NucNews - April 28, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR Itty-Bitty and Shrinking, Fusion Device Has Big Ideas By KENNETH CHANG April 28, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/science/28fusion.html?pagewanted=print&position= Correction Appended In a surprising feat of miniaturization, scientists are reporting today that they have produced nuclear fusion - the same process that powers the sun - in a footlong cylinder just five inches in diameter. And they say they will soon be able to make the device even smaller. While the device is probably too inefficient to produce electricity or other forms of energy, the scientists say, egg-size fusion generators could someday find uses in spacecraft thrusters, medical treatments and scanners that search for bombs. The findings, by a team at the University of California, Los Angeles, led by Dr. Seth J. Putterman, are being reported in the journal Nature. The minifusion device accelerates hydrogen atoms and slams them together to produce helium. Unlike earlier claims of tabletop fusion - "cold fusion," in 1989, which suggested that energy could be produced by running electricity through water and metal plates, and "sonofusion," in 2002, in which collapsing bubbles supposedly heat gases to starlike temperatures - this report is not being greeted with skepticism. "I think it's very persuasive," said Dr. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton. Dr. Michael J. Saltmarsh, a retired scientist who worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, said the energy of the particles emitted by the collisions convincingly matched what was expected for fusion. Dr. Saltmarsh was one of two Oak Ridge scientists who said they were unable to detect the signatures of fusion in the 2002 sonofusion experiment. In a commentary accompanying the Nature paper, Dr. Saltmarsh described the new device as "intriguingly simple" and added, "Indeed, in some ways it is remarkably low tech." By contrast with the earlier claims, the U.C.L.A. researchers do not assert that their invention will provide unlimited energy. "What we've built so far," Dr. Putterman said, "no chance." Indeed, the new device does not even produce enough energy to warm the hand. But it could be useful as a source of neutrons, the subatomic particles that are a byproduct of fusion. Because neutrons do not have any electrical charge, they can penetrate deep into matter, and that could provide a way to peer easily into luggage or cargo containers. "We can give them a little tiny front end for a camera that can look behind things," Dr. Putterman said. The central component of the device is a crystal of lithium tantalate, which belongs to a class of materials known as pyroelectrics. Pyroelectrics, which generate strong electric fields when heated or cooled, have long been known, possibly described as far back as 314 B.C. by a student of Aristotle. "It's quite a surprise to see it used in this way," Dr. Happer of Princeton said. In the experiment, the crystal, a cylinder about an inch and a quarter in diameter and a half-inch in length, was mounted inside the footlong cylinder and surrounded by a gas of deuterium, a heavy version of hydrogen. Warming the crystal about 50 degrees Fahrenheit produced a charge of 1,000 volts. That created electric fields around a tungsten tip that were so strong that they ripped electrons off the deuterium and accelerated the charged deuterium ions into a target that also contained deuterium. When one deuterium ion hit a deuterium atom, fusion occurred. Sometimes. But because only one in a million of the collisions actually produce fusion, the device is an inefficient generator of energy. The jet of deuterium ions could serve as thrusters for small spacecraft, and X-rays produced by electrons' being caught in the powerful electric fields might be useful for treating tumors. The current device produces only about 1,000 neutrons a second, few enough that it would not be dangerous to use even in a physics demonstration, Dr. Saltmarsh said. The researchers plan a more powerful version by replacing deuterium in the target with tritium, an even heavier form of hydrogen, generating about 250 times as many neutrons. Additional improvements should raise the rate to a million neutrons a second. Commercial neutron generators, which can already make a million neutrons a second, similarly accelerate deuterium into targets, but they rely on high-voltage power sources to generate the electric fields. By relying on pyroelectric crystals instead, the U.C.L.A. research could lead to generators that are much simpler and less expensive. "What Putterman's made is an amazing little accelerator," Dr. Happer said. "It's a version of that that doesn't need any high voltage." Dr. Putterman says he envisions a device consisting just of an egg-size container with a crystal, deuterium gas and the target inside. Plunging the container into ice water or warming it with body heat would be enough to set off the reactions. "We can diddle temperature a mere 30 degrees and generate fields that make fusion," he said. Correction: April 30, 2005, Saturday: An article on Thursday about an experiment that produced nuclear fusion in a small cylinder misstated the voltage of the electric charge that generated the reaction. The charge, produced by warming a crystal of lithium tantalate by 50 degrees Fahrenheit, was 100,000 volts, not 1,000. ---- Pocket-Sized Nuclear Fusion a Reality LOS ANGELES, California, April 28, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-28-03.asp For the first time, scientists have created a nuclear fusion reaction on a desktop. They did it simply, by heating a crystal, without the use of enormous particle accelerators and high temperature and pressure that have been conceived in the past as the way to reproduce and control the same energy that powers the Sun and stars. Nuclear fusion has long been seen as the clean energy of the future if it could only be controlled. But this discovery will not solve the world's energy problems. The inventors of the device emphasize that it cannot generate power because it does not support a self-sustaining thermonuclear reaction. They anticipate that their "simple palm-sized neutron generator" will be used to power small spacecraft, zap cancerous tumors, or peer into suspicious luggage. A scientific team at the University of California-Los Angeles led by physicist Dr. Seth Putterman invented the toaster-sized device, detailed in Thursday's issue of the journal "Nature." It uses the energy fields of a crystal, without plugging it in to a power source, to generate the fusion reaction. The team reports that gently heating a pyroelectric crystal of lithium tantalate from freezing to room temperature produces a powerful electric field. This field is focused until it is strong enough to accelerate a beam of deuterium ions to about one percent of the speed of light. Deuterium is a stable isotope of hydrogen, meaning that it is not radioactive and has a very long life span. When the accelerated beam of deuterium ions hits a target containing deuterium nuclei, they fuse to form helium-3, a combination of two protons and a neutron. The process emits about 1,000 neutrons a second, and by allowing the crystal to heat up slowly, fusion can be sustained for as long as eight hours at over 400 times the background level, the scientists found. This type of fusion is used today in commercially available instruments that determine the chemical composition of materials at a distance. Neutron beams are used at airports to see into checked and carry-on baggage, for secure area screening, and for minerals exploration and oil well logging. But replacing these larger machines with a small crystal that generates a neutron stream is considered a breakthrough. "Everyone will be talking about the fusion, but this crystal can also give off X-rays as it accelerates electrons," Putterman told "Nature." "This effectively creates a tiny radioactive source that can be turned on and off at will." He said that such a radioactive source could one day be used "to target radiation at cancerous cells: a smaller version could be injected into the body and directed towards a tumor before being switched on." By contrast, today's radiation therapies kill healthy cells along with cancerous ones. The other two members of the crystal fusion team are Brian Naranjo and Dr. James Gimzewski, UCLA professor of chemistry and executive member of the California Nanosystems Institute. A celebrated nanotechnologist, Gimzewski was formerly with IBM's Zurich Research Lab, where he worked on the newly invented Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM). He also investigated the properties of sharp metallic tips as local sources of electrons, photons, ions and atoms, research that led to the crystal fusion device. The 1989 claims of cold fusion were debunked by many scientists, including Putterman and Gimzewski. "Attempts to produce fusion in a room temperature solid-state setting, including 'cold' fusion and 'bubble' fusion, have met with deep scepticism," they write in the paper describing their device. But Gimzewski says the cold fusion claims "stimulated creative experimentation that led to this crystal fusion technique. "In 1989, like many scientists, the controversial cold-fusion claims made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann naturally stirred our interest," says Gimzewski. "This led us to playfully think of creating nuclear fusion by crashing a tip into a surface under electrochemical conditions." "This seems now to be a ridiculous notion, but I had learned from working in STM that seemingly impossible and apparently ridiculous ideas sometimes do work. This was an example of what experimentation is all about." The team is now trying to make the device smaller and increase the number of neutrons it generates. ---- An Orwellian View of Nuclear Energy War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Nuclear Energy is Green by Luke Brothers, April 2005 From: David Krieger Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:40pm In George Orwell’s classic novel, 1984, the government uses the slogans war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Now, Nicholas Kristof (New York Times, April 9, 2005) would have us believe that nuclear energy is green. Kristof’s argument that “nukes are green” is out of touch with reality. Kristof would have us believe that the truly green energy sources – solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal – are no match compared to the benefits of nuclear power. He argues that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. Presumably, in Kristof’s logic, the gigantic steam towers, reactor buildings and nuclear fuel spring from the earth as naturally as the sun shines and the wind blows. Kristof offers an extremely narrow examination of the issue. He fails to consider that the construction of a nuclear plant, as well as fueling, decommissioning and storage of spent fuel, relies heavily upon fossil fuels, which generate vast quantities of greenhouse gases. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Energy Information Administration says the global strategy to mitigate carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, besides conservation programs, should include retiring coal-fired plants in favor of natural gas and renewables and not to construct new nuclear plants. Kristof also fails to accurately analyze the economics of the nuclear industry. Monstrous government subsidies have kept the industry afloat. Without massive subsidization, the nuclear industry’s insurance liabilities would have driven the industry into the ground years ago. The IAEA Energy Information Administration reports that “new nuclear power plants presently cost more to build than do fossil fuel plants. This includes fossil fuel plants such as those fired by natural gas, a fuel that carries lower environmental costs…” Combined costs of new nuclear plants with the unknown yet enormous costs to store the more than 45,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste produced to date, promises to handicap future generations with a gargantuan debt. If nuclear energy is accepted as green and reactors multiply across the world, future generations can expect not only an economic nightmare, but also the potential for accidents such as Chernobyl, calamitous terrorist attacks and an environment strewn with radioactivity. Kristof is dead wrong in suggesting that burdening future generations with nuclear wastes buried underground is more reasonable than burdening them with a warmer world in which Manhattan is submerged under 20 feet of water. Endorsing nuclear energy as green and calling for an expanded national presence for nuclear energy will not solve the global warming crisis, it will only exacerbate it. Accepting nuclear energy as green will increase the number of targets terrorists might strike; increase the amount of viciously radioactive waste in need of heavily protected long-term storage; and increase the amount of ozone depleting gases emitted into the atmosphere. Replacing fossil fuels with truly renewable energy sources could be accomplished with government subsidization for a fraction of what the US is currently spending to subsidize the nuclear power industry and to secure our access to Middle East oil through military intervention and foreign aid. Unless war is peace and freedom is slavery, then nuclear energy is not green. Policy makers must realize they need not choose between two poisons: burdening future generations with nuclear wastes buried underground or burdening the future with a warmer world submerged under water. Kristof glosses over the true viability of clean, renewable energy sources. With sufficient funding, research, and legislative support, future generations won’t have to face the bleak Orwellian future that Kristof implies is inevitable. [Luke Brothers is the Communications and Outreach Associate at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - http://www.wagingpeace.org/ ] ---- Scientists Claim Nuclear Fusion in Tabletop Test Energy Created Was Too Little to Harness for Inexpensive Power, They Say Associated Press Thursday, April 28, 2005; Page A09 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702111.html LOS ANGELES -- In the latest attempt to create nuclear fusion under laboratory conditions, scientists reported they achieved it in a tabletop experiment that uses a strong electric field generated by a small crystal. While the energy created was too small to harness cheap fusion power, this new way of making nuclear fusion could have potential uses in the oil-drilling industry and homeland security, said Seth J. Putterman, a physicist at the University of California at Los Angeles, who conducted the study. The experiment is reported Thursday in the journal Nature. For decades, scientists have sought to produce controllable nuclear fusion, the power that lights the sun. Fusion power has been promoted as the ultimate solution to the world's energy needs and a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels such as coal and oil, but even investigating potential ways of generating it requires enormous reactors that cost millions of dollars. Claims of tabletop fusion have been met with skepticism. In one of the most notable cases, B. Stanley Pons of the University of Utah and Martin Fleischmann of Southampton University in England shocked the world in 1989 when they announced they had achieved so-called cold fusion at room temperature. Their work was discredited after repeated unsuccessful attempts to reproduce it. Fusion experts said the UCLA experiment was credible because, unlike the 1989 work, it did not violate basic principles of physics. "This doesn't have any controversy in it because they're using a tried-and-true method," said David Ruzic, professor of nuclear and plasma engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "There's no mystery in terms of the physics." In fusion, light atoms are joined in a high-temperature process that frees large amounts of energy. Fusion produces virtually no air pollution and does not pose the safety and long-term radioactive waste concerns raised by modern nuclear power plants, where heavy uranium atoms are split to create energy in a process known as nuclear fission. In the UCLA experiment, scientists placed a tiny crystal that can generate a strong electric field into a vacuum chamber filled with deuterium gas, a form of hydrogen. Then the researchers activated the crystal by heating it. The reaction gave off an isotope of helium along with neutrons, subatomic particles that are released in fusion reactions. The experiment did not, however, produce more energy than was put in, an achievement that would be a breakthrough. Putterman said future experiments will focus on refining the technique for potential commercial uses, including designing portable neutron generators that could be used for oil-well drilling or scanning luggage and cargo at airports. -------- accidents and safety Cracks in decaying shell of Chernobyl reactor threaten second disaster By Andrew Osborn in Moscow 28 April 2005 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=633671 A leading Russian scientist has claimed that the sarcophagus entombing Chernobyl's broken nuclear reactor is dangerously degraded and he warned that its collapse could cause a catastrophe on the same scale as the original accident almost 20 years ago. Professor Alexei Yablokov, President of the Centre for Russian Environmental Policy, said the concrete and metal sarcophagus was riven with cracks, already leaking radiation and at risk of collapse unless repairs were undertaken and work on a replacement urgently begun. "If it collapses, there will be no explosion, as this is not a bomb, but a pillar of dust containing irradiated particles will shoot 1.5 kilometres into the air and will be spread by the wind." Depending on how the wind is blowing, Russia or Belarus would bear the brunt of such a dust cloud. Ukraine, where Chernobyl is located, would also be affected. The sarcophagus is designed to keep a lid on what is left of the nuclear reactor that exploded with such dire consequences during an unauthorised test in April 1986 and is supposed to stop the mass of unspent nuclear fuel that lies beneath from entering the atmosphere. It is estimated that only between 3 and 15 per cent of that fuel actually escaped during the explosion meaning that most of it is still trapped inside. Dr Yablokov, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a one-time adviser to former president Boris Yeltsin, said nuclear reactions were actually taking place - spontaneously - inside the sarcophagus as rain and snow fell on the unspent fuel through cracks in the decaying shell. He said experts had "seen a luminescence characteristic of chain reactions inside the giant building". adding: "Who could predict what might happen if hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete, which was hastily poured 19 years ago, tumbled down on the ruined nuclear reactor?" His gloomy assessment corroborates that of the Ukrainian officials who manage the decommissioned power plant. Earlier this year Julia Marusych, the head of information at Chernobyl, admitted on Russian TV that the sarcophagus was in appalling condition: "The construction is unstable, unsafe, and does not meet any safety requirements." The sarcophagus was hastily thrown together after the explosion as a desperate attempt to contain the world's worst nuclear accident. Many of the workers who toiled on it have since died of cancer and the sarcophagus itself began showing signs of serious stress in the early 1990s. Built to last 50 years,experts were forced to reduce its recommended lifespan to just 20 years meaning a replacement is due in 2006. Some repair work was carried out earlier this year but progress is slow due to the fact that construction workers can only be in its vicinity for short periods because of radiation levels. Sceptics claim that warnings about its deterioration are designed to persuade Western donors to stump up the $1bn bill. A donors' conference takes place in London on 12 May and the Ukrainian government hopes to raise $300m. That task has been complicated, however, by recent revelations that private firms have embezzled some $185m of Chernobyl money, some of which was earmarked for a new shelter. The first catastrophe 26 APRIL 1986: 1.23am: Reactor number four at Chernobyl nuclear power plant begins to fail. Explosion blows 1,000-ton cover off the reactor and 31 people die immediately. 5am: Fire caused by explosion is put out by firefighters who are not warned of radiation. Many later die. Evening: Officials arrive at site and order evacuation of nearby town of Pripyat. 27 APRIL: Disaster is hidden until workers at Forsmark nuclear plant in Sweden are found to have radioactive particles on clothes. Swedish search for the source of radioactivity leads to the USSR. 28 APRIL: Soviet leadersadmit accident happened but full scale is not explained. First Soviet media reports: Chernobyl is fourth item in Moscow Radio's evening bulletin. 1 MAY: Despite clouds of radiation overhead, authorities encourage locals to turn out for May Day parade in nearby Kiev. JUNE-NOVEMBER: Large sarcophagus made of steel and concrete is hastily constructed. ---- Wrap Protecting Vital Equipment From Fire in Atom Plants Is Unsafe, U.S. Agency Says By MATTHEW L. WALD April 28, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/nyregion/28indian.html?pagewanted=print&position= WASHINGTON, April 27 - A material being used at 4 nuclear reactors in New York and 10 others around the country to prevent fire damage to vital equipment would shrink during a fire and expose the equipment to unacceptable amounts of heat, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The discovery that the material, sold under the trade name Hemyc, does not provide enough protection to meet the commission's rules, follows a major effort to replace a different material, Thermo-lag, used for the same purpose. Problems with Thermo-lag were discovered in 1992. "If we were smarter we would have not allowed this stuff to be used in the first place," Brian W. Sheron, associate director of the project licensing and technical analysis office of the commission, said in an interview on Tuesday. As potential problems are discovered, he said, the commission moves to make the reactor owners correct them, at a pace that depends on estimates of the degree of the hazard. In this case, the immediate risk may be small, commission officials said. The commission was prompted to study Hemyc, Mr. Sheron said, when an inspector noticed that it did not look much different from other material being replaced. Hemyc is made of a silicon and a ceramic. The commission plans a meeting Friday with reactor owners to ask them to demonstrate why their plants should not be shut down until the problem can be fixed. Hemyc, which is produced in blanket form, is often wrapped around cable trays or junction boxes and stitched together. Commission rules require that cables that power or control crucial equipment, usually pumps or valves, be protected with a fire barrier that would last an hour if the area has fire-detection equipment and sprinklers or other suppression systems. In other areas, the fire protection material is supposed to last three hours. According to tests commissioned by the agency, Hemyc shrinks by about 8 percent if exposed to temperatures of about 800 degrees Fahrenheit and could then expose the cables. It is not clear whether a fire could reach that temperature, but the material does not meet the agency's standard. Mr. Sheron said that Hemyc was available in a form that was already shrunk and thus would not shrink further when heated, but that a different form was found in the reactors. In New York, Hemyc is used at Indian Point 2 and 3, in Buchanan, and the James A. FitzPatrick reactor, near upstate Oswego. All three of those plants are operated by Entergy, and a spokesman for the company, James Steets, said Entergy had established fire patrols in the area where Hemyc was used until it can determine the extent of the hazard and decide whether replacement is warranted. The Robert E. Ginna plant near Rochester also uses the material. Fires are believed to be one of the most important threats to nuclear reactors. In March 1975, a fire in a cable room under the control rooms for two of the Tennessee Valley Authority's reactors at Browns Ferry in Alabama burned for more than six hours and destroyed cables that controlled the operation of crucial pumps and valves, or supplied them with electric power. David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that is often critical of nuclear safety, said it was not clear why the commission was still discovering inadequate materials 30 years after the Browns Ferry fire. "It would sure be nice someday to get a one-hour fire wrap that works," he said. ---- U.S. Panel: Open Door to Radiation Claims By TRAVIS REED The Associated Press Thursday, April 28, 2005; 10:38 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801271_pf.html SALT LAKE CITY -- A panel of experts is recommending the government open the door to hearing cancer claims from people in all states who think they were affected by nuclear fallout from 1950s weapons tests in Nevada. However, those cancer victims would have to prove it was the nuclear fallout that caused their illness, and making that case would be very difficult. The recommendation was released Thursday by a panel under the National Research Council, the chief operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The panel's finding is a nod to scientific data that wasn't available in 1990 when the government initially apologized to cancer victims with a law that set up a compensation fund. Whether the proposal will have any practical effect seems questionable. The data suggest people from as far away as the East Coast could have been exposed to radiation carried from the Nevada test sites by wind and weather patterns. Previously, only people who worked with uranium and residents of certain counties in the region were eligible for the $50,000 to $100,000 lump-sum payments. However, the Board on Radiation Effects Research was also quick to point out the recommended expansion would likely benefit few additional people, because it would require Congress to redraw its criteria for eligibility. U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, a Utah Democrat and longtime advocate for compensation, said it's not immediately clear when or how Congress would act on the recommendation. Currently, anyone who has one of 19 kinds of cancer and who was a child in the 1950s living in one of the designated areas downwind of the Nevada test site is eligible for money. But if the program were expanded to include all 50 states and U.S. territories, as the board suggests, victims would have to prove to at least some degree their cancer was caused by radioactive fallout. "In most cases it is unlikely that exposure to radiation from fallout was a substantial contributing cause to developing cancer," the board writes in a nearly 390-page report. "The problem faced by the legal system is that no specific form of cancer is caused only by radiation." The review was ordered after complaints that the compensation bill shortsightedly included only certain counties in Utah, Arizona and Nevada _ ignoring others that were as polluted or worse than eligible regions. A scientific model in the board's report showed people in unprotected counties in Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Nebraska, Tennessee, Vermont and New York could have absorbed higher levels of radiation to the thyroid than people in at least one of the Utah counties eligible for compensation. So far, the federal government has paid more than $700 million to more than 11,000 radiation victims and their families affected by radioactive exposure between 1945 and 1971. The board was asked to recommend improvements for the program, be it covering more diseases or wider geographic areas. Board members intentionally ignored the question of cost, instead preferring to let Congress make those calculations, said R. Julian Preston, an EPA researcher who worked on the recommendation. The board also didn't weigh in on how Congress should refine eligibility requirements with the gates open to everyone across the country. Instead, Preston said, the board was charged with evaluating whether the government's standards for eligibility were fair in light of new information. Jonathan Moreno, head of the University of Virginia's Biomedical Ethics program and one of several academics who peer-reviewed the study, said the board's conclusion is based on science, regardless of whether that satisfies seriously ill people who blame the tests for their suffering. "The fact that terrible things have happened to people can't necessarily be traceable to a specific event," he said. "So it's awful to have to tell someone that you can't help them. But I think often that's the honest answer in many of these instances." -------- depleted uranium Bush plans to sell Israel 100 'bunker buster' weapons Thur., Apr. 28, 2005 Pacifica http://www.pacifica.org/programs/fsrn/fsrn_050428.html The Bush administration is moving ahead with plans to sell to the state of Israel 100 of the notorious “bunker buster” weapons that use depleted uranium. Eun-young Chough reports from D.C. Italians are rejecting a US report that absolves the soldiers who killed an Italian intelligence officer while he was escorting a former hostage home. Diletta Varlesce has more from Brescia. Mexico’s Attorney General is resigning after political wrangling over whether he should pursue corruption charges against the leading presidential candidate. Shannon Young reports from Oaxaca. Students around the nation are demanding that service workers on their campuses receive living wages and better working conditions. Selina Musuta reports on the most recent struggle at Howard University. Police in Port-au-Prince claim they fired upon a crowd of protestors only after someone shot at them first. All reports confirm that five protestors died, but there is no corroborating evidence to support the police assertion. Demonstrators were demanding the return of President Jean Bertrand Aristide who was ousted in a US coup d’etat last year under accusations of corruption. This month US officials admitted to ignoring an embargo and providing weapons to Haitian security forces. They justified the action by saying police need to control violence with more armaments. Presidential elections are scheduled take place in November of this year. ---- New Web site has DU information on Jefferson Proving Ground Peggy Vlerebome Madison Courier Staff Writer 4/28/2005 3:00:00 PM http://www.madisoncourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=23623&TM=55245.57 A new Web site for Jefferson Proving Ground went online yesterday. The address is http://www.jpgbrac.com. The new site, which is hosted by an Army contractor and so has the .com instead of .mil address, includes much of the administrative record, information on environmental programs and a section on depleted uranium. Paul Cloud, the Army’s environmental coordinator at the former munitions testing site, announced the new site at a sparsely attended quarterly meeting last night of the Jefferson Proving Ground Restoration Advisory Board. Cloud is co-chairman of the advisory board. He, co-chairman Richard Hill of Save the Valley, JPG site manager and advisory board member Ken Knouf, two minute-takers and a reporter were the only people at the meeting in Versailles. The meeting lasted 20 minutes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has withdrawn as a member of the restoration advisory board, Cloud said. Its representative from Chicago has not attended the past several meetings. Hill said the EPA’s tight budget is the reason for dropping out. Much of the work involved in cleaning up JPG and transferring it to Madison businessman Dean Ford is done, so advisory board activity has slowed, Hill said. Ford was the high bidder to buy much of JPG for reuse. His purchase of one section, called the northeastern parcel, has been on hold for more than a year, however, after he raised concerns about restrictive covenants placed on it because of endangered species and wetlands. It’s possible that Ford will be able to pay less than the price he bid, Cloud said. The restrictions on what can be done there were placed after the bidding. The northeastern parcel is between Ordnance and Woodfill roads and has about 465 acres. There are 39 buildings on the parcel. Since the Army and Save the Valley agreed recently that depleted uranium is not a proper topic for a restoration advisory board to be involved in, one of the main topics discussed at advisory board meetings no longer is on the agenda. The Army left behind tons of toxic, radioactive depleted uranium. How the Army deals with it is between the Army and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and not the advisory board, Cloud and Hill said. Cloud gave an update on activities at JPG, including a final report on the amount of contaminated dirt removed and replaced at four sites, including a landfill, burn site and chemical disposal areas. It had been anticipated that 3,030 tons of dirt would have to be removed, but it turned out that 5,802 tons — almost 6 million pounds — were taken away for disposal at a licensed facility in Kentucky. The areas will be seeded this spring, Cloud said. The soil was contaminated with chemicals, metals, pesticides and herbicides. The advisory board’s next meeting will be at 7 p.m. Aug. 3 at the Madison-Jefferson County Public Library. The last meeting of the year will be at 7 p.m. Nov. 2 at the Jennings County Public Library in North Vernon. ---- SNP leader raises alarm over depleted uranium JOHN INNES Thu 28 Apr 2005 The Scotsman http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=452242005 ALEX Salmond attacked Labour and the Conservatives yesterday over the firing of depleted uranium shells in south-west Scotland. The SNP leader claimed Labour had a "nuclear obsession" and he accused Peter Duncan, the shadow Scottish secretary, of being "asleep at his post" over concerns about the MoD’s Dundrennan firing range at Kirkcudbright. Mr Salmond published a letter written to him by Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, admitting that a report into the MoD "training area" at Kirkcudbright concluded that four "essentially complete DU [depleted uranium] penetrators" had been recovered there. Mr Salmond said: "If you thought depleted uranium was only a problem on the battlefields of Iraq, think again - depleted uranium is an issue here in Scotland. "I want to know what action the MoD has taken to trace particles and what action they plan to make sure no more military uranium finds its way on to this beautiful stretch of Scottish coast." SNP ON ATTACK THE Nationalists accused Michael Howard of "abandoning" a planned trip to Angus yesterday. On his second visit to Scotland during the campaign, Mr Howard held a morning press conference in Edinburgh then had a meeting with Scots infantry veterans before returning south. The SNP claimed he cut short his Scottish trip by abandoning a visit to Angus where the Nationalists and the Tories are battling it out for what is a marginal seat. Mike Weir, the SNP campaign co-ordinator, said: "Michael Howard doesn’t want to be seen with failing Tory campaigns. Even the Tory leader has given up on the Tories in Tayside. His actions speak volumes." The Tories denied that a trip to Angus had been cancelled, merely insisting that Mr Howard had decided to stay in Edinburgh to concentrate on meetings with Save the Scottish Regiments campaigners. A spokesman said: "This ridiculous outburst from the SNP shows they are far more interested in Conservative travel plans than saving Scotland’s regiments." ---- Experimental Nukes In Iraq Sends Cancer Rates Soaring Apr 28, 2005 By Muhammad Abu Nasr, Free Arab Voice and Omar Al-Faris, JUS http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=102551&list=/home.php While news report on America’s use of banned weapons has been criticized, it is not only JUS and uncensored press that has issued these reports but also Human Rights Watch, Red Crescent and many other humanitarian groups. While Donald Rumsfeld himself has admitted that napalm is still being used, it is just no longer called napalm, the facts are that the US is using not only internationally banned weapons including cluster bombs, depleted uranium and chemical weapons including napalm, mustard gas amongst others, America is also using Iraq as a testing ground for “limited” nuclear weapons. Now, a new report from an Iraqi oncologist blows the whistle on this gig. In a press conference held in Baghdad where Dr. Mahmud al-‘Amiri, Director of Oncology in al-Yarmuk Hospital in Baghdad, told the press on Wednesday that the current and still on-going war in the country was creating deadly diseases. In a Baghdad press conference attended by a correspondent for Mafkarat al-Islam, Dr. al-‘Amiri said “The United States has been using in its current war in Iraq 61 untested rockets, which it only tested in Iraq. The US used uranium and limited nuclear weapons in very large amounts in Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra’, Mosul, Tall ‘Afar, and Ba‘qubah, and in Najaf with the Jaysh al-Mahdi, causing an increase in cancer cases. Dr. al-‘Amiri drew on offical ministry statistics quoting a rate of 40 cases of cancer every month afflicting Iraqis, with 7,500 cases of skin cancer alone registered at the end of last year. Since the start of the US occupation and until today, the Dr. al-‘Amiri reported, there have been 140,000 cases of cancer of the skin, a large percentage of those in children between the ages of nine months and 10 years. It appears that US forces are deliberately trying to conceal the situation since its disclosure would constitute yet another monumental scandal. ---- MDs Suggest Depleted Uranium Behind Increase in Iraqi Deformities Chris Shumway Apr 28, 2005 NewStandard http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1755 Health officials in Iraq say the number of babies born with deformities has increased 20 percent since 2003. Some researchers suggest that polluted water containing radiation, which was absorbed by mothers, may be the primary cause. Health officials say most cases are being reported in southern Iraq, particularly the cities of Basra and Najaf. The United States military used weapons that contained depleted uranium (DU), a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal, in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War and again in the 2003 invasion. Dr. Ibraheem Al-Jabouri, a scientist at Baghdad University, told the UN’s IRIN news agency, "In my experiments we have found some cases where the mother or father were suffering from pollution from weapons used in the South and we believe that it is affecting newborn babies in the country." Dr. Nawar Ali, also a researcher at the University, said that 650 babies have been born with deformities in government hospitals since August 2003, an increase of 20 percent. He also cautioned that "private hospitals were not included in the study, so the number could be higher." Fadela Chaib, a spokesperson for the World Health Organization, told IRIN, "I have heard about cancer caused by pollution, but deformities in newborn babies is something new." Iraqi and international physicians have long suspected DU might be behind a similar spike in birth deformities that followed the 1991 war. -------- iran Iran Warns Europe on Uranium Enrichment Talks By NAZILA FATHI April 28, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-iran.html?pagewanted=print&position= TEHRAN, April 28 - Iran hardened its position a day before it was expected to begin negotiations with European nations in London and warned today that it would resume uranium enrichment if there was no progress in the talks. Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, who was speaking after a meeting with his Dutch counterpart in the Hague, said the talks in London were critical. "If talks with European Union are not successful tomorrow, negotiations will collapse and we will have no choice but to restart the uranium enrichment program," he said. Mr. Kharrazi said that Iran is not willing to accept what he called "delay tactics" by the Europeans and that his country has a right to have nuclear technology. Britain, Germany and France have been negotiating with Iran since 2003 toward a deal to ensure its nuclear program is not used for developing nuclear weapons. Iran agreed in November to freeze its uranium enrichment program but it has refused to suspend it permanently. A spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Hamidreza Assefi, said last week that Iran planned to resume its uranium enrichment program regardless of what comes out of the talks. Mr. Assefi said the freeze was not "a matter of a year, but months." Iran recently put forward a proposal to provide "objective guarantees" that was enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. Details have not been released about the proposal, but one Iranian official, speaking on background, said that Iran had offered to suspend its enrichment program, but that it wanted in return to keep a small experimental program running. A spokesman for Supreme National Security Council also warned today that Iran would abandon the talks if there is no progress. "The negotiations will go on if there is progress at the meeting," the spokesman, Ali Agha Mohammadi, said on state radio. "But if the Iranian delegation does not see any progress then the process will change radically," he said. If that is the case, "there is no question that we would reconsider the negotiations process because that would be a violation of he Paris accord," he added, referring to a deal in late 2004 that paved the way for continuation of the talks. ---- Russia plans nuke fuel shipments to Iran mid-2005 Thu. 28 Apr 2005 Reuters http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=e125f570eb602466&cat=c08dd24cec417021 SOFIA - The Russian nuclear fuel trader TVEL should start fuel shipments for a Moscow-built nuclear reactor in Iran six months before the unit becomes operational in early 2006, a senior company official said on Thursday. Russia is building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant in Iran despite strong opposition from the United States, which believes Iran could use Russian know-how to make nuclear weapons. Tehran denies wanting a bomb and says its atomic ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity. "The construction of the Bushehr's plant is progressing and as part of the technology process, half a year before launching the unit, the fuel should be supplied," Anton Badenkov, vice president of TVEL, who is on a visit to Sofia, told reporters. "The unit should become operational in the beginning of 2006," said Budenkov, who also chairs the board of directors of Atomstroiexport, the company building the Bushehr's plant. In February, Moscow and Tehran signed a fuel supply deal, under which the spent fuel will be sent back to Siberian storage units after about a decade of use, a condition that Badenkov said removes all obstacles before the project. "We have already signed the deal to take back the spent fuel from the plant, for which the international agencies were insisting, and all obstacles are removed," he said. TVEL, Russia's state nuclear fuel producer, has for years kept the fuel, produced for the Bushehr plant, at a storage facility in Siberia, awaiting greenlight from the country's Atomic Energy Agency to start shipments. "We are now awaiting a licence from the Russian authorities for nuclear fuel exports," Badenkov said. ---- Putin Warns Iran Against Atomic Arms By STEVE GUTTERMAN The Associated Press Thursday, April 28, 2005; 3:54 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042800188_pf.html JERUSALEM -- On the first visit by a Kremlin leader to Israel, Russia's Vladimir Putin soothed his hosts Thursday by aiming sharp words at Iran over its nuclear program, but he sparred with his Israeli counterpart on a Syrian missile deal that Israelis see as a threat. Making a trip meant to cement relations after decades of Soviet-era discord, the Russian president said his country and Israel are linked by the Holocaust and the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens in World War II. And he noted Israel's large population of Russian-speaking immigrants. Putin scored points with Israeli leaders by warning Iran's government not to seek nuclear weapons. "Our Iranian partners must give up development of nuclear cycle technology," he said, referring to enriched uranium that can be used in weapons, "and must not hinder putting all their nuclear programs under complete international control." The statement by Putin, whose country is building a nuclear-powered electricity plant in Iran, was perhaps his strongest call for the Tehran government to convince the world that it does not want atomic weapons. But Putin, who said in February he was certain Iran was not trying to build nuclear arms, stressed that Russia's cooperation with Iran was for purely peaceful purposes. Israeli Vice Premier Ehud Olmert complained Russia is selling components to Iran that can be used to make non-conventional weapons and said the assistance to one of Israel's strongest enemies is a cause of concern. Olmert, who took part in Putin's lunch meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, told Israel TV afterward that the two leaders "agreed on a number of practical steps" on security matters, but he gave no details. Putin defended Russia's agreement to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, a deal with another longtime foe of Israel that has clouded his historic visit. He said the missiles could not be converted to portable use by terrorists without authorities being aware, and he repeated earlier assurances that the short-range missiles are no threat to Israeli territory. "The only way you can come into contact with these missiles would be to attack Syria. Do you want to do that?" Putin said at a joint news conference with Israeli President Moshe Katsav after their meeting. Israeli officials appeared unconvinced. Katsav said selling Syria missiles could hurt Israel's attempts to fight terrorists _ a jab at the Russian president's call for strengthening cooperation against the common threat of terrorism. Israeli media reported after Putin's meeting with Sharon that the two countries plan to set up an instant notification system about terror threats. Israeli media also said that Sharon objects to Russia's plan to sell military equipment to the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian officials say Russia is interested in selling armored vehicles to their security services for use in riot control, but Israel fears the vehicles could fall into the hands of militants. Putin is to meet with Palestinian leaders Friday, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters they would discuss how Moscow can help the Palestinians with security. One idea that appeared to drop off the table was Putin's proposal that Moscow host a Mideast peace conference in the fall. Israelis officials expressed reservations, and Lavrov played it down Thursday. He said Putin did not suggest a summit of government leaders but rather a meeting of high-level experts. "There is nothing unusual about this. Such meetings are held periodically," he said. Another issue that analysts had said would probably be raised during Putin's visit, the presence in Israel of Russian business tycoons the Kremlin wants to put on trial, "was not brought up at all," Lavrov said. In a day packed with symbolism, Putin strongly condemned anti-Semitism amid concern among Israeli officials about a rise of the phenomenon in Russia. He toured a stark new museum commemorating the Holocaust's victims and presented a sculpture recalling those victims as a gift from the Russian people. "In the 21st century there can be no place for xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of racial or religious intolerance," Putin said. "This is not only our debt to the millions who died in the gas chambers, it is our debt to future generations." In the afternoon, he visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, which recently dedicated a new museum complex. His head covered with a traditional Jewish skullcap, he laid a wreath and strengthened the eternal flame in the Hall of Remembrance, where the ashes of Jews killed by the Nazis are buried. Writing in the guest book, Putin said: "We are deeply mournful of all the victims of the Holocaust. This type of tragedy must never happen again." Avner Shalev, Yad Vashem's director and the new museum's curator, who gave Putin the tour, said the Russian leader took great interest in details, particularly events that occurred in the former Soviet Union. "He was very emotional and especially moved by the small individual stories," Shalev told The Associated Press. "He was very involved and spoke about the importance of the memories in the education of our generation." ---- Iran may reconsider decision on suspension of enrichment after London meeting: nuclear spokesman April 28, 2005 Tehran Times http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=4/28/2005&Cat=4&Num=021 TEHRAN (MNA) – Iran may revise its decision about continuing the suspension of its uranium enrichment program after the London meeting on April 29, the director of the foreign policy committee of the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) said on Wednesday. The Iran-European Union steering committee will meet in London on April 29. Iran expects the EU to give its clear response to the proposal made at the March 23 Paris meeting on April 29, Hossein Musavian told the Mehr News Agency. “It is not logical to have long and futile negotiations and then expect a continued full suspension.” If Europe agrees to the ideas discussed at the Paris meeting, then there will be a good chance to move the talks forward in the future negotiations, Musavian added. In this case, there will be a hope the talks on objective guarantees from Iran and firm guarantees from Europe will succeed, he said. Iran has shown its goodwill by a full suspension of its uranium enrichment program and has observed the Paris agreement, he noted. “Over the past months, we have always maintained that a full continued suspension is dependent on progress in talks, and therefore the meeting on the 9th of Ordibehesht (April 29) will show whether this progress has been achieved or not.” The spokesman for Iran’s nuclear talks with the EU said Iran would probably revise its decision on continuing the uranium enrichment suspension if no progress is made at this week’s London meeting. -------- korea Agency Says North Korea Able to Mount Warheads on Missiles By DAVID S. CLOUD and DAVID E. SANGER April 28, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/politics/28cnd-korea.html?pagewanted=print&position= WASHINGTON, April 28 - The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency said today that American intelligence agencies believe North Korea has mastered the technology for mounting a nuclear warhead on its missiles, an assessment that, if correct, means the country could build weapons to threaten Japan and perhaps the western United States. The conclusion was part of a total reassessment of North Korea's capabilities that the D.I.A.'s chief, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, said was still under way. While Admiral Jacoby said North Korea was judged to have the capability to put a nuclear weapon atop its missiles, he stopped well short of saying they have already done so, or even that they had assembled warheads small enough for the purpose. Nor did he give any evidence to back up his view during the public session of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But he appeared to be putting a final conclusion on a study the intelligence community has had under way for at least two years. In 2003, the United States warned South Korea and Japan that satellite imagery had identified an advanced nuclear testing site in a remote corner of North Korea where equipment had been set up to test conventional explosives that, when detonated, could compress a plutonium core and set off a compact nuclear explosion. Since then, American investigators have been pressing Pakistan for details of what kind of technology North Korean engineers might have been given in visits they made to Pakistani nuclear sites. North Korea supplied Pakistan with many of the missiles Pakistan uses for its own nuclear arsenal. North Korea is considered one of the most opaque intelligence targets for American analysts, and the absence of reliable human spies had made it all the more difficult to understand the progress of its program. But when asked by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in a hearing today whether "North Korea has the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device," Admiral Jacoby responded, "The assessment is that they have the capability to do that, yes ma'am." If President Bush accepts that judgment, it could significantly complicate choices he must make in the next several months. North Korea declared publicly for the first time in February that it had nuclear weapons. Earlier this month, American spy satellites detected that the country had shut down its nuclear power plant at Yongbyon and could be preparing to reprocess the plant's spent fuel, a move that could result in the production of enough plutonium to build up to two or three more nuclear bombs. Admiral Jacoby said that the United States had increased its assessment of the current North Korean arsenal's size, but he gave no numbers. Six-nation talks the United States is backing in an effort persuade Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program have been stalled since last June. China, a neighbor and ally of communist North Korea, has been host to three inconclusive rounds of the negotiations, which involved the United States, North and South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. Senator Clinton called Admiral Jacoby's testimony "troubling beyond words." She added: "We have been locked into this six-party idea now for a number of years and all the while we've seen North Korea going about the business of acquiring nuclear weapons and the missile capacity to deliver those to the shores of the United States." Admiral Jacoby also confirmed the assessment that North Korea has the ability to deploy a two-stage intercontinental missile that could reach portions of the continental United States, in addition to Hawaii and Alaska. He added that a formal assessment under way by United States intelligence agencies of North Korea's nuclear program would be completed next month. -------- mideast After peace push, Putin defends work to Israelis 4/28/2005 6:58 AM (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-28-putin-israel_x.htm JERUSALEM — Russian President Vladimir Putin faced down Israeli criticism Thursday, saying Russia's planned sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and supply of nuclear components to Iran does not threaten Israel's security. Putin spoke on the second day of his historic visit to Israel — the first trip here by a Kremlin leader — before meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The trip was intended to cement Russia's rapprochement with the Jewish state and boost its profile in the international arena. But it was shadowed by disagreements with Israel over Russia's aid to Syria and Iran, two of Israel's staunchest enemies. Addressing Israeli fears that he's affecting the region's balance of power, Putin urged Iran to do more to show the world that it's not trying to build a nuclear weapon. He also called for international supervision of the Iranian nuclear program, which Russia is boosting. "It is necessary for our Iranian partners to reject the creation of nuclear cycle technology and not hinder placing all its nuclear program under complete international control," he said at a news conference after an earlier meeting with Israeli President Moshe Katsav. He was referring to the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Israel accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons, though Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said in the Hague, Netherlands, that his country will resume its uranium enrichment program — temporarily suspended in November — if talks on Friday with European nations fail. Russia has provided assistance for Iran's nuclear program and has agreed to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. Sharon repeatedly has said the missiles pose a danger to Israel and wants Putin to halt the deal. Israeli Vice Premier Ehud Olmert said Thursday that Russia is selling Iran components that can be used to make non-conventional weapons, and that Russia's assistance to Iran is a cause of concern. Olmert, who took part in the Sharon-Putin luncheon meeting, told Israel TV afterward that the two "agreed on a number of practical steps" on security issues, but he gave no details. Sharon, whose parents were born in Russia, greeted Putin in Russian at their meeting on Thursday and told the visitor he should "feel among brothers," Israel Radio said. A Sharon aide quoted Putin as calling Israel a strategic ally of Russia. The United States announced Wednesday it had authorized the sale of as many as 100 large bunker-buster bombs to Israel, which experts saw as a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions. Putin defended Russian involvement, saying that Russia was sensitive to Israel's security concerns. "Regarding Iran, we are working to make sure their nuclear ability is used for peaceful means." Moscow's agreement with Iran requires it to return all its spent nuclear fuel to Russia so it cannot be used for military purposes, Putin said. "I agree that these steps are not enough and we have to get Iran to agree to nuclear inspections," he said at a joint news conference in Jerusalem with Katsav, whose role is largely ceremonial. Putin also pledged to tackle the growing problem of anti-Semitism in his country, saying "there can be no place for xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of racial or religious intolerance" in the 21st century. Putin was greeted Thursday morning by the pomp of an official welcoming ceremony, complete with a military honor guard and Jewish, Muslim and Christian religious leaders. Putin also sought to allay concerns about the Syrian arms deal, saying the missiles should pose no threat to Israel. "The missiles we are providing to Syria are short-range anti-aircraft missiles that cannot reach Israeli territory," he said. Israeli warplanes bombed alleged militant training bases outside Damascus on Oct. 5, 2003, and have buzzed one of Syrian President Bashar Assad's palaces. Putin, whose country has traditionally supported the Arabs in their conflict with Israel, said he had personally vetoed the sale of longer-range missiles to Syria out of concern for Israel's safety. Officials who briefed reporters on the Putin-Katzav meeting said Russia already had signed a deal with Syria for missiles with a range of 185 miles. According to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Putin told Katsav "then I checked and my experts told me that Israel has no way to intercept these missiles so I canceled the deal." "We are taking the opinions and concerns of our partners into consideration, and not changing the balance of power in the region," Putin said at the news conference. "Israel has no problem here." Israeli media reported Thursday that Sharon also opposes Russia's plan to sell military equipment to the Palestinians. Palestinian officials have said Russia is interested in selling armored vehicles to their security services for use in riot control. Israel fears the armored vehicles could fall into the hands of militants. Putin began his visit here late Wednesday on a note of controversy, proposing, just before his arrival, that Russia host a Mideast peace conference in the fall, after Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip. Palestinians warmly embraced the idea, but Israel and the United States brushed it aside. He did not bring up the conference proposal during Thursday's news conference with Katsav, but said the region had a unique opportunity to achieve peace. "We think there is a chance now to achieve a just Israeli-Palestinian settlement ... much will depend on Israel's willingness and the Palestinians' willingness, first and foremost," Putin said. Putin was to travel to the West Bank city of Ramallah Friday for talks with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Putin and Katsav unveiled a monument donated by Russia, in memory of the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust. The Russian sculpture depicts six nude figures, one a small child, standing in a circle surrounded by barbed wire. After meeting Sharon, Putin also visited Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial center. He toured the new museum and laid a wreath in the Hall or Remembrance, where ashes of Jewish victims of the Nazis are buried. He wrote in the guest book, "We are deeply mournful of all the victims of the Holocaust. This type of tragedy must never happen again." ---- Putin Seeks to Reassure Israelis on Russian Aid to Syria and Iran By GREG MYRE April 28, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-mide.html?pagewanted=print&position= JERUSALEM, April 28 -President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, making the first visit of a Kremlin leader to Israel, tried today to allay Israeli fears that its security was being threatened by Russia's nuclear assistance to Iran and missile sales to Syria. Israel gave Mr. Putin a red-carpet welcome full of pomp, including separate meetings with President Moshe Katsav and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and a somber visit to Israel's Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem. But Israeli leaders also made clear that they viewed Russian aid to Israel's enemies as a serious danger. Mr. Putin's trip is a concrete sign of improved ties between Russia and Israel as they work to overcome a complicated and troubled relationship dating back decades. Yet their current differences kept surfacing. After President Putin's meeting with President Katsav, the Russian leader was asked about Moscow's plans to sell antiaircraft missiles to Syria. "The missiles we are providing to Syria are short-range antiaircraft missiles that cannot reach Israeli territory," Mr. Putin said. "To come within their range, you would have to attack Syria." Mr. Putin said he had vetoed the sale of longer-range missiles to Syria, citing Israel's security concerns. Yet President Katsav, who has a largely ceremonial role and usually steers clear of political disputes, did not hesitate to spell out his disagreements with Mr. Putin. "There is a difference of opinion between the Russian president and myself," Mr. Katsav said at his news conference with Mr. Putin. "Despite the steps the president has taken to reduce the danger, only in the last few days Syria has transferred additional missiles to Hezbollah," the militant Lebanese group. "Israel is forced to still fight terror, and the Russian missiles could reduce our capability," Mr. Katsav added. In addition, Israel says Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, and that Russian help in building a nuclear power plant is assisting the Iranians. Israel regards the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as most serious threat facing Israel, though Iran insists its nuclear program is strictly for civilian use, like energy production. "We are working with Iran for peaceful nuclear purposes," Mr. Putin said. "We certainly object to any Iranian plans for acquiring nuclear weapons." Iran is required to return spent nuclear fuel to Russia so it cannot be processed for military purposes, Mr. Putin said, though he added that Iran must do more to convince the world that it was not pursuing nuclear weapons. "I agree that these steps are not enough and we have to get Iran to agree to nuclear inspections," Mr. Putin said, adding that Iran's nuclear program should be "under complete international control." Later, Prime Minister Sharon, who is of Russian descent, greeted President Putin warmly with a few words in Russian, and told him: "I want you to know that you are among friends." Mr. Sharon speaks out frequently about Israel's security concerns regarding Syria and Iran, and there was no official word on the discussions the two leaders had at a working lunch. Mr. Putin, who visited Egypt before reaching Israel, is seeking to raise Russia's profile and stake out a role as a peace mediator in a region where Moscow's influence has waned considerably since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Russia, along with the United States, the United Nations and the European Union, make up the so-called Quartet that has co-sponsored the Middle East peace plan, known as the road map. But the Russian role has been comparatively small. In Egypt on Wednesday, Mr. Putin proposed an international conference on the Middle East in Russia this fall. But the United States and Israel both responded coolly, saying that Israel and the Palestinians needed to make much more progress before staging such a gathering. The Soviet Union was a leading supporter of Arab states during the cold war, yet Mr. Putin's visit to Egypt marked the first trip to that country by a Kremlin leader in more than 40 years. No serving Soviet or Russian leader had ever set foot in Israel before President Putin's arrival on Wednesday night, though Boris Yeltsin toured Israel in January 2000, just days after he resigned as the Russian president. The Soviet Union quickly recognized Israel after the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948, but relations soured during the cold war. The Soviets severed ties after the 1967 Mideast war, in which Israel defeated the Soviet-equipped Arab armies. Full diplomatic ties were not restored for more than two decades, though relations improved significantly following the Soviet collapse in 1991. Mr. Putin's visit did not inspire an outpouring of warmth among the large Russian immigrant community in Israel. Some one million Israeli citizens - more than 15 percent of the Jewish state's population - have come from the former Soviet Union over the past two decades. While some welcomed Mr. Putin's visit, others remained wary of his leadership and Russia's role in the Middle East. Roman Bronfman, a left-wing member of Israel's Parliament, who came from Ukraine in 1980, said of the immigrant community, "I think there are ambivalent feelings." Many immigrants have become more critical of Russia under Mr. Putin's government, he said. Citing a poll among the immigrant community in Israel, Mr. Bronfman said only 5 percent thought relations with Russia were very good, while 23 percent described relations as very bad. Still, Mr. Putin's visit and his expressions of concern for Israel's security probably boosted his standing among immigrants, Mr. Bronfman added. Several Russian business tycoons, who are wanted on criminal charges in Russia, have taken refuge in Israel. Israeli officials have indicated that they do not intend to extradite the men, who are Jewish and received citizenship here. They include former partners of Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, founder of the Yukos oil company, who has been tried on tax avoidance charges in Russia and is now awaiting a verdict. Palestinians endorsed Mr. Putin's call for an international conference on the Mideast, and the Russian leader is to meet on Friday with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Separately, Mr. Abbas warned that he would use "an iron fist" against any Palestinians who violated the truce with Israel. The remarks were seen as the toughest that Mr. Abbas has directed toward Palestinian militants since his election in January as president of the Palestinian Authority. While violence has greatly declined since the truce was declared in February, Palestinian attacks have recently increased. "There is a national consensus regarding the calm, and whoever leaves this consensus will be struck by an iron fist," said Mr. Abbas. He spoke on Wednesday to Palestinian police officers in the Gaza Strip, and the remarks were reported today by WAFA, the official Palestinian news agency. -------- treaties Rademaker Previews U.S. Approach to Nonproliferation Conference Says treaty still serves as "a critical barrier" to nuclear proliferation 28 Apr 2005 U.S. State Department http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/Apr/28-265020.html The State Department’s leading arms control official says the upcoming Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference must address the fact that some countries are not complying with their treaty obligations. When NPT parties meet in New York in May for the monthlong Treaty Review Conference, they “must demand that existing cases of noncompliance be resolved,” says Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Stephen Rademaker. When the parties congregate for the seventh review of the 1970 treaty, he said, they “should condemn North Korea’s egregious behavior.” Since the last review in 2000, North Korea has expelled international weapons inspectors, withdrawn from the treaty and admitted to producing nuclear weapons. The official told members of Congress April 28 that North Korea “must cease and declare all past nuclear activity and dismantle its nuclear programs completely, verifiably, and irreversibly.” Rademaker told the House International Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation that Iran’s attendance at the Review Conference “will be a great source of controversy and division.” Since the 2000 Review Conference, “we also learned of the numerous NPT violations committed by Iran,” he added. During the conference, U.S. officials plan to suggest ways to hold violators of the treaty accountable, Rademaker said. “The Review Conference should address ways to strengthen the NPT against future violations so that the treaty can continue “to play an effective role in thwarting nuclear proliferation in the 21st century.” Besides compliance, Rademaker said, the United States will emphasize the importance of universal adherence to the treaty because of the ever-present threat of nuclear proliferation. The NPT provides a barrier to such proliferation, he said, warning that a weakened treaty “would increase the dangers facing all nations.” During his prepared testimony, Rademaker talked about some of the other issues expected to be discussed at the conference, such as nuclear enrichment and reprocessing. Some NPT parties, he said, “have sought this technology secretly in pursuit of nuclear weapons and in violation of their treaty obligations.” Additionally, the assistant secretary said those countries that possess such technology “must clamp down to ensure against any leakage to proliferators.” The official also said the United States wants to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) ability to combat nuclear proliferation. It supports both the universal adherence to the IAEA Additional Protocol and the formation of a special committee of the agency board of governors to find ways to improve verification and enforcement of nuclear safeguards issues. Rademaker also said the United States will use the May conference to highlight the United Nations Security Council’s responsibility for dealing with dangerous nuclear proliferation cases. U.S. officials will also be asking NPT parties to voice support for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, which calls for the establishment of effective controls over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and associated technology and components, as well as urging additional countries to embrace the two-year-old Proliferation Security Initiative to interdict WMD and related materials. Rademaker also said the U.S. delegation to the NPT Review Conference will underline the United States’ “excellent record on nuclear disarmament, including the reductions of U.S. operationally-deployed strategic nuclear warheads.” Following is the text of Rademaker’s prepared statement: Committee on International Relations U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation April 28, 2005 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to preview the Administration's approach to the NPT Review Conference, which opens next week at the United Nations. The President's National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction lays out a comprehensive approach for countering the threat that the world's most destructive weapons could fall into in the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes or terrorists. In doing so, the National Strategy recognizes the valuable contribution of multilateral arms control and nonproliferation regimes to international peace and security. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) serves as a critical legal and normative barrier to nuclear proliferation. The NPT entered into force in 1970. Today its membership is nearly universal, with close to 190 parties. The United States continues to emphasize the importance of universal adherence to and full compliance with the NPT. When the Treaty was conceived there were five nuclear weapon states and many were predicting as many as 20 to 25 additional states with nuclear weapons within the following 20 years. The NPT was the first major step to establish a global norm against further nuclear weapons proliferation. Thirty-five years later, there remain only a handful of additional states with nuclear weapons rather than the 20 to 25 once predicted. The threat of nuclear proliferation is still with us, however. It is compounded today by the determination of terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We are especially troubled by the reality that several states seeking nuclear weapons in recent years have done so in violation of their solemn NPT undertaking to foreswear nuclear weapons. Even worse, these NPT states party have close ties to terrorist organizations. As President Bush has stated on numerous occasions, the greatest threat facing humanity today is the nexus of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. NPT parties must recognize the challenges posed by today's security environment, and in particular, by the threat of noncompliance with the Treaty's nonproliferation obligations. We must act to ensure that the NPT continues to play an effective role in thwarting nuclear proliferation in the 21st century. Failure to do so will not only weaken the Treaty, but also undermine global security. Technology is spreading and illegal procurement networks threaten to thwart efforts to keep nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of those determined to acquire and use them. The seventh conference to review the operation of the NPT begins next week in New York. The central message of the United States, as stated by President Bush in his March 7 statement on the 35th anniversary of the NPT, will be to urge strong action to confront the threat posed by NPT noncompliance. The President said such action was necessary to preserve and strengthen the Treaty's nonproliferation undertakings; he called on all parties to act promptly and effectively. NPT parties must demand that existing cases of noncompliance be resolved. In recent years, four NPT parties have sought nuclear weapons in violation of their nonproliferation obligations. In December 2003, Libya made the strategic choice to renounce weapons of mass destruction and to fulfill its obligations under the NPT. Iraq's new government has also pledged to honor international nonproliferation conventions. But North Korea continues to threaten the world. Since the last Review Conference in 2000, it expelled international inspectors, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and, most recently, claimed to have manufactured nuclear weapons. The Conference should condemn North Korea's egregious behavior. North Korea must cease and declare all past nuclear activity and dismantle its nuclear programs completely, verifiably and irreversibly. We will seek support for a continuation of the Six Party Talks as the current best approach for resolving this issue peacefully through negotiation. Since 2000, we also learned of the numerous NPT violations committed by Iran, in the course of that country's clandestine pursuit of nuclear weapons over the past two decades. Iran refuses to abandon its effort, despite numerous IAEA Board of Governors resolutions calling on Iran to adhere to its obligations and fully disclose its activities. Iran will attend the Conference and will be a great source of controversy and division. The Iranian regime will attempt to justify its two decades of lying and of failing to disclose its nuclear activities, while claiming the right to have sensitive nuclear technology despite its violations. Of course, Iran has no legitimate need for this technology. We will document Iran's long history of deception and violations. Any casual reading of IAEA reports and resolutions dealing with Iran's safeguards obligations over the past few years will reveal countless failures, breaches and violations. Iran hid behind the NPT for many years while it claimed to have only a peaceful nuclear program. The United States supports the EU-3 [European Union-Three: France, Germany, and Britain] effort to obtain certain objective guarantees that Iran is not trying to use a civilian nuclear program to provide cover for a weapons program. The Review Conference should address ways to strengthen the NPT against future violations. We will encourage a discussion of the Treaty's nonproliferation undertakings and of actions parties can take to ensure compliance with their obligations. We will suggest ways to hold violators accountable. We will insist that enforcement of the Article II prohibition on the manufacture of nuclear weapons must begin at an early stage of the process leading to such manufacture. Important work to adapt the broader nonproliferation regime to today's challenges is already underway in fora such as the IAEA, the G8, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the U.N. Security Council. These efforts must yield more effective tools to deter and stop future nuclear proliferation. The Review Conference can assist by providing a strong political boost to this work. To this end, the United States will highlight and build support for the President's initiatives to combat proliferation. In remarks delivered at the National Defense University in February 2004, President Bush called for passage of what became U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, which was adopted on April 28, 2004. This resolution requires all states to establish effective controls over material, equipment and technology related to weapons of mass destruction. In this speech the President also called for an expansion of the Proliferation Security Initiative, which is designed to promote international cooperation to interdict shipments of WMD materials consistent with national legal authorities and international law and frameworks. We will urge support for both of these initiatives. The United States also is seeking to strengthen the IAEA in combating nuclear proliferation. We are supporting universal adherence to the IAEA Additional Protocol and urging the creation of a special committee of the IAEA Board of Governors to consider ways to improve verification and enforcement of safeguards agreements. At the Conference, we also will highlight the responsibility of the Security Council in dealing with nuclear proliferation cases that endanger international peace and security. The Council must be more active in discharging its role in this area. Nuclear fuel cycle issues will be a prominent topic at the Conference. As you know, enrichment and reprocessing can be used in peaceful nuclear programs. But some NPT parties have sought this technology secretly in pursuit of nuclear weapons and in violation of their Treaty obligations. Iran now insists on retaining the enrichment capabilities it acquired through Treaty violations. The resulting issues have been a matter of considerable international debate over the last two years. In his remarks on February 11, 2004, President Bush highlighted the inherent vulnerability of the NPT with regard to certain nuclear technologies and called on the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technologies to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning enrichment or reprocessing plants. Both United Nations Secretary General Annan and IAEA Director General ElBaradei also have recognized the need to reduce the proliferation risk of these technologies. While many agree on these dangers, there is no consensus yet as to the ultimate solution. Of course, the economics of today's fuel cycle do not support the entry of additional countries into the enrichment or reprocessing business. There is very little interest in reprocessing at the present time; and no NPT non-nuclear-weapon state without a full-scale, functioning enrichment plant has plans to pursue such a capability, except of course for Iran and North Korea who did so in violation of the Treaty. The fact is countries with enrichment facilities can adequately handle the foreseeable demand for reactor fuel. NPT parties without these facilities can continue to enjoy the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy without possessing enrichment and reprocessing facilities. Meanwhile, existing technology holders must clamp down to ensure against any leakage to proliferators. At the Conference, the United States will raise awareness of the need for measures to strengthen the NPT by closing this loophole. Multilateral action on this issue is being considered in the G8 and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. While many parties will join us in highlighting the central threat that noncompliance poses to the Treaty, some non-nuclear weapons states will draw attention to what they claim is the slow pace of progress on the NPT's nuclear disarmament-related obligations. For its part, the United States will promote its excellent record on nuclear disarmament, including the reductions of U.S. operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads. We initiated these reductions unilaterally, and legally obligated ourselves to make them under the Moscow Treaty of 2002. By 2012, we will have 80% fewer strategic warheads deployed than at the end of the Cold War. We will also highlight at the Review Conference the $9 billion we have spent in destroying the WMD remnants of the former Soviet Union through such efforts as the Nunn-Lugar program. Along with our partners in the G8 Global Partnership, we pledged in 2002 to raise an additional $20 billion for such programs over the next 10 years, including $10 billion to be provided by the United States. We also will correct misunderstandings of the Nuclear Posture Review in order to draw attention to the President's path-breaking policies to reduce U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons. These policies are not drawing the attention and support they deserve. Some of the concern expressed to date in the NPT review process about the pace of nuclear disarmament has dangerous overtones. Some states suggest that strengthening the Treaty's nonproliferation provisions should be linked to greater progress on nuclear disarmament. This point of view is fraught with risks, not least of which is to appear to excuse proliferation by blaming those who lawfully possess nuclear weapons under the NPT. Such thinking is confused and wrong. If it is accepted, it weakens nonproliferation. It must be vigorously countered. It is particularly ironic that such linkages are being espoused at a time of historic reductions in nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia. We are using several public diplomacy tools to advance our objectives, including meeting with the press and NGOs, the publication of several pamphlets, the distribution of an on-line journal overseas, and other means. An informed international community is essential if the NPT's rules against nuclear proliferation are to be preserved and strengthened. There will be differences at the Conference among parties; some will be quite substantial. It is important for all states party to remember that the Review Conference is not an implementing body and that any decisions will not be legally-binding. However, it can serve to focus world attention on current challenges and to build political support for appropriate remedies, many of which require action in other international fora. With this in mind, the United States will encourage all participants not to allow disagreements to undermine the important task of reinforcing the role of the NPT in building a safer and more secure world. A weakened NPT would increase the dangers facing all nations. With good will and realistic expectations among the participants, the United States believes the Conference can help to build confidence in the NPT and to promote broader international cooperation in countering proliferation. ---- U.S. Rules Out Concessions to Shore Up Nuclear Pact By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent Thu Apr 28, 4:29 PM ET http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050428/us_nm/arms_treaty_dc_1 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday ruled out making concessions to induce other countries to accept steps to strengthen the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which has helped stem the spread of nuclear arms for the last 35 years. Anticipating tough criticism at an NPT review conference next month, Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker defended the U.S. disarmament record as "excellent" and said Washington would use the conference to focus attention on alleged nuclear weapons violators Iran and North Korea. "This notion that the United States needs to make concessions in order to encourage other countries to do what is necessary in order to preserve the nuclear non-proliferation regime is at best a misguided way to think about the problems confronting us," he told a U.S. House of Representatives International Relations sub-committee. Such arguments are dangerous because they establish a rationalization for Iran's non-compliance with the treaty, Rademaker said. The May 2-27 United Nations-hosted conference aims to take stock of the 1970 NPT and consider how this fundamental, yet endangered, arms control pact could be strengthened. But Bush administration officials and most experts are pessimistic about what can be achieved. Review conference decisions are by consensus. Iran's presence is expected to set up a confrontation with the United States and thwart agreement. North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT and said it has nuclear weapons, will not attend. Washington accuses Tehran of a nearly two-decades long program to develop nuclear weapons in violation of its NPT obligations. It has been working, so far unsuccessfully, to bring Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. "If the NPT conference ends in disagreement, if it fails to produce a consensus document, many nations will see this as a sign that the (non-proliferation) regime is unraveling," said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Nations with ample technological ability to develop nuclear weapons may be reconsidering their political decisions not to do so," he told the panel in written testimony. The NPT established a "bargain" by which 183 states renounced nuclear weapons. In return, five declared nuclear states -- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- promised eventually to eliminate their own weapons and to allow non-nuclear states access to peaceful nuclear energy. But many feel nuclear-weapon states have fallen short of their disarmament commitments; hence, many non-nuclear weapons states reject new restrictions on their own activities. The U.S. administration vehemently rejected this view, noting the United States had reduced its nuclear stockpile by more than 13,000 weapons since 1988. Cirincione said the NPT conference will play a critical role in the Iran crisis. He predicted Iran's delegation would have one objective, to isolate the United States and promote Tehran as playing by the NPT rules while Washington seeks to change the rules and deny developing nations access to nuclear energy. He warned that if the conference ends in discord, and Washington is blamed, it will be even harder to restrain Iran's nuclear ambitions. Rademaker said while the administration has no plans to propose new disarmament initiatives, it will suggest ways to hold NPT violators accountable and will seek political support for a U.S. proposal to have nuclear-capable states refuse to supply enrichment and reprocessing technology to states that do not have functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Bunker-buster bomb plan won't work, study finds William J. Broad, New York Times Thursday, April 28, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/politics/28nuke.html?pagewanted=print&position= http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/28/MNGM6CGNBO1.DTL The Bush administration's plan to develop a nuclear weapon that could penetrate the earth and destroy underground enemy bunkers while minimizing civilian casualties is flawed, the National Research Council concluded in a report made public Wednesday. The report said the weapon could not go deep enough to eliminate fallout, as some advocates have asserted, and it estimated that the victims in a nearby city could range from a few hundred to more than a million, depending on factors such as the weather and population density. John F. Ahearne, an expert on nuclear arms who headed the 15-member committee that wrote the report, said an earth-penetrating weapon "could kill a devastatingly large number of people." The report also said that trying to reduce fallout and civilian damage by making a very small weapon was impractical because its destructive force would be insufficient to destroy military targets. The report's conclusions are generally in line with criticisms made by experts outside the government, but it draws upon secret federal studies and carries the political weight of the National Research Council of the National Academies, the nation's leading scientific advisory group. In Washington, debate over the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, known as the bunker buster, has swirled for more than three years. Bunkers are proliferating in potential enemy states, mainly as underground command posts and arms caches. As a deterrent, the administration wants arms that can threaten such bunkers. Critics contend that military intelligence can never ensure that the weapons hit the right targets and that the arms might fail to work. They also say that the weapon could create an illusion of limited consequences that could lead to wide nuclear conflict. The new study was mandated by Congress in the 2003 Defense Authorization Act in an amendment sponsored by Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine. The report concedes that if a warhead penetrates 10 or so feet into the earth before detonating, much of its energy will go into the ground, forming a shock wave that can destroy underground structures. But it also found that attacking bunkers at depths of 650 feet would require a blast of 300 kilotons, or 20 times larger than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. A target 1,000 feet deep would require a weapon 67 times as large. The size of the weapons means they would produce much radioactive fallout and deadly debris, the report found. ---- 'Bunker Buster' Casualty Risk Cited By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 28, 2005; A07 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702098_pf.html Earth-penetrating nuclear bombs would be capable of destroying military targets deep underground, but not without inflicting "massive casualties at ground level," according to a congressionally mandated study released yesterday. The study's findings reflect a growing scientific consensus that even relatively small nuclear "bunker-buster" weapons -- under study by the Bush administration but strongly opposed by some members of Congress and arms-control advocates -- could not be used without a high cost in human life. Such a bomb could cause more than a million deaths, depending on the yield, the report said. "You can use a much smaller weapon if you use an earth penetrator, maybe 20 times smaller, but you will kill a lot of people, because it puts out a huge amount of radioactive debris," said John F. Ahearne, chairman of the Committee on the Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons of the National Research Council, which produced the report. The council, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, advises the federal government on science and technology. The study represents an authoritative finding amid a long-standing conflict over whether it is possible to design an earth-penetrating nuclear bomb that would destroy deeply buried targets without killing people aboveground. The report found that casualties from an earth-penetrator weapon "would be equal to that from a surface burst of the same weapon yield," causing from thousands to more than a million deaths in an urban area, and hundreds to hundreds of thousands in lightly populated areas with unfavorable winds. In its fiscal 2003 Defense Authorization Act, Congress directed the Pentagon to request the study to examine the health and environmental effects of the bombs. The Bush administration this spring renewed its push for $8.5 million in funding to resume Pentagon and Energy Department studies of bunker-buster nuclear warheads. Congress killed funding for the study last year, and lawmakers indicated this year they will again question the request. On Capitol Hill yesterday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld faced incredulity from at least one senator on why the administration is pursuing the weapons. "It is beyond me as to why you're proceeding with this program when the laws of physics won't allow a missile to be driven deeply enough to retain the fallout, which will spew in hundreds of millions of cubic feet if it's at 100 kilotons," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a subcommittee hearing of the Appropriations Committee. Rumsfeld replied that 70 countries are pursuing "activities underground" using technology that allows them to burrow into solid rock the length of a basketball court in a single day. "At the present time, we don't have a capability of dealing with that. We can't go in there and get at things in solid rock underground," he said. "The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons. So . . . do we want to have nothing and only a large, dirty nuclear weapon, or would we rather have something in between?" The Pentagon estimates there are 10,000 hardened targets -- above and below ground -- in the territory of potential adversaries. About 20 percent have a "major strategic function" such as housing command-and-control systems or weapons stockpiles, and of that 20 percent, half are near or in urban areas. The study found that nuclear weapons, if aimed accurately, would be more effective than conventional bombs in destroying hard and deeply buried targets. Such nuclear weapons could work with a yield one-fifteenth to one-twenty-fifth as large if they are detonated a few yards below the earth's surface, causing a shock wave that could destroy bunkers hundreds of yards below.' -------- u.s. nuc facilities Bush Calls for Development of More Nuclear Power By J.R. Pegg WASHINGTON, DC, April 28, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-28-10.asp Amid increasing concern that high gasoline and energy prices are harming the U.S. economy, President George W. Bush on Wednesday proposed a series of new initiatives to boost domestic energy production, including measures to expedite construction of new nuclear power plants and oil refineries. Bush said the proposals will help curb the nation’s growing dependence on foreign oil, but acknowledged he can do little to provide consumers immediate relief from rising gas prices. "If I could, I would," Bush said in a speech at the Small Business Administration's National Small Business Conference. Bush said the nation’s "fundamental problem" is that the supply of energy is not growing fast enough to meet the growing demand, in particular given the soaring increases in consumption abroad. "This problem did not develop overnight, and it's not going to be fixed overnight," he said. "But it's now time to fix it." Bush urged construction of new nuclear power plants and touted the technology as "one of the safest, cleanest sources of power in the world." "A secure energy future for America must include more nuclear power," Bush said. The nation’s 103 nuclear plants provide some 20 percent of its total electricity, but no new plant has been ordered since 1973 "It's time for America to start building again," said Bush, who blamed regulatory uncertainty for discouraging new plant construction. The president’s new proposal calls on the U.S. Energy Department to expedite the licensing process for new plants and on Congress to give the nuclear industry "risk insurance" against regulatory delays. Bush pledged international cooperation on advanced nuclear technologies, but did not address the problem of where to put the country's high level nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain Project to construct a geologic repository on the Nevada Nuclear Test Site is bogged down in the licensing process. "With these technologies, with the expansion of nuclear power, we can relieve stress on the environment and reduce global demand for fossil fuels," Bush said. "That would be good for the world, and that would be good for American consumers, as well." Bush urged the Congress to pass the energy bill, which has repeatedly stalled in the Senate because of concerns about the cost of the legislation, as well as provisions to allow drilling within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and to grant manufacturers of the fuel additive MTBE protection from litigation. The House passed an $8.6 billion version of the legislation last week that includes both the ANWR drilling provision and the MTBE liability waiver. "It's time for the United States Senate to act," Bush said. "And then it's time for them to get together and iron out their differences and get me a bill so I can sign." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Bush’s proposals amount to "little more than half measures and wrongheaded policies that will do nothing to address the current energy crisis or break the stranglehold that foreign oil has on our nation." The president reiterated his support for drilling in the Arctic refuge and said new technologies will allow development with "almost no impact on land or local wildlife." "Developing this tiny section of ANWR could eventually yield up to a million barrels of oil per day," Bush said. But a report by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration undermines the president's optimism and predicts there is little chance ANWR will yield one million barrels per day or have any real effect on oil prices, even in the year of peak production. Environmentalists say the president is also understating the environmental impact of drilling in the refuge. "Industry’s claim that the 'footprint' of oil production would amount to 2,000 acres is based on misleading math that only accounts for the area where oil production facilities actually touch the ground, and excludes gravel mines, roads, and pipelines, except their posts," said The Wilderness Society's Drew McConville. In Wednesday’s speech Bush recommended easing regulatory burdens on the oil industry to expedite expansion of existing oil refineries and construction of new ones. The last new U.S. refinery was built in 1976 and refinery capacity is near 100 percent. The issue of refinery capacity arose during Bush's meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah earlier this week. Strict environmental regulations have hampered expansion and new construction, according to the president, and forced additional imports of refined gasoline. "To encourage the expansion of existing facilities, the EPA is simplifying rules and regulations," Bush said. "I will direct federal agencies to work with states to encourage the building of new refineries - on closed military facilities, for example - and to simplify the permitting process for such construction." Industry executives welcomed the president's proposal and called on the federal government to ease permitting delays in order to boost the economic attractiveness of new investment in refining. "Increased U.S. refining capacity, whether in the form of additional capacity at existing sites, or through new grassroots refineries, would help increase the supply of domestically-manufactured petroleum products," said Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. Diamond Shamrock, Commerce City, Colorado (Photo by David Parsons courtesy NREL) Critics blasted Bush for focusing on the supply side of the energy equation. "The real pity is that the President has adamantly opposed the one initiative that could really make a difference to reduce our dependence on foreign oil – setting significantly better fuel economy standards," said Clean Air Watch President Frank O’Donnell. Bush called for increased domestic natural gas production, but also recommended steps to boost imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), including a request for Congress to grant Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to choose sites for new LNG terminals. "Federal agencies must expedite the review of the 32 proposed new projects that will either expand or build new liquefied natural gas terminals," Bush said. "In other words, there's projects on the books, and we're going to get after the review process." The energy bill passed last week by the House contains a provision to give increase federal oversight of LNG siting, but the issue sparked fierce debate and is likely to draw close scrutiny in the Senate. ---- Bush energy plan not a big hit FROM WIRE REPORTS (Published: April 28, 2005) Cape Cod Online http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/bushenergy28.htm WASHINGTON - Industry analysts reacted skeptically to new energy proposals President Bush announced yesterday, saying they would do little to bring down soaring prices of gasoline and other forms of energy. Bush, whose aides blame high oil and gasoline prices for his sagging poll numbers, made several proposals, including allowing refineries to be built on closed military bases and renewing consumer tax credits for hybrid vehicles. This was his second speech in two weeks devoted to energy. Bush will hold a news conference tonight to press his energy plan as well as provide specific details about his proposals for restructuring Social Security. "See, we've got a fundamental question we got to face here in America," Bush said at the Small Business Administration conference in Washington. "Do we want to continue to grow more dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs? Or do we need to do what is necessary to achieve greater control of our economic destiny?" "I wish I could," he said. "If I could, I would." In 2000, when he was seeking the Republican nomination for president, and oil was nearing $28 a barrel, Bush criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must "jawbone" oil-producing nations and persuade them to drop rates. Oil prices are currently more than $51 a barrel. The national average for a gallon of unleaded gasoline yesterday was $2.22, according to AAA. Some congressional Democrats have called on Bush to use the government's emergency oil reserves to try to force crude prices down - or at least stop diverting oil into the reserve. The White House repeatedly has rejected such a move, arguing the reserve is only for addressing supply disruptions and should be filled to capacity. The president did not mention the reserve in his remarks yesterday. Instead, he sought to focus on what senior administration officials acknowledge are long-term fixes aimed at reducing U.S. reliance on oil imports. Last year, imports accounted for nearly 58 percent of the 20.5 million barrels of oil used each day, according to the Energy Department. Only about a third of the country's oil came from imports in 1973 when the Arab oil embargo prompted long lines at gas stations. "Marginal benefit" Some of the ideas, which administration officials announced in a briefing Tuesday night, are already in the mix on Capitol Hill, while others could result in only minimal change, several experts said. "At best we're talking about a marginal benefit over the long term," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. Bush's new initiatives appeared directed at the Senate, which plans to consider energy legislation soon. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement that he would incorporate some of Bush's new ideas into the legislation, adding that they "could help with electricity and gasoline prices." In the House, lawmakers approved an energy plan last week that provides billions in incentives designed to spur more production. The measures Bush announced yesterday augment a larger package of previously announced proposals that include drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Bush called for building more nuclear power plants and refineries, saying that industry needs to be assured that such facilities can be approved without lengthy permit reviews. And he called for Congress to enact $2.5 billion in tax breaks for people who buy gas-electric and clean-diesel automobiles. These cars account for only a small percentage of vehicles in showrooms. Nuclear power sought The president directed the federal agencies to work with communities to see if refineries can be built on closed military bases, and he called on Congress to provide a "risk insurance" to protect companies against regulatory delays in nuclear power development. The last application for a new reactor was submitted in 1973. Since then, Bush said, more than 35 nuclear power plants have been stopped in the United States "because of bureaucratic obstacles" while France has built 58 reactors and now relies on nuclear power for 78 percent of its electricity. Nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of U.S. electricity production. On the refining issue, the administration has said that limited capacity is one factor pushing up prices at the pump. Allowing companies to build on military bases would give an added incentive for new construction to expand capacity, officials said. Industry leaders said it is not clear that companies would want to build new refineries because the business historically has not been highly profitable. While demand and profit margins are high now, companies are not convinced those margins will remain high enough to justify new refineries. While Bush lamented America's heavy reliance on foreign energy, he also called for aggressive expansion of imports of liquefied natural gas. He said Congress should make clear the federal government has final say over locating LNG import terminals, even when states or communities object to projects. There are 32 proposed LNG import projects on the books and federal regulators "must expedite their review," Bush said. Four import facilities operate in Massachusetts, Georgia, Maryland and Louisiana. ---- Bush's nuclear power dream faces heated resistance in US Thu Apr 28, 2:12 PM ET (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050428/pl_afp/usenergynuclear_050428181213 WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush and Republican lawmakers are pushing nuclear power as one of the "safest, cleanest" energy sources, in a bid to reduce the United States' growing demand for energy, but their dream has met with explosive resistance. Although nuclear energy meets a fifth of the country's electricity needs with 103 reactors, no reactors have been built in the United States in 30 years, and the newest nuclear power plants were completed a decade ago. As gas prices continued to surge in the United States, Bush renewed his push for the construction of new atomic energy plants on Wednesday, saying "nuclear power is one of the safest, cleanest sources of power in the world, and we need more of it here in America." He said the United States drew about 20 percent of its electricity from such plants, and had not ordered a new power plant since the 1970s, while France had built 58 plants and draws 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. The remarks came just two days after Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz failed at talks in Texas to agree on a short-term fix for sky-high oil prices. Bush also highlighted the Nuclear Energy 2010 program his administration launched in 2001, which earmarked 1.1 billion dollars for building new nuclear reactors by the end of the decade. But the plans, like the rest of Bush's energy package, are stalled in the Senate, although the House of Representatives -- where the Republican Party has a stronger hold -- has already passed the measures. And without any real procedural reforms and without a centralized location for treating radioactive waste, the nuclear industry has little chance of rebuilding itself, experts warn. Adding to the problems are the prohibitive costs involved, with the price tag for a new reactor estimated at between 1.5 billion and two billion dollars. "The Nuclear Power 2010 program doesn't address all the challenges facing new nuclear plant construction," Michael Wallace of the Constellation Group, a major electricity firm, told members of Congress Wednesday. "The administration would have to succeed in really delivering a package of really significant incentives to get a revival of the industry," said Pietro Nivola, an energy and politics specialist at the Brookings Institution think tank. But some analysts, such as Jerry Taylor of the CATO Institute, said the demand for electricity is not sufficient to warrant the construction of new nuclear reactors. He said electricity firms preferred to build smaller and less expensive models that run on natural gas to meet seasonal spikes in demand. In addition, unlike coal, natural gas does not emit greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide when it burns and will therefore help companies comply more easily with federal rules capping these emissions. ---- Nuclear is key to energy future John Ritch Thursday, April 28, 2005 San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/28/EDGK6CGE1B1.DTL To reply - letters@sfchronicle.com In the current debate over the energy bill, one important factor is being all but ignored: A global renaissance in nuclear energy is gaining momentum, and it could have greater implications than any of the other proposed methods for dealing with our energy problems. Some 440 civil nuclear reactors, in 30 countries comprising two-thirds of the world's population, produce 16 percent of the world's electricity. Under current plans, these nations will construct several hundred more reactors by 2030. China and India will lead the way, but the expansion will be broad-based. Nuclear power will also extend to new countries as diverse as Poland, Turkey, Indonesia and Vietnam. Meanwhile, nuclear "phaseouts" in countries such as Italy and Germany seem sure to be reversed. Around the world, there is a new realism about nuclear energy, a recognition of its essential virtue: its capacity to deliver power cleanly, safely, reliably and on a massive scale. This thinking is eclipsing old-school anti-nuclear environmentalism. Increasingly, thoughtful environmentalists see anti-nuclearism as counterproductive. They worry not about the growth of nuclear energy but about the likelihood that it is not growing rapidly enough to produce the clean- energy revolution the world urgently needs. Carbon fuel emissions -- 900 tons each second -- continue unabated, even as science warns that we are fast reaching a point of irreversible global warming with consequences for sea levels, species extinction, epidemic disease, drought and severe weather events that will disrupt all civilization. To avert climate catastrophe, greenhouse emissions must be reduced over the next 50 years by 60 percent -- even as population growth and economic development are combining to double or triple world energy consumption. Every authoritative energy analysis points to an inescapable imperative: Humankind cannot conceivably achieve a global clean-energy revolution without a rapid expansion of nuclear power to generate electricity, produce hydrogen for tomorrow's vehicles and drive seawater-desalination plants to meet a fast- emerging world water crisis. This reality requires a tenfold increase in nuclear energy during the 21st century. Fortunately, advances in technology and practice can facilitate this expansion by meeting legitimate public concerns: -- Safety: In the two decades since Chernobyl, the global nuclear industry has built an impressive safety record that draws on 12,000 reactor- years of practical experience. A network of active cooperation on operational safety now links every nuclear power reactor worldwide. -- Arms proliferation: Illicit weapons programs of rogue regimes pose an ever-present risk. But strong, universal safeguards can ensure that civil nuclear facilities do not increase that risk. Security for the environment and against terrorism need not conflict. -- Cost: Steady reductions in operational and capital costs have already made nuclear energy highly competitive. Once governments begin to impose a real price on environmental damage -- through emissions trading or carbon taxes -- the balance will tilt decisively toward nuclear. -- Waste: In truth, waste is nuclear power's greatest comparative asset. Unlike carbon emissions, the volume is minimal and can be reliably contained and managed. For a half-century, the civil nuclear industry has safely stored and transported all end products from electricity generation. For long-term storage, a scientific consensus favors deep geological repositories. Governments worldwide must follow the lead of Finland, Sweden, the United States and France by moving to construct such sites. The scope of the environmental crisis requires that governments accelerate the nuclear renaissance. One essential element will be a comprehensive post-Kyoto treaty on climate. It must include all major nations and yield a steady, long-term contraction in global emissions. The key is an emissions-trading mechanism that yields efficiency in clean-energy investment and a net flow of investment from north to south. This economic assistance will be the most cost-effective in history if it prevents the globally destructive greenhouse emissions that will otherwise occur in the developing world. Another key is investment. Full-scale nuclear investment is still impeded by the absence of carbon penalties, the short-term bias of deregulated energy markets and the fact that 21st-century nuclear reactors have not yet achieved economies of scale. Governments must prime the pump using start-up aids, such as loan guarantees and tax credits for first-of-a-kind engineering costs. We need multinational investment, too. Today the major U.N. development institutions reflexively embrace unscientific prejudice while the International Atomic Energy Agency works alone to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Governments must now direct the World Bank and the U.N. Development and Environment Programs to pursue a clean-energy vision with nuclear power in a central role. Technology today is spurring a growth in world population and energy consumption that jeopardizes the future of our biosphere. Wisely used, modern technology can also be our salvation. John Ritch, director general of the World Nuclear Association, was U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency and other U.N. agencies in Vienna from 1993 to 2001. This commentary appeared originally in the Washington Post. -------- nevada Tribe fights Yucca in court Judge hears Western Shoshone lawsuit, makes no ruling By KEN RITTER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Thursday, April 28, 2005 Las Vegas Review-Journal http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-28-Thu-2005/news/26394803.html Corbin Harney, spiritual leader of the Western Shoshone tribe, says a prayer Wednesday in front of the U.S. Federal Courthouse. Tribal members were on hand for a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The tribe claims the land on which the site is located. Photo by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-28-Thu-2005/photos/tribe1.jpg A federal judge made no immediate decision Wednesday on whether an American Indian tribe's 19th century claim to vast stretches of Western land should stop government plans for a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. U.S. District Court Judge Philip Pro didn't indicate when he would rule on the Western Shoshone National Council's request for a preliminary injunction based on the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863. After an hour of oral arguments, Pro said he'd make a decision "as soon as possible." Lawyer Robert Hager of Reno, representing the tribe, focused his plea for an immediate halt to the $58 billion project on Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman's disclosure last month that workers might have falsified data during site suitability studies. "Misrepresentations were made. Lies were made," Hager said, insisting that falsified data was used to gain presidential and congressional approval for the project. "At some point, it's got to stop, your honor, and it's got to stop with the courts." Bodman's March 16 disclosures came after the tribe's original lawsuit was filed March 4. In the original lawsuit the tribe claims that the Ruby Valley Treaty allows only settlements, mining, ranching, agriculture, railroads, roads and communication routes on Western Shoshone ancestral lands. Department of Justice lawyer Sara Culley called the tribe's challenge "a direct contradiction of a congressional mandate" and said it was filed prematurely and in the wrong venue. President Bush and Congress selected the Yucca Mountain site in 2002 after years of study. The Energy Department plans to transport 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste now stored at sites around the nation and entomb it 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Constitutionality and site selection challenges are before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Culley said, and licensing will be handled by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "We don't have these decisions made," she told the judge. Culley said the Energy Department has some 1,600 people working on the project. However, she said that since the repository was not expected to open for at least five more years, the tribe could show no "irreparable or immediate harm" from planning for the repository or for a rail line across Nevada to reach it. Hager said Shoshone prayer sites had been declared off-limits and ancestral remains had been removed from graves during site preparation. "Ongoing activity in the mountain is desecrating the mountain itself," he said. The Ruby Valley treaty recognized vast stretches of territory in present-day Nevada, California, Utah and Idaho as Western Shoshone tribal land. But an Indian Claims Commission decided in 1946 that the tribe lost the land through "gradual encroachment" during settlement of the West. Tribal members lost a Supreme Court challenge of that decision in 1985, and President Bush and Congress last year approved paying the tribe more than $145 million in compensation and accrued interest based on the 1872 value of 24 million acres. Tribal members are split on whether to accept payments or continue to press the fight over rights to the land. Estimates of the number of Western Shoshone members vary between tribal estimates of 10,000 and federal government estimates of 6,000. Most still live in Idaho, Utah, eastern and central Nevada, and Death Valley and the Mojave Desert in California. ---- Resolution urges government to end nuclear waste plan Legislators worry about effect on tourism By BRENDAN RILEY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Thursday, April 28, 2005 Las Vegas Review-Journal http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-28-Thu-2005/news/26396020.html CARSON CITY -- A Nevada legislative panel was asked Wednesday to back a resolution that urges federal lawmakers to oppose plans for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. No vote on Assembly Joint Resolution 4 was taken. Senate Natural Resources Chairman Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, said the high-level nuclear repository planned by the U.S. Department of Energy could hurt tourism in the state. Rhoads said people from out of state have asked him about the planned dump, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and have said they will not come to Nevada if the repository is in operation. "They're pretty scared of it," he said. Another panel member, Sen. Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas, who between legislative sessions works as a waitress, said she fields questions about the project from tourists. Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, D-Las Vegas, chief sponsor of AJR4, raised the tourism issue as she went through concerns about the Yucca Mountain Project. Ohrenschall was backed by Morgan Baumgartner of the Nevada Resort Association, who said hotel-casinos also fear the dump could hurt their business. The resolution, already approved by the Assembly, asks federal decision-makers to give up on Yucca Mountain because it is "an ill-advised project based on bad science, bad law and bad public policy, a choice that ignores better, less expensive and safer alternatives, a choice which hinders, not helps, national security." Despite delays and spending cuts, Energy Department officials have said recently that the Yucca Mountain plan is alive and well and that support from the Bush administration remains strong. Bob Loux, chief of the state Nuclear Projects Office, said the project "is failing rapidly." Recent problems with the government's plans for the repository include criminal investigations to determine whether workers on the project falsified data. Also, a court decision has forced a rewrite of radiation safety standards for the site, and the DOE has scrapped a planned 2010 completion date without setting a new one. ---- NUCLEAR WASTE RULING April 28, 2005 National Briefing By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/national/28brfs.html?pagewanted=print&position= A federal judge has ordered the Energy Department to explain why it believes that it will ever be possible to open the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The order came in a lawsuit by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in California. The district wants reimbursement for the cost of storing fuel from the old Rancho Seco nuclear reactor. The Energy Department was supposed to begin taking the waste about five years ago, but that has not occurred because of delays in opening the Yucca repository. In her ruling, Judge Susan G. Braden of the Court of Federal Claims said there was no evidence that Yucca Mountain would ever be licensed. Matthew L. Wald (NYT) --- Utility contract may be voided Judge criticizes repository delays By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU Thursday, April 28, 2005 Las Vegas Review-Journal http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-28-Thu-2005/news/26396567.html WASHINGTON -- In an opinion highly critical of government delays at Yucca Mountain, a federal judge said she wants to void a California public utility's nuclear waste contract and give ratepayers their money back. Judge Susan Braden said she has tentatively concluded that a 1983 contract signed by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District should be rescinded. She proposed the customer-owned utility get a refund for the $40 million it has paid to build a repository and to have radioactive spent fuel moved from the mothballed Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Station. The opinion and show cause order marked the first time a judge has proposed going so far as to dismantle contracts stemming from Energy Department delays in developing a Nevada disposal site for nuclear waste. In essence, the judge is asking the parties to convince her why she shouldn't take such action. Following a two-week trial last month in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the judge said "there is no evidence in the record that the government had reason to believe in 1983, 1989 or at present that Yucca Mountain ever will be licensed to store spent fuel and high level radioactive waste." She further questioned whether a nuclear waste transportation system to the Nevada nuclear waste repository site will ever be authorized and licensed. Braden said the government and the utility could sign a new contract when the repository is ready. The judge's opinion was dated April 21 and began circulating this week, creating a buzz among lawyers and policymakers. Repository critics seized on the six-page opinion. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., declared it evidence of a "changing Washington culture" that he said is growing skeptical about storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. "This opens up more avenues for the state legally," Ensign said. "The evidence from the court order reads like a death sentence for Yucca Mountain," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Declaring the original nuclear waste contracts void is one step short of declaring the end of Yucca Mountain." If the judge follows through, her ruling would apply directly only to the Rancho Seco plant, said Joe Egan, an attorney who represents Nevada in nuclear waste litigation. But Egan said it also would limit the Energy Department's ability to defend itself in other nuclear waste cases. The government is facing more than 60 lawsuits from utilities charging the Energy Department breached 1983 contracts by failing to have a repository open by Jan. 31, 1998. Braden, who was appointed by President Bush in 2003, gave attorneys for the government and the Sacramento utility a June 20 deadline to weigh in on her opinion. She also invited briefs from other interests, which are lining up to comment. "The judge is suggesting maybe DOE go back to the drawing board," Egan said, adding Nevada plans to file a brief encouraging the judge to finalize her ruling. Apart from Nevada, attorneys interviewed Wednesday said the Sacramento district and other utilities, and the nuclear power industry, plan to argue against the judge's view. A $40 million refund won't fully compensate the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which also spent $30 million to build 22 concrete nuclear waste storage bunkers at the Rancho Seco plant that was shut down in 1989, said Steve Cohn, the district's assistant general counsel. According to court papers, bunker maintenance costs $1.5 million annually, and the utility spent more than $10 million to keep spent fuel stored in pools for a period. "The immediate problem we see is that simply refunding the money from what we paid in over 20 years doesn't make us whole," Cohn said. The utility has been seeking about $78 million in partial damages, he said. Attorney Jay Silberg said no utility has ever requested nullifying its contracts. Rather, he said, nuclear plant operators want their nuclear waste taken away and to be reimbursed for their costs of keeping it on-site in the meantime. "The utilities want the contract to be performed sooner rather than later. It is not in our interest for the contracts to disappear," said Silberg, who represents utilities in 19 cases. Michael Bauser, associate general counsel for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said Braden's opinion is flawed in light of earlier court rulings that upheld the contracts and Congress ordering the government to enter into them in the first place. "It appears to me that she's based this tentative conclusion that the contracts might be void on a misunderstanding of the facts, the law and indeed other court decisions at the appellate level," Bauser said. One lawyer who asked not to be identified for fear of crossing the judge said Braden "shoots from the hip and this is her stream of consciousness rather than any lengthy deliberation on her part." "I don't think any of us believe if Braden makes this decision the federal (appeals) circuit would uphold her," the lawyer said. -------- MILITARY -------- arms US to sell bunker busters to Israel ISN SECURITY WATCH (28/04/05) http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=11187 The US has agreed to supply Israel with 5,000 “smart bombs” in a US $319 million weapons deal announced on Wednesday. The bombs include 500 one-ton “bunker-busters”, along with 2,500 other one-ton bombs, 1,000 half-ton bombs, and 500 quarter-ton bombs. The news prompted immediate speculation that the bombs may be used to hit Iranian nuclear facilities. Tehran has insisted its nuclear program is aimed at producing electricity and is not a weapons program, but both Washington and Tel Aviv have been highly skeptical of that claim and have been pressing Iran to give up its nuclear program altogether. Under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), there is nothing to prevent signatories from pursuing nuclear programs for non-military purposes. The US and Israel say they are pursuing a diplomatic course to convince Iran to end all nuclear activity, but Tehran has steadfastly maintained it has a right to develop its nuclear potential for civilian use. On Tuesday, Tehran announced that it had started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, a process that can be used to make nuclear weapons. If Iran cannot be convinced to forgo its nuclear program, there are concerns that either the US or Israel may attempt to destroy its nuclear sites. The BLU-109 (Bomb Live Unit) “bunker-buster” – 500 of which will be delivered to Israel - is well suited for such a purpose, as it can penetrate five meters of fortifications. The bombs are mounted on satellite-guided missiles and can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets. Earlier this year, under the US government's Peace Marble V defense assistance program, Israel had received the first of 102 F-16Is configured for long-range strikes. As the bombs can be guided by Israel’s own military surveillance satellites that monitor Iran, Tel Aviv would not need to rely on US satellites. The precision-guided munitions, or “smart” bombs, are self-guiding weapons intended to maximize damage to the target but minimize collateral damage. However, if their guidance systems fail, they could cause greater collateral damage than an ordinary bomb. Israeli military officials have not made any statements about whether the bombs could be used against Iran, but they ruled out the possibility that they would be used against Palestinian targets. In July 2002, Israel used a “smart” bomb against a senior Palestinian militant, but the blast also killed 15 civilians, drawing international condemnation. The Pentagon announced last June that it was considering the sale to Israel in a package meant to “contribute significantly to US strategic and tactical objectives”. Funding for the deal will come from US military aid to Israel. (By Ustina Markus in Washington, DC) -------- russia / chechnya Putin Addresses Israeli Concerns Over Russian Middle East Policy by Larry James April 28, 2005 (AXcess News) http://www.axcessnews.com/worldnews_042805e.shtml The Russian leader responded to criticism of some of his country's Middle East policies, saying they pose no threat to Israel's security. Jerusalem - Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Israeli officials Thursday on the second day of a visit aimed at strengthening ties with the Jewish state. The Russian leader responded to criticism of some of his country's Middle East policies, saying they pose no threat to Israel's security. Despite the pomp and ceremony Israel put on for the Russian leader, the Putin visit has been overshadowed by Russia's support for Syria and Iran. The Russian leader announced before the start of this trip his country had agreed to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. The Kremlin also supplies Iran with most of the technology for its nuclear program. Israel objects to both programs. Mr. Putin addressed those concerns directly when he said after meeting with Israeli President Moshe Katsav that the arms being sold to Syria pose no threat to Israel. The Russian leader also said that Russia supports only the peaceful use of nuclear power in Iran and that Tehran is required to return depleted uranium to Moscow so that it cannot be used to make weapons. Mr. Putin conceded, however, that existing safeguards are not enough and Iran must be made to agree to a nuclear inspection program. Still, his statements that those policies do not pose a threat to Israeli security do not satisfy leaders of the Jewish state. Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said again today that Russia is selling components to Iran that can be used to make nuclear weapons and that is a cause for concern. Mr. Putin arrived in Israel Wednesday evening from Egypt where he announced that he wants to host a Middle East peace conference in Moscow. The suggestion was warmly welcomed by the Palestinians but not the Israelis who are focusing on their plan to withdraw all Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip later this summer. They say conditions are not yet right for such a multi-party conference. Washington was cool to the idea too. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the time has not yet come for an international conference. The internationally backed peace plan known as the "road map" calls for such a conference during its second phase but neither party has yet fulfilled the requirements of the first phase. Mr. Putin meets with Palestinian leaders on Friday. ---- Mourning Mother Russia By DAVID BROOKS OP-ED COLUMNIST April 28, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/opinion/28brooks.html?pagewanted=print&position= Vladimir Putin gave a bizarre speech this week in which he described the fall of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century" and said that an "epidemic of collapse has spilled over to Russia itself." The sad thing is he is half right. Most of us are grateful for the fall of communism, but the phrase "epidemic of collapse" is not a bad description of what Russian society is suffering through right now. You can measure that collapse most broadly in the country's phenomenal population decline. According to U.N. projections, Russia's population will plummet from about 146 million in 2000 to about 104 million in 2050. Russia will go from being the 6th-most-populous country in the world to being the 17th. That population decline has a number of causes. The first is the crisis in the Russian family and the decline in fertility rates. Between 1981 and 2001, marriage rates in Russia dropped by a third, and divorce rates rose by a third, according to Russian government estimates. As Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out recently in one of the last issues of The Public Interest, Russia now has three divorces for every four marriages, an astounding rate of family breakups. As the Soviet regime disintegrated, Russian fertility rates fell through the floor, from 2.19 births per woman in 1986-87 to 1.17 in 1999. Birth rates have now recovered somewhat, but they are not even close to replacement levels. According to Eberstadt, Russia currently has about 160 deaths for every 100 births. The more shocking reason Russia's population is declining is that people are dying younger. Russians are now much less healthy than their grandparents were in 1960. In the past three decades, Russian mortality rates have risen by 40 percent. Russian life expectancies now approximate those in Bangladesh and are below India's. The health care system is in shambles. The risk of suffering a violent death is nine times as high for Russian men, compared with men in Israel. There's an explosion of heart attacks and strokes, thanks to smoking, increased vodka consumption and other ruinous lifestyle choices. The H.I.V./AIDS epidemic hasn't even been fully factored into the official statistics. According to Russian statistics, a 20-year-old man in 2000 had only a 46 percent chance of reaching age 65. (American 20-year-olds had about an 80 percent chance.) What we are seeing, in short, is a country with nuclear weapons that is enduring a slow-motion version of the medieval Black Death. Perhaps we should be thankful that the political and economic situation there isn't worse than it is. For, indeed, the paradox of Russia is that as life has become miserable in many ways, the economy has grown at an impressive clip. We can look back on this and begin to see a pattern that might be called Post-Totalitarian Stress Syndrome. When totalitarian regimes take control of a country, they destroy the bonds of civic trust and the normal patterns of social cohesion. They rule by fear, and public life becomes brutish. They pervert private and public morality. When those totalitarian regimes fall, different parts of society recover at different rates. Some enterprising people take advantage of economic recovery, and the result of their efforts is economic growth. But private morality, the habits of self-control and the social fabric take a lot longer to recover. So you wind up with nations in which high growth rates and lingering military power mask profound social chaos. This is what we're seeing in Russia. It's probably what we would be seeing in Iraq even if the insurgency were under control. And most frighteningly, it could be what we will be seeing in China for decades to come. On the surface, China looks much more impressive than Russia. But this is a country that will be living with the consequences of totalitarianism for some time. Thanks to the one-child policy, there will be hundreds of millions of elderly people without families to support them. Thanks to that same policy, and the cultural predilection for boys, there will be tens of millions of surplus single men floating around with no marital prospects, no civilizing influences, nothing to prevent them from assembling into violent criminal bands. At some point the power-hungry find a way to exploit social misery. At some point internal social chaos has international consequences. Fasten your seat belts. We could be in for a bumpy ride. E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com -------- us How Far Will The Army Go? Apr 28, 2005 9:59 pm US/Mountain CBS4 Denver http://news4colorado.com/localnews/local_story_118125046.html How far will U.S. Army recruiters go to bring young men and women into their ranks? An Arvada West High School senior recently decided to find out. The following is CBS4 Investigator Rick Sallinger's report.. ARVADA, Colo. (CBS4) -- Last month the U.S. Army failed to meet its goal of 6,800 new troops. Aware of this trend, David McSwane, a local high school student, decided he wanted to find out to what extent some recruiters would go to sign up soldiers who were not up to grade. McSwane, 17, is actually just the kind of teenager the military would like. He's a high school journalist and honor student at Arvada West High School. But McSwane decided he wanted to see "how far the Army would go during a war to get one more solider." McSwane contacted his local army recruiting office in Golden with a scenario he created. He told a recruiter that he was a dropout and didn't have a high school diploma. "No problem," the recruiter explained. He suggested that McSwane create a fake diploma from a non-existent school. McSwane recorded the recruiter saying that on the phone. "It can be like Faith Hill Baptist School or something -- whatever you choose," the recruiter said. As instructed, McSwane went on the computer to a Web site and for $200 arranged to have a phony diploma created that certified him as a graduate of Faith Hill Baptist High School, the very name the recruiter suggested. It came complete with a fake grade transcript. "What was your reaction to them encouraging you to get a phony diploma?" CBS4's Rick Sallinger asked. "I was shocked," McSwane said. "I'm sitting there looking at a poster that says 'Integrity, Honor, Respect' and he is telling me to lie." McSwane also pretended he had a drug problem when he spoke with the recruiter. The Army does not accept enlistees with drug problems. "I have a problem with drugs," McSwane said, referring to the conversation he had with the recruiter. "I can't kick the habit ... just marijuana." "[The recruiter] said 'Not a problem,' just take this detox ... he said he would pay half of it ... told me where to go." Drug testers CBS4 contacted insist it doesn't work, but the recruiter claimed in another recorded phone conversation that taking "detoxification capsules and liquid" would help McSwane pass the required test. "The two times I had the guys use it, it has worked both times," the recruiter said in the recorded conversation. "We didn't have to worry about anything." Then the original recruiter was transferred and another recruiter, Sgt. Tim Pickel, picked up the ball. A friend of McSwane shot videotape as Pickel drove McSwane to a store where he purchased the so-called detox kit. CBS4 then went to the Army recruiting office and confronted Sgt. Pickel. CBS4 played him a conversation McSwane had with Pickel on the phone. The transcript of that conversation follows: Pickel: When you said about the one problem that you had, what does it consist of? McSwane: "Marijuana." Pickel: Oh, OK so nothing major? McSwane: Yeah, he said he would take me down to get that stuff, I mean I have no idea what it is, so you would have to show me. Is that a problem? Pickel: No, not at all. Pickel quickly referred CBS4 to his superiors. CBS4 then played the tapes and showed the video to Lt. Col. Jeffrey Brodeur, who heads army recruiting for the region. "Let me sum up all of this with one word: unacceptable, completely unacceptable," Brodeur said. Hearing recruiters talking about phony diplomas and ways to beat drug tests left Brodeur more than a little disturbed. "Let me tell you something sir, I'm a soldier and have been a soldier for 20 years," Brodeur said. "This violates trust, it violates integrity, it violates honor and it violates duty." The army says it is conducting a full investigation. Brodeur said there is no pressure or punishment for recruiters if quotas are not met. They are, however, rewarded when their goals are surpassed. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- homeland security / national intelligence Chemical Plant Security Law in the Works WASHINGTON, DC, April 28, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-28-09.asp#anchor1 A Senate committee is considering whether legislation is necessary to establish nationwide standards for security at chemical facilities. Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, today chaired a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to examine the security of America’s chemical plants and their vulnerability to terrorist attacks. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, there are at least 15,000 facilities across the country that use, manufacture, or store large quantities of hazardous chemicals. A study released last month by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, found that there is no comprehensive federal approach to chemical facility security. The Department of Homeland Security has identified 297 chemical facilities where a toxic release could potentially affect 50,000 or more people. “To us, these facilities are vital parts of our economy that create jobs and improve lives. To our enemies, they are weapons waiting to be used against an unsuspecting population,” said Collins. “Nothing will ever diminish the loss we experienced on September 11th, but the loss from a chemical attack could be even greater, both in terms of the loss of life and the economic impact," she said. Collins pointed out that a chemical attack could either be caused by a harmful release of chemicals from a facility or the theft of chemicals from a facility for use by a terrorist. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, during the 1990s both international and domestic terrorists attempted many times to cause the release of chemicals from manufacturing or storage facilities. The potential impact of such an attack is exemplified by the 1984 poisonous gas leak in Bhopal, India. Within a few hours of the leak, thousands of people died and, over time, hundreds of thousands suffered and are still suffering the effects of exposure to the gas. Federal regulations have been enacted to help prevent and mitigate the accidental release of hazardous chemicals in the United States, but the regulations are not designed to secure facilities against a terrorist attack. The American Chemistry Council has gone on record as supporting "meaningful chemical security legislation." In a statement Wednesday, the Council said its 140 member companies already have taken extraordinary measures to secure all 2,040 facilities they operate. "These companies have invested over $2 billion in security upgrades so far and their work continues today," the Council said. The Council supports national legislation that will establish national standards for security of chemical facilities; require facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and implement security plans; and provide oversight, inspection, and enforcement authority to the Department of Homeland Security to ensure facilities are secure against threats of terrorism. At the close of today's hearing, Senator Collins said chemical security legislation appears to be needed. "Based on the testimony we received today, it appears that federal legislation is needed to better secure our nation’s chemical facilities, and to better prepare in case of a successful terrorist attack." Further hearings are planned. ---- Panel Questions Patriot Act Uses By Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 28, 2005; A07 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702094_pf.html Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence pushed the nation's top law enforcement and intelligence officials yesterday to share more information on the use and effectiveness of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act. "I think we need to have more public disclosure in examining and assessing its impact," Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said. "We are to some extent doing oversight in the dark," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said. Members at the sparsely attended hearing told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and CIA Director Porter J. Goss that the public is not comfortable with roving wiretaps, delayed notification searches and new authorities to obtain the library, credit card and health records of individuals who are not the subject of a criminal investigation but who might be of intelligence value in terrorism probes. But none of the members at the hearing, one of a series in recent weeks to consider reauthorizing 16 provisions of the act due to expire at year's end, suggested they were concerned enough to vote against renewing the provisions or making them permanent. "From last week's hearings, it appears that there's broad support for the proposition" that the act's provisions should be made permanent," with some changes, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). Gonzales has proposed some technical modifications. Civil rights groups and politicians, including conservative organizations, have criticized some provisions as lacking enough checks to avoid abuse. Members said their constituents continue to have fundamental questions, as Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) put it, about "what agencies within the federal government can, quote, spy, or place American citizens under surveillance . . . Who does what, when?" It was a question easier asked than answered. "So can the CIA spy on the American people?" Mikulski asked Gonzales. "The primary responsibility falls upon the Department of Justice, not the CIA." "Can the CIA spy on the American -- " she tried again. "No," answered Gonzales, only to be amended later by Mueller. "Surveillance of American citizens for national security matters is in the hands, generally, of the FBI," Mueller told Mikulski. "The investigation or development of intelligence overseas is in the hands of the CIA and NSA [National Security Agency]. And generally, I would say generally, they are not allowed to spy or to gather information on American citizens. But there are limited exceptions to that." While the National Security Act prohibits the CIA from spying on U.S. citizens in the United States, the agency can, in limited cases, spy on U.S. citizens abroad who are in contact with foreigners who are the target of CIA surveillance for possible terrorism ties. -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Highlights of Bush's Press Conference By The Associated Press The Associated Press Thursday, April 28, 2005; 10:41 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801981_pf.html -- Highlights of President Bush's press conference Thursday: Iraq: In spite of a resurgence of the insurgency in Iraq, Bush said he believed "really good progress" was being made in the country. He commended Iraqi forces for improving their ability to provide security. Bush declined to set a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would occur "as soon as possible." He said military advisers assured him that troop deployments in Iraq had not limited the United States' ability to deal with problems elsewhere. North Korea: Bush called North Korean leader Kim Jong Il "a dangerous person" and defended multination talks aimed at developing a Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons. The president said the missile defense system the United Stated was developing was part of its comprehensive strategy in dealing with Kim. Russia: Bush said he takes Russian President Vladimir Putin at his word that he strongly supports democracy. However, he expressed unhappiness with Putin's decision to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. Iran: Bush said the United States, Britain, France and Germany recognize that "we can't trust the Iranians when it comes to enriching uranium, that they should not be allowed to enrich uranium." Saying he appreciated Russia's offer to provide Iran with uranium for its civilian nuclear power industry, he added that Putin understands the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. United Nations: He said the United Nations needs major changes. "If we expect the United Nations to be effective," Bush said, "it needs to clean up its problems." He praised the United Nations for its role in free elections in Lebanon without Syrian influence. Social Security: The president repeated the basic message he and administration officials have been taking around the country for nearly two months: Social Security has a solvency problem that needs action today, and voluntary private accounts are an important part of a the answer. He proposed changing the program so benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people with higher incomes. Gas Prices: Saying high gas prices a "tax" on small businesses and individuals, Bush sought to assure Americans that there would be no gouging at the pumps. To reduce dependency on foreign oil, he said he wants better technology for conservation, innovation for making the most of resources, development of new energy sources, and helping other nations apply new technologies to reduce fossil-fuel demands globally. Energy Bill: Bush appealed to Congress to send a comprehensive energy bill to his office by summer. "This is a problem that's been a long time in coming," he said. "And now we find ourselves in the fix we're in. It's taken us a while to get there, it's going to take us a while to get out." Judicial Nominees: Bush disagreed with the contention of the conservative Family Research Council that his judicial appointments were being held up in the Senate because of their religious faith. "I think people are opposing my nominees because they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated," he said. John Bolton: He said John R. Bolton, his nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was "a seasoned diplomat" who was smart and capable. Bush also said senators posed questions to Bolton and that the nominee had given "very good answers." Polls: Bush said he did not pay attention to polls showing people disapprove of his handling of Social Security, gas prices and the economy. "You know, if a president tries to govern based on polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail. ... I don't think the American people want a president who relies upon polls and focus groups to make decisions." Religion: Bush said he believed religion was "a personal matter" and that people should be judged on how they lived their lives. "Faith plays an important part in my life individually," he said. "If you chose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship." Partisanship: Bush did not assume any blame for a partisan political atmosphere in Washington. "I've been disappointed. I felt that people could work together in good faith," he said. Bush said he was proud that the GOP had been "the party of ideas." -------- Bush Offers Plan to Bolster Refineries and Nuclear Plants By ELISABETH BUMILLER April 28, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/politics/28bush.html?pagewanted=print&position= WASHINGTON, April 27 -President Bush presented a plan on Wednesday to offer federal risk insurance to companies that build nuclear power plants and to encourage the construction of oil refineries on closed military bases in the United States. Mr. Bush also proposed giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to choose sites for new terminals to receive liquid natural gas from overseas. Mr. Bush's proposals, which he laid out to a friendly lunchtime audience of small-business owners at the Washington Hilton, would not lower domestic gasoline prices this summer. But they appeared to be a response to continuing criticism from Saudi Arabia that one reason for the high cost of gasoline is a lack of refining capacity in the United States. "Because of our foreign energy independence, our ability to take actions at home that will lower prices for American families is diminishing," Mr. Bush told the business owners, who were attending a conference organized by the Small Business Administration. "Our dependence on foreign energy is like a foreign tax on the American people." Recent polls suggest that high gasoline prices have cut into Mr. Bush's popularity, and the president has made two speeches in the last week on efforts to bring down the cost of oil. At the same time, he has used the speeches to keep up pressure on Congress to pass his long-stalled energy bill, which has languished on Capitol Hill for nearly four years. The president has acknowledged that his proposals would not lower gasoline prices "today," but has said that they would help in the long run. "This problem did not develop overnight, and it's not going to be fixed overnight," Mr. Bush said in his speech at the Hilton. "But it's now time to fix it. See, we got a fundamental question we got to face here in America: Do we want to continue to grow more dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs, or do we want what is necessary to achieve greater control of our economic destiny?" Most of Mr. Bush's speech was a restatement of White House energy policy, but the plan to build refineries on closed military bases startled energy experts outside the administration. Administration officials said that bases could either be leased or sold to private companies in open bidding. At present, there are about 100 closed bases in the United States, but some have already been redeveloped as commercial airports or economic free zones for businesses. Building more nuclear power plants has long been a part of Mr. Bush's energy policy, but offering federal risk insurance to companies or investors willing to try to get approval for them is new. In his speech, Mr. Bush said that his goal was to reduce uncertainty in the building and regulatory process, and to protect companies from construction delays beyond their control. Mr. Bush noted that the United States had not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970's, and that since then 35 plants were stopped at various stages of construction because of bureaucratic delays. "No wonder the industry is hesitant to start building again," he said. There has been a shift in opinion in the industry and among some environmentalists toward more nuclear power, because it is clean and far safer than at the time of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979. White House officials said that they wanted Mr. Bush's proposals to be part of the energy bill now working its way through Congress. Senator Pete V. Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who is chairman of a Senate subcommittee on energy and water and a major proponent of nuclear power, said in a statement on Tuesday night that he would incorporate some of Mr. Bush's proposals into the bill. Democrats criticized Mr. Bush's proposals as ineffective for average consumers. "The Republican plan won't help the families, truckers, farmers and small businesses suffering from skyrocketing gas prices today," Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who ran for president against Mr. Bush in 2004, said in a statement. A consumer group also criticized the president's proposals. "The president is proposing to increase refining capacity in this country ostensibly to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, yet in the same breath he is pushing for increased imports of liquefied natural gas, which will leave us more dependent on other countries," the National Association of State Public Interest Groups, a consumer advocacy organization, said in a statement. ---- Transcript of President Bush's Press Conference April 28, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/politics/29bush_transcript_web.html?pagewanted=print&position= Following is the text of President Bush's news conference as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions, Inc. Here are excerpts. BUSH: Good evening. Tonight I will discuss two vital priorities for the American people, and then I'd be glad to answer some of your questions. Millions of American families and small businesses are hurting because of higher gasoline prices. My administration is doing everything we can to make gasoline more affordable. In the near term, we will continue to encourage oil-producing nations to maximize their production. Here at home, we'll protect consumers. There will be no price gouging at gas pumps in America. We must address the root causes that are driving up gas prices. BUSH: In the past decade, America's energy consumption has been growing about 40 times faster than our energy production. That means we're relying more on energy produced abroad. To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we must take four key steps. First, we must better use technology to become better conservers of energy. And secondly, we must find innovative and environmentally sensitive ways to make the most of our existing energy resources, including oil, natural gas, coal and safe, clean nuclear power. Third, we must develop promising new sources of energy, such as hydrogen, ethanol or bio-diesel. Fourth, we must help growing energy consumers overseas, like China and India, apply new technologies to use energy more efficiently and reduce global demand of fossil fuels. BUSH: I applaud the House for passing a good energy bill. Now the Senate needs to act on this urgent priority. American consumers have waited long enough. To help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, Congress needs to get an energy bill to my desk by this summer, so I can sign it into law. Congress also needs to address the challenges facing Social Security. I've traveled the country to talk with the American people. They understand that Social Security is headed for serious financial trouble and they expect their leaders in Washington to address the problem. Social Security worked fine during the last century, but the math has changed. A generation of baby boomers is getting ready to retire. BUSH: I happen to be one of them. Today, there are about 40 million retirees receiving benefits. By the time all the baby boomers have retired, there will be more than 72 million retirees drawing Social Security benefits. Baby boomers will be living longer and collecting benefits over longer retirements than previous generations. And Congress has assured that their benefits will rise faster than the rate of inflation. In other words, there's a lot of us getting ready to retire who will be living longer and receiving greater benefits than the previous generation. And to compound the problem, there are fewer people paying into the system. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every beneficiary; today there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. Soon there will be two workers for every beneficiary. These changes have put Social Security on the path to bankruptcy. When the baby boomers start retiring in three years, Social Security will start heading toward the red. BUSH: In 2017, the system will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Every year after that, the shortfall will get worse, and by 2041 Social Security will be bankrupt. Franklin Roosevelt did a wonderful thing when he created Social Security. The system has meant a lot for a lot of people. Social Security has provided a safety net that has provided dignity and peace of mind for millions of Americans in their retirement. Yet there's a hole in the safety net, because Congresses have made promises it cannot keep for a younger generation. As we fix Social Security, some things won't change. Seniors and people with disabilities will get their checks. All Americans born before 1950 will receive the full benefits. Our duty to save Social Security begins with making the system permanently solvent, but our duty does not end there. BUSH: We also have a responsibility to improve Social Security by directing extra help to those most in need and by making it a better deal for younger workers. Now as Congress begins work on legislation, we must be guided by three goals. First, millions of Americans depend on Social Security checks as a primary source of retirement income, so we must keep this promise to future retirees as well. As a matter of fairness, I propose that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get. Secondly, I believe a reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most. So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off. By providing more generous benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make this commitment: If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty. BUSH: This reform would solve most of the funding challenges facing Social Security. A variety of options are available to solve the rest of the problem, and I will work with Congress on any good-faith proposal that does not raise the payroll tax rate or harm our economy. I know we can find a solution to the financial problems of Social Security that is sensible, permanent and fair. Third, any reform of Social Security must replace the empty promises being made to younger workers with real assets, real money. I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option -- the opportunity -- if they so choose, of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account. Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers would have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide. BUSH: The money from a voluntary personal retirement account would supplement the check one receives from Social Security. In a reformed Social System, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment that will allow an American to build a nest egg that he or she can pass on to whomever he or she chooses. BUSH: Americans who would choose not to save in a personal account will still be able to count on a Social Security check equal to or higher than the benefits of today's seniors. In the coming days and weeks I'll work with both the House and the Senate as they take the next steps in the legislative process. I'm willing to listen to any good idea from either party. Too often the temptation in Washington is to look at a major issue only in terms of whether it gives one political party an advantage over the other. Social Security is too important for politics as usual. We have a shared responsibility to fix Social Security and make the system better, to keep seniors out of poverty and expand ownership for people of every background. BUSH: And when we do, Republicans and Democrats will be able to stand together and take credit for what is right for our children and our grandchildren. And now I'll be glad to answer some questions. QUESTION: Mr. President, a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of Social Security, rising gas prices and the economy. Are you frustrated by that and by the fact that you are having trouble getting attraction on your agenda in a Republican-controlled Congress? BUSH: We're asking people to do things that haven't been done for 20 years. We haven't addressed the Social Security problem since 1983. We haven't had an energy strategy in our country for decades. So I'm not surprised that some are balking at doing hard work. But I have a duty as the president to define problems facing our nation and to call upon people to act. BUSH: And we're just really getting started in the process. You asked about Social Security. For the past 60 days I've traveled our country making it clear to people we have a problem. That's the first step of any legislative process is to explain to the people the nature of the problem. And the American people understand we have a problem. I've also spent time assuring seniors they'll get their check. That's a very important part of making sure we end up with a Social Security reform. I think if seniors feel like they're not going to get their check, obviously nothing's going to happen. And we're making progress there, too, as well. See, once the American people realize there's a problem, then they're going to start asking members of Congress from both parties, Why aren't you doing something to fix it? And I am more than willing to sit down with people of both parties to listen to their ideas. Today, I advanced some ideas. I'm moving the process along. BUSH: The legislative process is just getting started, and I'm optimistic we'll get something done. QUESTION: Polls (OFF-MIKE) BUSH: Polls? You know, if a president tries to govern based on polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail. I don't think you can make good, sound decisions based upon polls. And I don't think the American people want a president who relies upon polls and focus groups to make decisions for the American people. Social Security is a big issue, and it's an issue that we must address now. You see, the longer we wait, the more expensive the solution's going to be for a younger generation of Americans. The Social Security trustees have estimated that every year we wait to solve the problem, to fix the hole in the safety net for younger Americans, costs about $600 billion. So my message to Congress is: Let's do our duty. Let's come together to get this issue solved. QUESTION: Your top military officer, General Richard Myers, says the Iraqi insurgency is as strong now as it was a year ago. QUESTION: Why is that the case? And why haven't you been more successful in limiting the violence? BUSH: I think he went on to say we're winning, if I recall. But, nevertheless, there are still some in Iraq who aren't happy with democracy. They want to go back to the old days of tyranny and darkness and torture chambers and mass graves. I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society. They saw a government form today. The Iraqi military is being trained by our military, and they're performing much better than the past. The more secure Iraq becomes, as a result of the hard work of Iraqi security forces, the more confidence the people will have in the process and the more isolated the terrorists will become. BUSH: But Iraq is -- they've got people there that are willing to kill, and they're hard-nosed killers. And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is an important part of spreading peace. It's a region of the world where a lot of folks in the past never thought democracy could take hold. Democracy is taking hold. And as democracy takes hold peace will be more likely to be the norm. And in order to defeat the terrorists, in order to defeat their ideology of hate, in the long run we must spread freedom and hope. Today, I talked to the prime minister of Iraq; had a great conversation with him. I told him I was proud of the fact that he's willing to stand up and lead. I told him I appreciate his courage and the courage of those who are willing to serve the Iraqi people in government. BUSH: I told him, I said, When America makes a commitment, we'll stand by you. I said, I hope you get your constitution written on time. And he agreed. He recognizes it's very important for the transitional national assembly to get the constitution written so it can be submitted to the people on time. He understands the need for a timely write of the constitution. And I also encouraged him to continue reaching out to disaffected groups in Iraq. And he agreed. Really happy to talk to him. I invited him to come to America. I hope he comes soon. There are a lot of courageous people in Iraq that are making a big difference in the lives of that country. I also want to caution you all that it's not easy to go from a tyranny to a democracy. We didn't pass sovereignty but about 10 months ago. BUSH: And since that time a lot of progress has been made. And we'll continue to make progress for the good of the region and for the good of our country. QUESTION: Mr. President, recently the head of the Family Research Council said that judicial filibusters are an attack against people of faith. And I wonder whether you believe that, in fact, that is what is nominating Democrats who oppose your judicial choices. And I wonder what you think, generally, about the role that faith is playing, how it's being used in our political debates right now. BUSH: I think people are opposing my nominees because they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated. And some would like to see judges legislate from the bench. That's not my view of the proper role of a judge. Speaking about judges, I certainly hope my nominees get an up-or- down vote on the floor of the Senate. BUSH: They deserve an up-or-down vote. I think, for the sake of fairness, these good people I've nominated should get a vote. And I'm hoping that will be the case as time goes on. Role of religion in our society? I view religion as a personal matter. I think a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his life or lives her life. And that's how I've tried to live my life: through example. Faith plays an important part in my life individually. But I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith. QUESTION: Do you think that's an inappropriate statement? And what I ask is... BUSH: No, I just don't agree with it. QUESTION: You don't agree with it? BUSH: No. I think people oppose my nominees because of judicial philosophy. QUESTION: Sir, I asked you about what you think of... BUSH: No, I know what you asked me. QUESTION: ... the way faith is being used in our political debates, not just in society generally. BUSH: Well, I can only speak to myself. And I am mindful that people in political office should say to somebody, You're not equally American if you don't happen to agree with my view of religion. As I said, I think faith is a personal issue. And I take great strength from my faith. But I don't condemn somebody in the political process because they may not agree with me on religion. The great thing about America is that you should be allowed to worship any way you want. And if you chose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose to worship, you're equally American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim. And that's the wonderful thing about our country and that's the way it should be. QUESTION: Several times we've asked you or your aides what you could do about the high price of gasoline. QUESTION: And very often the answer has come back: Congress needs to pass the energy bill. Can you explain for us how, if it were passed soon after it were introduced, the energy bill would have an effect on the current record price of oil that we're seeing out there? BUSH: Actually, I said in my opening statement that the best way to affect the current price of gasoline is to encourage producing nations to put more crude oil on the market. That's the most effective way, because the price of crude oil determines in large measure the price of gasoline. The feed stock for gasoline is crude oil, and when crude oil goes up, the price of gasoline goes up. There are other factors, by the way, that cause the price of gasoline to go up, but the main factor is the price of crude oil. And if we can get nations that have got some excess capacity to put crude on the market, the increased supply, hopefully, will meet increased demand and therefore take the pressure off price. BUSH: But, listen, the energy bill is certainly no quick fix. You can't wave a magic wand. I wish I could. It's like that soldier at Fort Hood that said, How come you're not lowering the price of gasoline? I was having lunch with the fellow, and he said, Go lower the price of gasoline, President. I said, I wish I could. It just doesn't work that way. This is a problem that's been a long time in coming. We haven't had an energy policy in this country. And it's going to take us awhile to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. What I've laid out for the Congress to consider is a comprehensive energy strategy that recognizes we need to be better conservers of energy, that recognizes that we can find more energy at home in environmentally friendly ways. And obviously a contentious issue in front of the Congress is the issue over the ANWR, which is a part of Alaska. ANWR is 19 million acres of land. Technology now enables us to use just 2,000 of that 19 million to be able to explore for oil and gas, so we can have oil and gas produced here domestically. BUSH: One of the great sources of energy for the future is liquefied natural gas. There's a lot of gas reserves around the world. Gas can only be transported by ship, though, when you liquefy it, when you put it in solid form. We've only got five terminals that are able to receive liquefied natural gas so it can get into our markets. We need more terminals to receive liquefied natural gas around the world. We should have an active nuclear energy policy in America. We've got abundant resources of coal and we're spending money for clean coal technology. So these are longer-term projects, all aimed at making us become less dependent on foreign sources of energy. QUESTION: Do I read you correctly that the energy bill would not have had an affect on today's high gasoline and oil prices? BUSH: It would have 10 years ago. That's exactly what I've been saying to the American people. Ten years ago, if we'd have had an energy strategy, we would be able to diversify away from foreign dependence. BUSH: But we haven't done that. And now we find ourselves in the fix we're in. It's taken us a while to get there, it's going to take us a while to get out. Hopefully, additional crude oil on the market from countries with some spare capacity will help relieve the price for the American consumers. QUESTION: Mr. President, your State Department has reported that terrorist attacks around the world are at an all-time high. If we're winning the war on terrorism, as you say, how do you explain that more people are dying in terrorist attacks on your watch than ever before? BUSH: Well, we've made the decision to defeat the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here at home. And when you engage the terrorists abroad, it causes activity and action. And we're relentless -- we, America and our coalition partners. We understand the stakes. BUSH: And they're very high, because there are people still out there that would like to do harm to the American people. But our strategy is stay on the offense, is to keep the pressure on these people, is to cut off their money and to share intelligence and to find them where they hide. And we are making good progress. The Al Qaida network that attacked the United States has been severely diminished. We are slowly but surely dismantling that organization. In the long run, like I said earlier, the way to defeat terror, though, is to spread freedom and democracy. It's really the only way in the long term. In the short term we'll use our troops and assets and agents to find these people and to protect American. But in the long term, we must defeat the hopelessness that allows them to recruit by spreading freedom and democracy. But we're making progress. QUESTION: So in the near term you think there will be more attacks and more people dying? BUSH: I can't predict that. In the near term I can only tell you one thing: We will stay on the offense. We'll be relentless, we'll be smart about how we go after the terrorists, we'll use our friends and allies to go after the terrorists, we will find them where they hid and bring them to justice. BUSH: Let me finish with the TV people first. You're not a TV person, Ed. I know you'd like to be. (LAUGHTER) QUESTION: You'd be surprised. BUSH: Yes. It's a tough industry to get into. QUESTION: Mr. President, it was four years ago when you first met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. You said you looked into his eyes and you saw his soul. You'll also be meeting with the Russian leader in about a week or so. What do you think of Putin now that he has expressed a willingness to supply weapons to outlaw regimes, specifically his recent comments that he said he would provide short-range missiles to Syria and nuclear components to Iran? BUSH: Yes. First, just on a broader -- kind of in a broader sense, I had a long talk with Vladimir there in Slovakia about democracy and about the importance of democracy. BUSH: And as you remember at the press conference, or, if you weren't there, somebody will remember, he stood up and said he strongly supports democracy. I take him for his word. And we'll continue to work. Condi Rice, our secretary of state, just came back and she briefed me that she had a very good discussion with Vladimir about the merits of democracy, about the need to listen to the people and have a government that's responsive. Now, we're working closely with the Russians on the issue of vehicle-mounted weaponry to Syria. We didn't appreciate that, but we made ourselves clear. As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly enriched uranium to a nuclear civilian power plant and then collect that uranium after it's used for electricity, power purposes. That's what they've decided to do. BUSH: And I appreciate that gesture. See, what they recognize is that what America recognizes and what Great Britain, France and Germany recognize, is that we can't trust the Iranians when it comes to enriching uranium; that they should not be allowed to enrich uranium. And what the Iranians have said is, Don't we deserve to have a nuclear power industry just like you do? I'm, kind of, wondering why they need one, since they've got all the oil. But nevertheless, others in the world say, Well, maybe that's their right to have their own civilian nuclear power industry. And what Russia said: Fine, we'll provide you the uranium. We'll enrich it for you and provide it to you and then we'll collect it. And I appreciate that gesture. So I think Vladimir was trying to help there. I know Vladimir Putin understands the dangers of an Iran with a nuclear weapon. And most of the world understands that as well. QUESTION: Mr. President, have you asked your ambassador to the U.N., Ambassador John Bolton, about allegations that he acted improperly to subordinates? QUESTION: Do you feel that these allegations warrant your personal intervention? And if they're true, do you feel that they should disqualify him from holding the post, sir? BUSH: Well, John Bolton has been asked the questions about how he handles his business by members of the United States Senate. He's been asked a lot of questions, and he's given very good answers. John Bolton is a seasoned diplomat. He has been serving our country for, I think, 20 years. He has been confirmed by the United States Senate four times. In other words, he's been up before the Senate before. And they've analyzed his talents and his capabilities. And they've confirmed him. John Bolton is a blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm little too blunt. BUSH: John Bolton can get the job done at the United Nations. It seemed like to me it made sense to put somebody who's capable, smart, served our country for 20 years, been confirmed by the United States Senate four times and who isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post of the ambassador to the U.N. See, the U.N. needs reform. If you're interested in reforming the U.N. like I'm interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who's skilled and who's not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations. Now, I asked John during the interview process in the Oval Office -- I said, Before I send you up there to the Senate, let me ask you something: Do you think the United Nations is important? See, I didn't want to send somebody up there who said, Well, that's not worth a darn. I don't think I need to go. He said, No, it's important, but it needs to be reformed. And I think the United Nations is important. As a matter of fact, I'll give you an example: Today I met with the United Nations representative to Syria, Mr. Larsen. BUSH: He's an impressive fellow. Now, he's delivered -- to Lebanon, excuse me. He's delivered a very strong message to the Syrian leader, though, that the world expects President Assad to withdraw not only his military forces, but his intelligence services, completely from Lebanon. And now he is in charge of following up to make sure it happens. I think that's a very important and useful role for the United Nations to play. We have played a role. France has played a role. A lot of nations have played roles. But the United Nations has done a very good job in Syria -- with Syria in Lebanon of making it sure that the world expects the Lebanese elections to be free in May, without Syrian influence. He's an impressive fellow. I applaud him for his hard work. But there's an example of why I think the United Nations is an important body. On the other hand, the United Nations has had some problems that we've all seen. BUSH: And if we expect the United Nations to be effective, it needs to clean up its problems. And I think it makes sense to have somebody representing the United States who will be straightforward about the issues. Stretch? Do you mind if I call you Stretch in front of your... QUESTION: I've been called worse. BUSH: OK. QUESTION: Getting back to Social Security for a moment, sir, would you consider it a success if Congress were to pass a piece of legislation that dealt with the long-term solvency problem, but did not include personal accounts? BUSH: I feel strongly that there needs to be voluntary personal savings accounts as a part of the Social Security system. BUSH: I mean, it's got to be a part of the comprehensive package. And the reason I feel strongly about that is that we got a lot of debt out there, a lot of unfunded liabilities, and our workers need to be able to earn a better rate of return on their money to help deal with that debt. Secondly, I like the idea of giving someone ownership. Why should ownership be confined only to rich people? Why should people, you know, not be allowed to own and manage their own assets, who aren't the so-called investor class? I think everybody ought to be given that right. Matter of fact, Congress felt so strongly that people ought to be able to own and manage their own accounts, they set one for themselves. And, you know, you've heard me say -- I like to say this, if it's good enough for the Congress, it ought to be good enough for the workers to give them that option. The government's never saying, You have to set up a personal account. We're saying, You ought to have the right to set a personal savings account so you can earn a better rate of return on your own money than the government can. BUSH: And it's that difference between the rate of return -- between what the government gets on your money and what a conservative mix of bonds and stocks can get on your money -- that will make an enormous difference in a person being able to build his or her own nest egg that the government cannot spend. Now, it's very important for our fellow citizens to understand there is not a bank account here in Washington, D.C., where we take your payroll taxes and hold it for you and then give it back to you when you retire. Our system is called pay as you go. You pay into the system through your payroll taxes and the government spends it. It spends the money on the current retirees and with the money left over, it funds other government programs. And all that's left behind is file cabinets full of IOUs. The reason I believe that this ought to work is not only should a worker get a better rate of return, not only should we encourage ownership, but I want people to have real assets in the system. BUSH: I want people to be able to say, Here is my mix of bonds and stocks that I own, and I can leave it whomever I want. Now, I hear complaints saying, Well, you know, there's going to be high -- Wall Street fees are going to fleece the people. Well, there's ways to have fee structures that are fair. As a matter of fact, all you got to do is go to some of these states where they've got personal accounts available for their workers, and you'll find that the fees will be fair. People say, Well, I don't want to have to take risk. Well, as I outlined in my opening statement, there are ways where you don't have to take risk. People say, I'm worried about the stock market going down right before I retire. You can manage your assets. You can go from bonds and stocks to only bonds as you get older. In other words, we're giving people flexibility to own their own asset. And I think that's a vital part of making sure America is a hopeful place in the future. So not only will these accounts make the system work better, but the accounts are a better deal. The accounts will mean something for a lot of works that might not have assets they call their own. QUESTION: Mr. President, in your answer before about Iraq, you set no benchmarks for us to understand when it is that troops may be able to... BUSH: In Iraq? QUESTION: In Iraq, yes -- about when troops may be able to come back. BUSH: Right. QUESTION: Based on what you've learned now in two years of fighting the insurgency and trying to train the Iraqi security forces, can you say that within the next year you think you could have very substantial American withdrawal of troops? BUSH: I know there's a temptation to try to get me to lay out a timetable. And as you know, during the campaign and I reiterated, I don't think it's wise for me to set out a timetable. All that will do is cause an enemy to adjust. So my answer is, As soon as possible. And as soon as possible depends upon the Iraqis being able to fight and do the job. I had a good video conference recently with General Casey and General Petraeus. BUSH: General Casey is in charge of the theater. General Petraeus, as you know, is in charge of training. And they were upbeat about what they're seeing with the Iraqi troops. One of the questions I like to ask is, Are they are to recruit? In other words, you see these killers will target recruiting stations, and I've always wondered whether or not that has had an effect on the ability for the Iraqis to draw their fellow citizens into the armed forces. Recruitment's high. It's amazing, isn't it, that people want to serve, they want their country to be free? The other question that -- one of the other issues that is important is the equipping issue. And equipment is now moving quite well. In other words, troops are becoming equipped. Thirdly, a fundamental problem has been whether or not there's an established chain of command, whether or not a civilian government can say to the military, Here's what you need to do, and whether the command goes from top to bottom and the plans get executed. And General Petraeus was telling me he is pleased with the progress being made with setting up a command structure, but there's still more work to be done. BUSH: One of the real dangers is that, as politics takes hold in Iraq, whether or not the civilian government will keep intact the military structure that we're now helping them develop. And my message to the prime minister and our message through our government to the Iraqis is: Keep stability. Don't disrupt the training that has gone on. Don't politicize your military, in other words. Have them there to help secure the people. So we're making good progress. We've reduced our troops from 160,000, more or less, to 139,000. As you know, I announced to the country that we would step up our deployments -- step up deployments and retain some troops for the elections. And then I said we'd get them out, and we've done that. In other words, the withdrawals that I said would happen have happened. Go ahead. I can see that you've got a follow-up right there on the tip of your tongue. QUESTION: Do you feel that the number of troops that you've kept there is limiting your options elsewhere in the world? Just today you had the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency say that he was now concerned that the North Koreans, for example, could put a nuclear weapon on a missile that could reach Japan or beyond. Do you feel, as you're confronting these problems, the number of troops you've left tied up in Iraq is limiting your options to go beyond the diplomatic solutions that you've described for North Korea, Iran? BUSH: I appreciate that question. The person I asked that to -- the person I asked that to, at least, is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top military adviser. I said, Do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq? And the answer is no, he doesn't feel we're limited. He feels like we've got plenty of capacity. You mentioned the Korean Peninsula. We've got good capacity in Korea. We've traded troops for new equipment, as you know. We've brought some troops -- our troop levels down in South Korea, but replaced those troops with more capacity. BUSH: Let me talk about North Korea, if you don't mind. Is that your question? QUESTION: Go right ahead. (LAUGHTER) BUSH: I'm surprised you didn't ask it. Look, Kim Jong Il is a dangerous person. He's a man who starves his people. He's got huge concentration camps. And, as David accurately noted, there is concern about his capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon. We don't know if he can or not, but I think it's best, when you're dealing with a tyrant like Kim Jong Il, to assume he can. That's why I've decided that the best way to deal with this diplomatically is to bring more leverage to the situation by including other countries. It used to be that it was just America dealing with North Korea. And when Kim Jong Il would make a move that would scare people, everybody would say, America, go fix it. BUSH: I felt it didn't work. In other words, the bilateral approach didn't work. The man said he was going to do something and he didn't do it, for starters. So I felt a better approach would be to include the people in the neighborhood into a consortium to deal with him. And it's particularly important to have China involved. China's got a lot of influence in North Korea. We went down to Crawford with Jiang Zemin, and it was there that Jiang Zemin and I issued a statement saying that we would work for a nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula. And so, when Kim Jong Il announced the other day about his nuclear intentions and weapons, it certainly caught the attention of the Chinese, because they had laid out a policy that was contradicted by Kim Jong Il. And it's helpful to have the Chinese leadership now involved with him. BUSH: It's better to have more than one voice sending the same message to Kim Jong Il. The best way to deal with this issue diplomatically is to have four other nations beside ourself dealing with him. And we'll continue to do so. Finally, as you know, I have instructed Secretary Rumsfeld, and I have worked with Congress, Secretary Rumsfeld has worked with Congress to set up a missile defense system. And we're in the process of getting that missile defense system up and running. One of the reasons why I thought it was important to have a missile defense system is for precisely the reason that you brought up: Perhaps Kim Jong Il has got the capacity to launch a weapon; wouldn't it be nice to be able to shoot it down? And so, we've got a comprehensive strategy in dealing with him. QUESTION: Sir, you've talked all around the country about the poisonous, partisan atmosphere here in Washington. QUESTION: I wonder, why do you think that is? And do you personally bear any responsibility in having contributed to this atmosphere? BUSH: I'm sure there are some people that don't like me. You know, and I don't know. I've long and hard about it. I've been disappointed. I felt that people could work together in good faith. It's just a lot of politics in the town. It's kind of a zero-sum attitude. We can't cooperate with so and so because it may make their party look good and vice versa. Although, having said that, we did have some success in the education bill. We certainly came together as a country after September the 11th. I appreciate the strong bipartisan support for supporting our troops in harm's way. There's been a lot of instances of bipartisanship. But when you bring a tough issue up like Social Security, it -- you know, sometimes people divide into camps. And I'm proud of my party. Our party's been the party of ideas. BUSH: We said, Here's a problem, and here's some ideas as how to fix it. And, as I've explained to some people, I don't want to politicize this issue. People will say, You didn't need to bring this up, Mr. President; it may cost you politically. I don't think so. I think the American people appreciate somebody bringing up tough issues, particularly when they understand the stakes. The system goes broke in 2041. In 2027, for those listening, we'll be obligated to pay $200 billion more a year than we take in in order to make sure the baby boomers get the benefits they've been promised. In other words, this is a serious problem. And the American people expect us to put our politics aside and get it done. I can't answer your question as to why. I'll have to continue to do my best. I've tried to make sure the dialogue is elevated. I don't believe I've resorted to name calling here in Washington, D.C. I find that to not be productive. But I also understand the mind of the American people. BUSH: They're wondering what's going on. They're wondering why we can't come together and get an energy bill, for example. They're wondering why we can't get Social Security done. And my pledge to the American people is, I'll continue to work hard with people of both parties and share credit and give people the benefit of the credit when we get something done. QUESTION: Just to follow up on Ed's question, we like to remind you that you came to Washington hoping to change the tone, and yet here we are, three months into your second term, and you seem deadlocked with Democrats on issues like Bolton, DeLay, judges. Is there any danger that the atmosphere is becoming so poisoned or that you're spending so much political capital that it could imperil your agenda items like Social Security, energy? BUSH: I don't think so. I think when it's all said and done, we're going to get a lot done. I mean, after all, one of the issues that people have been working for a long time is class action lawsuit reform. BUSH: And I signed that bill. An issue that people have been working for a long time is bankruptcy law reform. And I signed that bill. And the House got an energy bill out recently. And I talked to Senator Domenici the other day, and he's upbeat about getting the bill out pretty quickly and get it to conference and get the issues resolved. I'm pretty aware of what the issues might be that'll hang up a conference, and I think we can get those issues resolved. We're more than willing to help out. So I do believe I'll get an energy bill by August. There's a budget agreement, and I'm grateful for that. In other words, we are making progress. No question the Social Security issue is a big issue, but it's -- you know, as I said before, we haven't talked about this issue for 20 years. And they thought we had it fixed 22 years ago for 75 years, and here we are, 22 years later after the fix, talking about it again. And it's serious business. If you're a grandmother or a grandfather listening, you're going to get your check. But your grandchildren are going to have a heck of a price to bear if we don't get something done now. BUSH: You see, it's possible, if nothing gets done, that the payroll taxes will go up to some 18 percent. Imagine that for your children and grandchildren living in a society where payroll taxes are up at 18 percent. Or there'll be dramatic benefit cuts as time goes on. Now's the time to get it done. And my pledge to the American people is that I'm going to stay on this issue, because I know it's important for you. QUESTION: Mr. President, you had talked about North Korea, and you mentioned that the six-party talks allow you to bring extra leverage to the table. But do you think they're working, given North Korea's continued threats and the continuing growth of their nuclear stockpile? BUSH: Yes. QUESTION: And how long do you let it go before you get to... BUSH: No, I appreciate that question. I do think it's making a difference to have China and Japan and South Korea and Russia and the United States working together with North Korea. In my judgment, that's the only way to get this issue solved diplomatically, is to bring more than one party to the table to convince Kim Jong Il to give up his nuclear ambitions. BUSH: And how far we let it go on is dependent upon our consensus amongst ourselves. Condi, the other day, laid out a potential option of going to the United Nations Security Council. Obviously that's going to require, you know, the parties agreeing. After all, some of the parties in the process have got the capacity to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution. So this is an issue we need to continue to work with our friends and allies. And, you know, the more Kim Jong Il threatens and brags, the more isolated he becomes. And we'll continue to work with China on this issue. I spend a lot of time, when I'm dealing with Chinese leaders, on North Korea, as do people in my administration. BUSH: And I'll continue to work with our friends in Japan and South Korea. And Vladimir Putin understands the stakes as well. QUESTION: Mr. President, under the law, how would you justify the practice of renditioning, where U.S. agents who bust terror suspects abroad, taking them to a third country for interrogation? And would you stand for it if foreign agents did that to an American here? BUSH: That's a hypothetical. We operate within the law, and we send people to countries where they say they're not going to torture the people. But let me say something. The United States government has an obligation to protect the American people. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. And we will do so within the law. And we will do so in honoring our commitment not to torture people. BUSH: And we expect the countries where we send somebody to not to torture as well. But, you bet, when we find somebody who might do harm to the American people, we will detain them and ask others from their country of origin to detain them. It makes sense. The American people expect us to do that. We're still at war. You know, I've said this before to you, I'm going to say it again: One of my concerns after September the 11th is the farther away we got from September the 11th, the more relaxed we would all become and assume that there wasn't an enemy out there ready to hit us. And I just can't let the American people -- I'm not going to let them down by assuming that the enemy is not going to hit us again. We're going to do everything we can to protect us. We've got the guidelines. We've got law. But, you bet, we're going to fight people before they harm us. QUESTION: I'd just like to ask simply, what's your view of the economy right now? QUESTION: First quarter growth came in weaker than expected. There have been worries about inflation and lower spending by consumers. Are these basically just bumps in the road, in your opinion, or are they reasons for some real concern? And could they affect your agenda on Social Security? BUSH: You know, I appreciate that. I am concerned about the economy because our small-business owners and families are paying higher prices at the gas pump. And that affects the lives of a lot of people. If you're a small-business owner and you have to pay higher gas prices, likely you may not hire a new worker, because higher gas prices, as I have said, is like a tax on the small-business job creators. And it's a tax on families. And I do think this has affected consumer sentiment. I do think it's affected the economy. On the other hand, the experts tell me that the forecast of economic growth in the coming months looks good. BUSH: There's more to do to make sure that we don't slip back into slow growth or negative growth. One is to make sure taxes stay low. Secondly is to continue to pursue legal reform. I hope we can get an asbestos reform bill out of both the House and the Senate. There are some positive noises on Capitol Hill as to whether or not we can get an asbestos reform bill. That will be an important reform in order to make sure that our economy continues to grow. We need to continue to open up markets for U.S. products. As you know, there'll be a vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement here, hopefully soon. I'm a strong believer that that's in the interest of American job creators and workers that we open up those markets. I know it's important geopolitically to say to those Central American countries, You've got a friend in America. BUSH: We say we have an agreement with you, and it's important to ratify it. It'll help strengthen the neighborhood. We've also got to make sure that we continue to reduce regulation. I think an important initiative -- I know an important initiative that we're going to be coming forth with here, probably in the fall, is tax reform. You know, I was amazed by the report the other day that there's some $330 billion a year that goes unpaid by American taxpayers. It's a phenomenal amount of money. To me, it screams for making the tax system easier to understand, more fair, so that we can -- and to make sure people pay their taxes. More fair means pay what you owe. You see, there's a lot of things we can do to make sure economic growth continues. But I'm an optimistic fellow, based not upon my own economic forecasts -- I'm not an economist -- but based upon the experts that I listen to. QUESTION: Mr. President, you've made No Child Left Behind a big part of your education agenda. The nation's largest teachers union has filed suit against it, saying it's woefully inadequately funded. What's your response to that? And do you think that No Child Left Behind is working? BUSH: Yes, I think it's working. And the reason why I think it's working is because we're measuring. And the measurement is showing progress toward teaching people how to read and write and add and subtract. Listen, the whole theory behind No Child Left Behind is this: If we're going to spend federal money, we expect the states to show us whether or not we're achieving, you know, simply objectives, like literacy, literacy in math, the ability to read and write. BUSH: And, yes, we're making progress. And I can say that with certainty, because we're measuring. Look, I'm a former governor. I believe that the states ought to control their own destiny when it comes to schools. They're by far the biggest funder of education. And it should remain that way. But we spend a lot of money here at the federal level, and have increased the money we spend here quite dramatically at the federal level. And we just changed the policy. Instead of just spending money and hoping for the best, we're now spending money and saying, Measure. And some people don't like to measure. But if you don't measure, how do you know whether or not you've got a problem in a classroom? I believe it's best to measure early and correct problems early before it's too late. That's why, as a part of the No Child Left Behind Act, we had money available for remedial education. In other words, we said, We're going to measure. And when we detect someone who needs extra help, that person will get extra help. And absolutely it's making -- it's a good piece of legislation. And I will do everything I can to prevent people from unwinding it, by the way. QUESTION: What about the lawsuit? What's your response to... BUSH: I don't know about the lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer. BUSH: But I -- you know, I'll ask my lawyers about the lawsuit. But I know some people are trying to unwind No Child Left Behind. You know, I've heard some states say, Well, we don't like it. Well, you know, my attitude about no liking it is this: If you teach a child to read and write, it shouldn't bother you whether you measure. That's all we're asking. The system for too long had just shuffled children through and just hoped for the best. And guess what happened? We had people graduate from high school who were illiterate. And that's just not right in America. It wasn't working. And so I came to Washington and worked with both Republicans and Democrats -- this is a case of where bipartisanship was really working well -- and we said, Look, we're going to spend more money at the federal level. But the federal government only spends about 7 percent of the total education budgets around the country. But we said, Let's the change the attitude. BUSH: We ought to start with the presumption every child can learn. Not just some. And therefore, if you believe every child can learn then you ought to expect every classroom to teach. I hear feedback from No Child Left Behind, by the way, and admittedly I get the cook's tour sometimes. But I hear teachers talk to me about how thrilled they are with No Child Left Behind. They appreciate the fact that the system now shows deficiencies early so they can correct those problems. And it is working. QUESTION: I want to make sure I understand your answer to Mike about North Korea. He asked you how long you were prepared to let the multiparty talks proceed in the face of what might be a gathering threat of North Korea. And you said, How long -- I'm paraphrasing -- How long we let it go on is dependent on our consensus among ourselves. BUSH: Yes. QUESTION: Did you mean to say that you will neither refer North Korea to the U.N. nor take military action unless you have the agreement of all the other partners in the process? BUSH: No, I didn't speak about military -- I was speaking about diplomatically. BUSH: And secondly, yes, I mean, we've got partners. This is a six-party talk: five of us on the side of convincing Kim Jong Il to get rid of his nuclear weapons and, obviously, Kim Jong Il believes he ought to have some. And my point was that that it is best -- if you have a group of people trying to achieve the same objective, it's best to work with those people. It's best to consult. His question was: Are you going to -- you know, when are you going to -- when will there be consequences? And what we want to do is to work with our allies on this issue and develop a consensus, a common approach, to the consequences of Kim Jong Il. I mean, it seems counterproductive to have five of us working together and then all of a sudden one of us say, Well, we're not going to work together. Again, I repeat to you, our aim is to solve this problem diplomatically. BUSH: And, you know, like I've said before, all options, of course, are on the table. But the best way to solve this problem diplomatically is to work with four other nations, who have all agreed in achieving the same goal, and that is a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. Final question. Hutch? I don't want cut into some of the TV shows that are getting ready to air... (LAUGHTER) ... for the sake of the economy. QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about your ideas on dealing with Social Security solvency problems. As I understand it -- and I know you'll tell me if I'm wrong -- benefits would be equal to what -- at least equal to what they are today, and then any increase in benefits would be indexed according to income, with lower-income people getting bigger increases. Two things on that. Today's benefits probably won't mean much somewhere down the road. And how far are you going to go with this means-based program? Are you talking about... BUSH: Yes, I appreciate that. QUESTION: ... a system where a rich person, say Dick Cheney, wouldn't get much out of it? BUSH: Now wait a minute, don't get personal here, that's international TV. That's a cheap shot. First of all, in terms of the definition of whose benefits would rise faster and whose wouldn't, that's going to be part of the negotiation process with the United States Congress. As a Democrat economist had a very -- he put forth this idea. And he had a level of -- I think 30 percent of the people would be considered to be on the lower income scale. But this is to be negotiated. This is a part of the negotiation process. My job is to lay out an idea that I think will make this system more fair. And the second question -- or the first question... QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) it's a means-based program, where the real wealthy people might not get very much out of it. BUSH: That's right. I mean, obviously it is means-based when you're talking about lower income versus wealthier income. The lower- income people's benefits would rise faster. And the whole goal would be to see to it that nobody retired in poverty. Somebody that's worked all their life and paid into the Social Security system would not retire into poverty. BUSH: One other point on Social Security that people have got to understand is that the system of today is not fair for a person whose spouse has died early. In other words, if you're a two-working family, like a lot of families are here in America, and two people working in your family, and the spouse dies early -- before 62, for example -- all of the money that the spouse has put into the system is held there, and then when the other spouse retires, he or she gets to choose the benefits from his or her own work or the other spouse's benefits, whichever is higher, but not both. See what I'm saying? Somebody who's worked all their life, the money they put into the system just goes away. It seems unfair to me. I've talked to too many people whose lives were turned upside down when their spouse died early, and all they got was a burial benefit. BUSH: If you have a voluntary personal savings account and you die early, that's an asset you can leave to your spouse or to your children. That's an important thing for our fellow citizens to understand. The system today is not fair, particularly if a spouse has died early. And this will help remedy that. Listen, thank you all for your interest. God bless our country. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Long Island Offshore Wind Park Application Filed UNIONDALE, New York, April 28, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-28-09.asp#anchor5 Forty giant wind turbines could soon be standing in the water, spinning electricty from Atlantic winds that blow across the South Shore of Long Island. The Long Island Power Authority and FPL Energy jointly filed an application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Tuesday seeking authorization to install an offshore wind energy park off the South Shore of Long Island. The proposed offshore wind project would erect 40 wind turbines, each producing 3.6 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The entire wind park would be capable of producing 140 MWs of electricity, enough to serve about 44,000 typical Long Island homes. The turbines would be clustered in an eight square mile area 4.1 miles due south of Cedar Beach. A 10 mile long transmission cable would bring the electricity from the turbines to an existing Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) substation in West Amityville. Pending the outcome of the regulatory review process, the LIPA/FPL Energy offshore wind project could be operating by 2008, officials said. Filing the application with the USACE initiates an extensive federal and state regulatory and environmental review process that will include public review and comment. “Today we draw a symbolic line in the sand and say we’re tired of being held hostage to OPEC and other foreign oil producers, and we’re going to do something positive to develop an alternative energy resource that will heal, not hurt the environment,” said LIPA Chairman Richard Kessel. “Over a 20 year period, the offshore wind park could prevent the burning of over 13.5 million barrels of fuel oil, which will eliminate millions of tons of combustion emissions from going into our region’s environment. At a cost of $40 per barrel, that avoids some $540 million in fuel oil costs over 20 years. “FPL Energy and LIPA are advancing an ambitious project that will bring the significant benefits of clean, renewable wind energy to Long Island,” said Charles Muoio, vice president of FPL Energy. “We look forward to working with LIPA and the people of Long Island to make this project a reality.” According to information contained in the permit application, the wind park is expected to result in an annual emission savings of 235,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), 489 tons of sulfur dioxide (Sox), and 211 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx). To minimize the potential impacts of bringing the wind generated power to the Island via a 138kV marine cable, directional drilling will be used to go under the barrier island that separates the ocean from the Great South Bay. Then the cable will use the path of an existing navigation channel to reach landfall in East Massapequa, and every attempt will be made to install the cable in conjunction with future maintenance dredging that is planned for the channel. Applauding the announcement were some of the members of the Long Island Offshore Wind Initiative, a coalition of about 30 environmental, consumer and religious organizations. Philippe Cousteau, president of EarthEcho International, a Washington, DC marine science and environmental preservation group, also offered support for the offshore wind park. “As we move into the 21st Century our continued dependence on carbon based energy is totally unacceptable,” said Cousteau, grandson of the late oceanographer and filmmaker Jacques Cousteau. “We owe it to ourselves and especially our children to vigorously develop renewable energy sources such as offshore wind in the interest of national security, continued economic viability, public health and the environment.” Gordian Raacke, executive director of Renewable Energy Long Island, called the wind project "a smart investment in harvesting a local energy supply that will never be subject to fossil fuel costs, the whims of OPEC, or unstable geo-political forces.” Other local and national environmental groups voiced their support such as Long Island Neighborhood Network, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. Kessel and environmental leaders Wednesday launched an “Energy Independence” campaign aimed at persuading Long Island’s major political, business and civic leaders to join in support of the wind park. -------- energy Bush Unveils Energy Proposals Industry Analysts Question Whether Initiatives Would Help By Justin Blum and Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, April 28, 2005; A05 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702066_pf.html Industry analysts reacted skeptically to new energy proposals President Bush announced yesterday, saying they would do little to bring down soaring prices of gasoline and other forms of energy. Bush, whose aides blame high oil and gasoline prices for his sagging poll numbers, made several proposals, including allowing refineries to be built on closed military bases and renewing consumer tax credits for hybrid vehicles. This was his second speech in two weeks devoted to energy. Bush is scheduled to hold a news conference tonight at 8:30 to press his energy plan and give specifics about his proposals for restructuring Social Security. "See, we've got a fundamental question we got to face here in America," Bush said at the Small Business Administration conference in Washington. "Do we want to continue to grow more dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs? Or do we need to do what is necessary to achieve greater control of our economic destiny?" Some of the ideas, which administration officials announced in a briefing Tuesday night, are already in the mix on Capitol Hill, while others could result in only minimal change, several experts said. "At best we're talking about a marginal benefit over the long term," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. Bush's new initiatives appeared directed at the Senate, which plans to consider energy legislation soon. Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement that he would incorporate some of Bush's new ideas into the legislation, adding that they "could help with electricity and gasoline prices." In the House, lawmakers approved an energy plan last week that provides billions in incentives designed to spur more production. The measures Bush announced yesterday augment a larger package of previously announced proposals that include drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. On the refining issue, the administration has said that limited capacity is one factor pushing up prices at the pump. Allowing companies to build on military bases would give an added incentive for new construction to expand capacity, officials said. Industry leaders said it is not clear that companies would want to build new refineries because the business historically has not been highly profitable. While demand and profit margins are high now, companies are not convinced those margins will remain high enough to justify new refineries. "When you look at rates of return for a new refinery, it would be a fairly high-risk project," said William R. Klesse, chief operating officer of San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp., one of the top U.S. refiners. Still, industry representatives said Bush's proposal sends a positive message and helps allay concerns over finding suitable locations for refineries. "You ought to encourage the people who want to take the risk and this does that," said Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. If more refineries were constructed -- a process that probably would take more than five years -- there could be some downward pressure on prices, industry officials said. Bush's plan also calls for renewing tax credits for hybrid vehicles and adding them for efficient "clean diesel" vehicles. Analysts said that could encourage more people to buy automobiles that get higher mileage and slightly reduce demand for gasoline, but probably not enough to have a significant impact on prices. Diesel incentives were included in the House plan, but Bush calls for more funding over a longer period. To increase supplies of natural gas, Bush called for giving federal regulators ultimate authority over citing new terminals that receive imports of liquefied natural gas. Natural gas prices have been increasing because of tight supplies and high demand, and the industry has said more terminals are needed to reduce prices. The House energy plan includes this provision, which proponents said was needed because of concern that local opposition to the terminals makes building new ones difficult. Opponents say that would allow the federal government to force terminals on communities that do not want them. The Bush plan also calls for providing a new incentive to build nuclear power plants by reducing the "uncertainty in the licensing process" and providing "federal risk insurance to mitigate the additional cost of unforeseen delays." Industry analysts questioned whether this would be enough to spur construction. Investors have been leery of the upfront costs needed to build a nuclear plant compared with other forms of electricity production. Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the energy program at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, said neither the energy legislation nor the latest Bush proposals would make a significant dent in prices. "There are other things that could be proposed that would be more politically costly but have a more immediate impact," she said, such as increasing fuel-efficiency requirements. -------- OTHER -------- environment Dirty Air Poses Health Risks for 152 Million Americans NEW YORK, New York, April 28, 2005 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2005/2005-04-28-09.asp#anchor2 More groups are at risk from air pollution and health risks are more serious than experts previously believed, according to the annual American Lung Association State of the Air: 2005 report, released today. The report warns that continued threats to relax federal rules for corporate polluters will jeopardize public health. “Dirty air threatens the lives and health of far too many Americans,” said John Kirkwood, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. “Unfortunately, some of the largest producers of dirty air are big energy companies, who have worked with their friends in Congress on legislation to change the rules so they don’t have to clean up their pollution." "Fortunately, the Senate recently blocked that bill, but the vote was very close. We need to ask ourselves: Why was Congress even considering a bill that protects corporate polluters instead of the public?” said Kirkwood. More than 152 million Americans live in counties where they are exposed to unhealthful levels of air pollution, according to the report. Large cities ranked as the worst cities for air quality are predictable: Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Salt Lake, Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas. But smaller towns also made the worst air quality list: Visalia, California in the agricultural Central Valley, and the university towns of Eugene, Oregon and Knoxville, Tennessee. Exhaust fumes from idling diesel trucks and buses, smoke from dirty power plants and factories, and soot released from indoor and outdoor wood burning combine to create particle pollution and are also the key raw ingredients of ground level ozone pollution, or smog, that makes air so unhealthy in many locations. The State of the Air: 2005 report cites recently published studies showing that as ozone levels increase, the risk of premature death increases. Ozone is an extremely reactive gas that irritates the respiratory system and can kill people with severe respiratory problems such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema and chronic bronchitis, and asthma, the American Lung Association (ALA) said. The ALA now adds diabetics to the list of groups most at risk from particle pollution, based on increased evidence of their vulnerability to these tiny particles. Particle pollution is a mixture of microscopic solids and aerosols that has been found to take months to years off a person’s life. Other at-risk groups include children, seniors, those with asthma and lung diseases and those with cardiovascular diseases. Particle pollution has also been shown to induce heart attacks and strokes, cause lung cancer, trigger asthma attacks and increase the need for medical care and hospital admissions. “Evidence is mounting each year underscoring just how dangerous air pollution really is,” said Norman Edelman, MD, executive vice president and chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. “The more we learn, the more critical cleaning up the air becomes.” “Big energy companies are pushing Congress to change the law to let them get in an extra 10 years of pollution and to increase pollution at their oldest and dirtiest plants,” said Janice Nolen, ALA director of national policy. “In March, the Senate blocked a bill that would do just that, but the fight is not over. We must continue to be vigilant about protecting the Clean Air Act from the polluters,” she said. The Lung Association has taken legal action to stop this rollback, and encourages everyone to join them in supporting strong national, state, and local pollution control programs, by participating in community reviews of air pollution and sending e-mails or faxes to urge members of Congress to protect the Clean Air Act. The full report, The State of the Air: 2005, is online at: http://lungaction.org/reports/stateoftheair2005.html -------- ACTIVISTS ‘No nukes, no war!’: Global convergence at UN demands end to nuclear weapons Author: Dan Margolis People's Weekly World Newspaper, 04/28/05 13:44 http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/6891/1/267/ NEW YORK — The worldwide movement to end nuclear weapons, energized and united with the antiwar movement, is converging here for a month of actions. Kicking it off is a May 1 mass “No Nukes! No Wars!” march. On May 2, the United Nations opens a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which aims to curb and eventually eliminate these weapons of mass destruction. In addition to UN events, numerous activities, sponsored by a wide variety of nongovernmental organizations from more than 90 countries, will fill the month of May. Hibakusha — Japanese survivors of the U.S. atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 — will be touring the country and meeting with local community organizations. “They have seen the horror of nuclear war, and want to guarantee it never happens again,” said Judith Le Blanc, co-chair of United for Peace and Justice. A Mayors for Peace delegation, representing 105 cities in 25 countries, will rally for its “vision campaign” to eliminate all nuclear arsenals by the year 2020. Other public events include forums on depleted uranium, the Iraq war and a nuclear-free Middle East. Abolition Now and UFPJ, two of the sponsoring organizations, are helping to coordinate the participation of the many peace, disarmament, women’s, trade union and youth groups coming from around the world. The global call is to abolish all nations’ nuclear weapons. However, the United States — in particular the Bush administration — has been singled out as the main roadblock to abolition. Nearly all the world’s nations are party to the nonproliferation treaty, which was ratified in 1970. It states that only five countries — the U.S., Britain, France, the Soviet Union (now Russia), and China — are allowed to have nuclear weapons. No other member-state may build them. The five nuclear states are required to work towards reducing and eventually eliminating their stockpiles. Progress is reviewed every five years. Denuclearization involves both dismantling existing stockpiles and halting further spread of the weapons. The U.S. has focused almost entirely on nonproliferation, without addressing its own massive nuclear arsenal. The majority of the world’s nations say that without disarmament by the five nuclear powers, real progress on nonproliferation is not likely. “Progress needs to be made on the disarmament side or the nonproliferation side won’t go anywhere,” says Zachary Allen, executive director of the Middle Powers Initiative, which works with major non-nuclear nations pressing the U.S. to take disarmament steps. “The U.S. and Russia still have 30,000 nuclear weapons. You can’t make progress on nonproliferation without making progress on disarmament.” Bruce Gagnon, head of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, said the U.S. is building a new generation of nuclear weapons. He called it an “arsenal of hypocrisy, since we lecture other countries around the world” about not developing such weapons. “Also, we’re bringing on Star Wars,” Gagnon said, pointing out how the so-called missile defense shield escalates the nuclear arms race. Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation and U.S. coordinator of Abolition Now, told the World that in 2000, all the nonproliferation treaty signatories, including the U.S., agreed to “an unequivocal undertaking to eliminate their nuclear arsenals” through a series of specific steps. After the Sept. 11 attacks, “the Bush administration seized on that opportunity to advance this very aggressive, militaristic, unilateralist ‘war on terrorism,’” Cabasso said, and has distanced itself from the 2000 agreement. For example, in 2002 the Bush administration put forward its “National Security Strategy” that advocates nuclear strike against non-nuclear states, a violation of the NPT. At the UN, two groups of nations — the Non-Aligned Movement and the New Agenda Coalition, including “middle powers” like Ireland and South Africa — will call for a recommitment and adherence to the 2000 agreement. Cabasso and others see signals that the U.S. will torpedo the worldwide efforts for a successful NPT review. Generally, she said, the measure of success is whether or not a final document can be agreed upon. Already, the Bush administration has declared that it does not see the need for a final agreement. This flies in the face of all previous international protocols, she said. Nevertheless, Cabasso said, “We’re going to be able to identify which countries are on board with actually doing something, and we’re going to have a pretty dramatic demonstration of global civil society opinion.” Also at issue is U.S. aggression towards countries that choose to develop nuclear technology for energy and peaceful purposes — a right guaranteed by the NPT. Brazilian UN Mission councilor Lucia Maiera said, a state should have the right to develop nuclear energy as an alternative energy source. “We do have our technology developed entirely in Brazil; it’s our technology. As a country in development, it’s something that we’ll need for the future of our development,” she told the World.