proposed pipeline. He said that U.S. analysts had not done a market-feasibility study on the project and that it would be up to Chinese and Kazakh officials to find financing for the deal. Kazakhstan, with huge oil and gas fields along its Caspian Sea shoreline, has been anxious to escape from its dependence on Soviet-era pipelines, which take its oil north to Russia. U.S. officials have been pushing for Kazakhstan to ship more of its energy reserves through the highly touted new pipeline that bypasses Russia by going through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is expected to begin operations May 25. Kenzhegali Sagadiyev, chairman of the finance committee of Kazakhstan's lower house of parliament, said last week that his country does not want to rely solely on Russian pipelines to reach major export markets. "Our goal is to build multiple pipelines in multiple directions," Mr. Sagadiyev said. "We have concluded an agreement with China, and we want very much to participate in the [Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan] pipeline. We cannot just rely on one pipeline going north through Russia and to the West." It is not clear when Kazakh Caspian gas exports to China could begin. The proposed pipeline must traverse nearly 4,400 miles of Kazakh territory just to reach the border with China. Beijing's aggressive drive to secure energy supplies has roiled world markets and unnerved its neighbors. Zaid Haider, a research assistant in the South Asia program of the Washington-based Henry L. Stimson Center, said Beijing has sought supply or co-production deals in recent years with partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America. China's willingness to deal with governments at odds with Washington -- including Iran, Sudan and Venezuela -- "reaps two types of political dividends: consolidating relations for future collaboration and supplanting U.S. influence," Mr. Haider said in a recently published survey. -------- OTHER -------- environment US tries to sink forests plan British initiative on illegal logging opposed Paul Brown and Roger Harrabin Wednesday March 16, 2005 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,13369,1438522,00.html#article_continue The US plans to wreck a British initiative to commit the G8 states to combatting illegal logging in the world's threatened rainforests, a leaked memorandum revealed last night. The development secretary, Hilary Benn, wants G8 environment and development ministers meeting in Derby tomorrow and on Friday to insist that all timber bought by official bodies in rich nations comes from properly managed forests. The British initiative was prompted by Indonesia, which said corruption there was so rampant that the authorities did not have the power to tackle the supply of timber by criminal gangs. Indonesian government ministers urged rich nations to reduce demand for illegal supplies by requiring proper certificates showing wood had come from properly managed forests. But industry lobbyists in the US have resisted moves to certify timber. A US state department memo leaked to the BBC's Newsnight shows that the US will refuse to sign up to the Benn initiative. The state department head of forest policy, Stephanie Caswell, drafted a strategy in January designed to scupper the Benn plan, an "Input to strategy paper for G8 environment and development ministerial". Under what she described as "watch out items" is timber procurement. She said that "new import regulations/restrictions are unacceptable. We do not support issuance of 'action plan' by ministers. It should not be highlighted." The paper adds that the "US will work with Canada to hold back procurement actions and with Russia and Japan to dissuade them from supporting UK". A state department spokesman confirmed that the paper was genuine, but said it was never formally accepted as US strategy. He confirmed that the US had reservations over proposals for new rules on timber procurement in America, but insisted that in this week's negotiations the US would allow other G8 partners to decide whether to support Mr Benn's scheme. He said the US "might have had some discussions with Japan on the fringes of meetings about the issue" in G8 preparatory meetings, but said the Japanese would make up their own minds. Europe is strongly backing Mr Benn's initiative, and the US tactics drew a furious response from rainforest campaigners. Faith Doherty of the Environmental Investigation Agency in the UK said: "This is outrageous. US business simply doesn't want any restrictions on its own practices." Japan's foreign ministry told Newsnight that its position was much closer to the UK than to the US. It is understood that Russia is also lining up with the Europeans. Agus Setyarso, an Indonesian expert on forests who works with Mr Benn's department, said the Indonesian government could not contain the organised crime rings carrying out the illegal logging without help. "The problem cannot be attacked from within the country, but from the market side. What we are asking from developed countries is twofold. One is to stop buying illegal timber from producer countries. The second is to help us in bringing back the systems in our country in such a way that the market and the law enforcement can be back to normal." A department spokesman said it did not comment on leaked memos, and that negotiations over the statement for the end of the G8 meeting were continuing. Privately, however, officials were said to be angry at the US's refusal to join international efforts. Other observers feel the state department's position is driven by free-market ideology. Forest campaigners say the US position is a serious blow, because if all the G8 nations signed up to the Benn plan it would guarantee that a substantial proportion of world timber was properly produced and send a clear signal to companies and exporting nations about the direction of future policy. In an echo of the debate over climate change, the US is sceptical about G8 timber policies because China is a huge importer of stolen timber. Campaigners say China is unlikely to change unless rich countries put their house in order. ---- Climate Change Is Called Economic Threat at Talks By HEATHER TIMMONS (NYT) FOREIGN DESK Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 6 , Column 4 March 16, 2005, Wednesday http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B1FFF38580C758DDDAA0894DD404482 ABSTRACT - British government convenes meeting of environmental and energy officials from twenty countries to discuss climate change, which Britain has declared top issue as it assumes leadership of Group of 8; Min Gordon Brown warns that changing climate poses real threat to economic activity; US delegate James L Connaughton tells BBC that science is still being contested (S) -------- human rights 200 activists press U.N.to back Cuba Associated Press March 16, 2005 http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050315-093330-5670r.htm HAVANA (AP) About 200 intellect- tuals, activists and artists from Latin America and elsewhere issued a letter Monday urging the top human rights watchdog of the United Nations to side with Cuba in an expected battle over the communist country's human rights record. The letter said the U.S. government has no moral authority to criticize Cuba's human rights record after its own scandals over treatment of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. A U.S.-backed resolution to condemn the island's record usually is presented at every spring meeting in Geneva of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which this year began Monday and runs through April 22. No resolution targeting the island has emerged, but Cuba expects such a proposal to be presented and considered in mid-April. Last year's resolution passed by a vote of 22-21, with 10 abstentions. Nobel Peace Prize laureates, including Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina and Rigoberta Menchu of Guatemala, signed the letter, as did South Africa's Nadine Gordimer and Portugal's Jose Saramago, both recipients of the Nobel Prize in literature. Among American signatories were actor Danny Glover, author Alice Walker and historian and activist Howard Zinn. -------- imf / world bank / wto (economics) Wolfowitz nomination a shock for Europe By Edward Alden, Christopher Swann and Guy Dinmore in Washington Published: March 16 2005 20:46 Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/33aa58b6-965b-11d9-8fcc-00000e2511c8.html President George W. Bush's decision on Wednesday to nominate Paul Wolfowitz as the next president of the World Bank marks the second shock this month to Europeans who thought Mr Bush would present a kinder, gentler face to the world in his second term. Instead, along with the nomination last week of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, Mr Bush has put forward two men who have been the most passionate advocates for the view that if the US leads, the rest of the world will follow and fall into line. "Wolfowitz has been seen as a symbol of the go-it-alone approach of the Bush administration," said Devesh Kapur, a Harvard political scientist and co-author of the official history of the World Bank. "Along with the nomination of Bolton, the US is putting the biggest sceptics of multilateralism in charge." Mr Wolfowitz, deputy secretary in the Pentagon for the past four years, was among the earliest and strongest administration advocates for the war to oust Saddam Hussein. His name has become synonymous with the neoconservative argument that US security is reinforced not by a balance of power but by the use of military power to spread democratic ideals abroad. With the successful elections in Iraq in January, and the possibility of democratic reforms in Lebanon and Egypt, his claims that the war could trigger a broader transformation in the region look more plausible than they did several months ago. But critics will still point to the numerous lapses in judgment along the way. Mr Wolfowitz was among prominent members of the administration who engaged in a campaign two years ago to assure Americans that the financial costs of invading Iraq would be slight. These assurances were delivered against expert advice. "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people," Mr Wolfowitz told a House of Representatives hearing on March 27 2003. "On a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50bn and $100bn over the course of the next two or three years," he said. "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." In the two years since the invasion, Iraq's oil revenues have totalled $25bn (€18.6bn, £13bn), despite soaring world prices. The cost of the war and reconstruction has exceeded $200bn so far. The appointment will also raise questions about development credentials. While Mr Wolfowitz's career included a stint as ambassador to Indonesia, his focus has long been on military affairs and he is not seen as an expert on development issues or international finance. Oxfam, the aid agency, said: "It is vital that whoever becomes the new World Bank president ensures that the Bank is focused on reducing poverty." Some non-governmental groups fear Mr Wolfowitz will have a different focus, seeking to enlist the bank in the larger project of building US security by spreading democracy. "There will be concern about the possibility of introducing the war on terror into the projects and policies of the World Bank," said Manish Bapna, executive-director of the Bank Information Center. Mr Wolfowitz has said on more than one occasion that he believes development is vital to winning the war on terrorism. In a speech at the Brookings Institution in 2002, he said: "The hundreds of millions of Muslims who aspire to modernity, freedom and prosperity are, in reality, themselves on the front line of the struggle against terrorism". -------- ACTIVISTS Save ANWAR- Act Now From: "Bill Smirnow" Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:41pm Dear ___, We are hours away from the vote to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the heat is on thanks to your efforts over the last 24 hours. A vote is expected around 1:00 PM EST and floor debate begins at 10:15 AM EST. Tune in and watch live on C-SPAN2. In the last 24 hours we have seen an amazing display of our johnkerry.com community's ability to quickly mobilize - and a passionate outpouring of commitment to the Arctic Refuge. And you got the attention of the Republicans too. In fact late last night Republican leaders came to the floor of the Senate to complain directly about our Citizens' Roll Call to stop this special interest giveaway. So far, a quarter of a million citizens - more than 260,000 people, have signed our Citizens' Roll Call in support of the Cantwell-Kerry Amendment to prevent the oil drills from invading one of our greatest natural treasures. With the roll call vote in the Senate fast approaching TODAY, we must keep the pressure on - and our Citizens' Roll Call growing. Sign the Citizens' Roll Call today: http://www.johnkerry.com/RollCall With support from grassroots activists across the nation, we are running an online advertising campaign in six critical states that are home to the Republican senators who now hold the future of the Arctic Refuge in their hands. If you haven't acted yet, please take ONE minute now to sign the roll call and, if you've already signed, use that minute to forward this message to friends and colleagues. The vote that could decide the future of the Arctic Refuge is going down to the wire. Let's keep working until we win. Your actions today are making a critical difference. Sincerely, John Kerry