Yucca Mountain News Clips
Monday, December 6, 2004
---------------------------
MSNBC
December 06, 2004
NBC News
MEET THE PRESS
Transcript for Dec. 5
GUESTS: Sen. Harry Reid (D - NV), President Ghazi al-Yawar of the Interim Government of IraqNBC News
Sunday, December 5, 2004
GUESTS: Sen. Harry Reid (D - NV);
President Ghazi al-Yawar of the Interim Government of Iraq
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Iraq. More U.S. troops on their way as the insurgency rages. And is that country secure enough to hold national elections? With us, in an exclusive interview, the president of the interim government of Iraq, Ghazi al-Yawar.
Then, on November 2, the Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, Tom Daschle, lost his bid for re- election. The Democrats have chosen their new leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. And his first Sunday morning interview is right here on MEET THE PRESS.
And in our political roundtable, President Bush faces resistance from his own party on reforming our intelligence system. With us, David Broder of The Washington Post and David Gregory of NBC News.
And in our MEET THE PRESS Minute, we salute Tom Brokaw, who stepped down as anchor of "NBC Nightly News" after 22 extraordinary years.
But first, Iraq, and here with us is the president of that nation.
Mr. President, welcome back.
PRES. GHAZI AL-YAWAR: Well, thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you some news on the wires as we speak this morning. The "U.N. special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, said bluntly, `It is a mess in Iraq.' Asked whether it was possible to hold elections under current conditions, Brahimi said, `If the circumstances stay as they are, I don't think so.'"
Your reaction.
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, we still have two months to elections. We believe in Iraq that the main objective of these people who are committing these atrocities unjustifiably is to stop us from having our first chance to taste the harvest of liberating Iraq. We still have two months. We should still--consistent and we should keep the schedule according to what it is. That's the 30th of January.
MR. RUSSERT: But if the United Nations cannot cooperate with you, can you have elections?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, the date was chartered by the United Nations Resolution 1546. We are asking the United Nations, the whole international community, to help us. We do not think that postponing elections or delaying it will solve the problem. Actually, it will prolong the agony for Iraqis and you will have more resentment in the Iraqi society.
MR. RUSSERT: Adnan Pachachi, who is a leader in the Sunni community, said this. "The first reason to delay the Iraqi elections is that we should give an opportunity for those who are still reluctant or unwilling to take part in the elections in order to have a dialogue with them and to see whether we can address some of their demands and grievances and also to persuade them that it's in their interest to join in the elections. ... The second reason is the security situation, which...is still rather precarious and uncertain. ...And therefore, a little" more time "would be much better."
You can't even secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad. How can you possibly have free and fair elections?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: That's been made deliberately by these people who are fighting, the insurgents, in order to present this gloomy picture. The challenge is to move ahead and get the election on time. The problem, it's not the people are reluctant. Yes, there is a problem in the security situation. And people are scared of going and registering their names, of reprisals, atrocities of these armies of darkness. If we can do something in these areas by enhancing the security situation, a lot of people are willing to join in now. We are not talking about people want to be in or not. Everybody is committed. But the problem is they are fearing reprisal of these people who are doing these bad actions.
MR. RUSSERT: But the insurgency seems to be very widespread. We now have more U.S. troops heading for Iraq and in Iraq than we had before the invasion. Americans were told by many Iraqis that we would be greeted as liberators, with flowers and sweets. Could this insurgency be as difficult and strong as it is without the support of many of the Iraqi people?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: I think it's strong without the support of Iraqi people. They are frightening people if you see Mosul City and the destruction and problems to these areas. They fled the areas after they put the people in the cross-fire. The thing is: How are we going to talk to these people? They don't have faces. They don't have leaderships. They don't have ideologies. They don't have any demands. They are just there, wanting to bring the old regime back into Iraq. And we are not going to go back to the time of the prewar era after all. With all of the ups and downs, it's much better without having the old regime back.
MR. RUSSERT: But could the insurgents--how could they live off the land? How could they be as organized as they are without the Iraqi populous tolerating them or at least not turning them in?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, people are passive, yes, because they have been held hostage by these people. It's like hoodlums where they frighten people. People are innocent and law-abiding citizens, and they are just frightened, scared for their families, for their children, and these people are--most of them are kidnapping people and selling them to another gang, a third gang, then a fourth gang. And this is a slavery. This is what they are doing right now in Iraq. I mean, the whole international community should understand that and should help us stop all these nonsense.
MR. RUSSERT: In October, you said, "Yes, [the election is] scheduled for Jan. 31, but that date is not sacred. ...If we see that elections held by that date without security or conditions favoring a fair and comprehensive vote and that that in turn will have a negative impact on our country, then we will not hesitate to change its date." You were concerned and are concerned about the security.
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: How can you hold an election...
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well...
MR. RUSSERT: ...if vast numbers of Iraqis, like yourself, Sunnis in the Sunni Triangle, are not allowed to vote or are incapable of voting because of lack of security?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, what I said before I still believe in. There is no sacred date, but the thing is this is a challenge that Iraqis have to take. And after reviewing the situation, I think the worst thing to do is to postpone elections. This will give a tactical victory to the insurgents, to the forces of darkness. That's why I have even established my own political entity after being reluctant for a long time. This is to encourage a lot of people from all aspects of Iraq, from all faiths, to join in, and not to sit because we have a silent majority in Iraq. We want this silent majority to say their word and I'm sure they are very capable and very influential.
MR. RUSSERT: Why are they so silent? If they didn't like Saddam Hussein and they were going to greet us as liberators, why are they still silent?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, first of all, these people have been living for 45 years in totalitarian regimes. They are still rehabilitating out of that. We're telling them your vote is very valuable. Cast your vote. This is your duty and this is your right. Don't forfeit it for any reason. This is what we are trying to do. We are trying to assist the people to come out of the shell of the totalitarian regimes and the oppressions of the past and this is very important.
MR. RUSSERT: You said this a month ago. "Whoever fights with the other on board this boat, will tip it over and make everyone fall into the river and get eaten up by the alligators. Not a single passenger will survive."
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Yes, sir. I did say that. That is because I want all Iraqis to understand that we are one team, we have one choice. It is to move along in tranquility to reach the shores of safety and build our prosperous country. And I still believe in it.
MR. RUSSERT: This is The New York Times today. This headline: "Sunnis vs. Shiites and Kurds; Mayhem in Iraq is Starting to Look Like a Civil War." Do you believe that Iraq is on the verge of a civil war?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Never ever. Iraq has been--if you look deep into our history, 7,000 years of history, we never, ever had a single incident of unrest built on ethnicity or sect or religion. We never had that. All this has been--all these stories and scenarios has been imported to Iraq, and it's time for Iraqis to understand themselves firsthand, not to listen to others telling them how they should behave. I don't think--I'm 100 percent sure--and this is my intuition--we will never, ever have civil war or unrest based on ethnicity or belief or sectarian reasons.
MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim. You're a Sunni Muslim. You're a minority in the country. If, in fact, the Shia elect a majority of the government and control the national government, can the Sunnis accept minority status?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, first of all, the Sunni Muslims--if we are talking about Sunni Muslims, Sunni Muslims makes about 50 percent of the Iraqi population, because the Kurds are Sunni Muslims too, most of them. We do not have a problem. In Iraq, we have a challenge of sectarian vs. civil-oriented people. That's people who believe that the religion is more sacred to be involved in politics. And this is a dimension we have in Iraq.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about the--your comments about the silent majority.
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Yes, sir.
MR. RUSSERT: Americans see their death toll passing 1,000 men and women; their injured and wounded, over 7,000. And they say: Why should Americans fight and die for Iraqi people if they are passive and they're a silent majority? If you yourself don't want democracy, and aren't willing to fight and die for it and put down the insurgency and not in any way enable it, why should Americans stay there and die for you?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, first of all, our thoughts goes for the families of the people who lost their lives in Iraq. But we in Iraq appreciate very much all the assistance and all the sacrifices that the American people are making for us in Iraq. What we believe in--that by empowering Iraqis and helping us build our security forces and military on proper technical and moral backgrounds, this will be the solution for the Iraqi problem. Myself is 100 percent convinced that the solution for the security situation is Iraq should be 100 percent Iraqi. Until then, we need our friends to help us preserve our security. But we have to work and expedite building Iraqi security forces from now.
When I mention the silent majority, I mentioned the people who were, out of fear of reprisals, of oppressive regimes, of the vicious dictatorship like Saddam--they were hurt. They were being-- hibernating in caves. And this is a moral and national and human duty, is to help these people come out of these caves. And I think the United States, being the superpower, is destined to be helping all the people in the world to make the world a free world, really.
MR. RUSSERT: Realistically, how long do you think American troops are going to have to stay in Iraq?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: As long as we can--I hope it will be as short as we can build our security forces 100 percent. That is not impossible. Iraq is very well-known in the Middle East for the human resources we have. We have extremely qualified people. We have to start revisiting the issue of the old army and try to screen of--the people and bring back some of the people who have never had bloodstained hands in the past.
MR. RUSSERT: But that will take several years.
PRES. AL-YAWAR: No. I don't think it will take several years.
MR. RUSSERT: You believe American troops...
PRES. AL-YAWAR: It will take months.
MR. RUSSERT: You think American troops could be out of Iraq in months?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Well, months--we're talking about months, probably; I don't know, six months or eight months or a year. But I don't think it will take years. Definitely not.
MR. RUSSERT: And American troops can come home?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Yes, but after--when we build our security forces. I mean, this is a job which has been done, and this is--America cannot afford to retreat at this time. This will be bad for Iraq, the Middle East, and to the United States and the world.
MR. RUSSERT: You will meet with President Bush tomorrow. What will you tell him?
PRES. AL-YAWAR: I will tell him: "Thank you very much, Mr. President, for all the help we've had in the past." I will tell him that we in Iraq are determined to build our own democracy, own Iraqi-style democracy. But also, "We want you to help us empowering more Iraqis to assume responsibility, especially in the security forces arena."
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. President, we thank you for joining us with and sharing your views
PRES. AL-YAWAR: Thank you very much.
MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, the new leader of the Democrats in the United States Senate, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. Then, insights and analysis: what lies ahead for George W. Bush's second term. Our roundtable, with David Broder of The Washington Post and David Gregory, who covers the White House for NBC News. They're all coming up right here on MEET THE PRESS.
MR. RUSSERT: The new Democratic leader in the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid, after this station break.
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back with the new leader of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada.
Welcome.
SEN. HARRY REID, (D-NV): Thank you very much.
MR. RUSSERT: In 1994, when the Republicans seized control of both houses of Congress, this is what Senator Harry Reid said. "We all have to swallow a little bit of our pride and go toward the middle."
Is that still your advice to the Democrats?
SEN. REID: I think there's no question about it. You know, we don't accomplish anything on the far right and the far left. Things are accomplished in the middle. We have to work toward the middle. And I think that that's clear. I feel no differently than I did 10 years ago.
MR. RUSSERT: There were a lot of eyebrows raised across the town when the Las Vegas Review- Journal and The Hill newspaper reported this. "Harry Reid, the incoming Senate minority leader, said he is forming a communications `war room' to promote Democratic messages and respond to Republican criticism."
Is creating a war room the prescription to try to solve the partisan problems we face right now?
SEN. REID: Well, I think war room designation is something that comes from inside Washington. What I've created is a communications center where we're going to take some of the resources that are already there and make sure that when someone comes to the Senate floor to give a speech, that talk radio stations know what that person had to say. We're going to communicate with the American people to make sure that they understand the Democrats are in tune with millions of Americans across the country. In fact, we represent the people of this country, and this communications center that we have will certainly be an indication of how we feel.
MR. RUSSERT: So you're not going to war with Republicans the first week on your job?
SEN. REID: No. I hope we don't have to go to war. As I said, Tim, I'd rather dance than fight. But people have to understand that the president controls the White House, of course. The House of Representatives, the Senate--if he wants to get something done, he has to come to us. We are constitutionally empowered by the Constitution to have certain powers that are inherent in this body, and we want to work with the president. But they can't jam things down our throats. The American people wouldn't want us to do that.
MR. RUSSERT: You're a former boxer. If you're punched, you'll punch back?
SEN. REID: Sure will.
MR. RUSSERT: When the president talked about Yucca Mountain and moving the nation's nuclear waste there, you were very, very, very strong in your words. You said, "President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."
Is that rhetoric appropriate?
SEN. REID: I don't know if that rhetoric is appropriate. That's how I feel, and that's how I felt. I think to take that issue, Tim, to take the most poisonous substance known to man, plutonium, and haul 70,000 tons of it across the highways and railways of this country, past schools and churches and people's businesses is wrong. It's something that is being forced upon this country by the utilities, and it's wrong. And we have to stop it. And people may not like what I said, but I said it, and I don't back off one bit.
MR. RUSSERT: The intelligence bill reforms which were recommended by the 9-11 Commission; now before the Senate and the House. Being held up by two Republican congressmen in the House. And now Senator John Warner, Republican from Virginia, said he has reservations. Will the intelligence reform bill pass this week in Congress?
SEN. REID: The Congress of the United States should not leave this town until we pass this. Governor Kean, Representative Hamilton were appointed by the president of the United States to give us some ideas as to what should be done following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. They told us what should be done. And we in the Senate and the House passed bills that were in keeping with what they wanted. Now, it's being held up because the speaker says he wants a majority--the majority to approve everything before they will pass it.
This legislation has enough votes in the House and the Senate to pass overwhelmingly. The president should intercede, as he I believe has an obligation to this country. We have people that want to be safe in America today. The secretary of Health and Human Service, Tommy Thompson, when he announced his resignation, said that the Americans' food and water supply is not safe. How can we leave town and not have this most important legislation passed? It may not be perfect, but no legislation's perfect. It's something that we need to do, and the people of America are depending on us to do it.
MR. RUSSERT: Stay through Christmas if necessary?
SEN. REID: Stay through the day before New Year's. We must pass this legislation. The people in Nevada want to be safe.
MR. RUSSERT: What must...
SEN. REID: The people in this country want to be safe.
MR. RUSSERT: What must the president do?
SEN. REID: The president, who controls both houses of Congress, should use his power. And he has said that he has power. He has a mandate. Let him pull a few bucks out of that pocket of mandate and give it to the House and Senate and say, "Here's part of my mandate. I want this legislation to pass."
MR. RUSSERT: Republicans are saying they're concerned about the intelligence on the ground with our troops and they're concerned about driver's licenses that there are not a--without uniform standards, hijackers could easily obtain them from localities that did not maintain rigid standards.
SEN. REID: Tim, we dealt with immigration in this bill. This is not an immigration bill. Immigration is covered as recommended by the commission, and we've done that. This is a holdup. These are people who have committees, Sensenbrenner and Hunter, and they want to maintain power. Power--this is not about power. It's about keeping the American people safe. And the president, I repeat, should intercede any way that he can, and there are lots of ways he can. He hasn't even sent a letter yet. You know, you keep three or days--he hasn't even sent a letter to the congressional leaders saying he wants it passed. This should be passed as quickly as possible. Every day that goes by, the American people are not as safe.
MR. RUSSERT: Private accounts for Social Security--the president has made that a priority of his domestic agenda. Will you work with him in privatizing part of Social Security?
SEN. REID: Tim, I can remember as a little boy my widowed grandmother with eight children. She lived alone, but she felt independent because she got every month her old age pension check. That's what this is all about. The most successful social program in the history of the world is being hijacked by Wall Street. Yes, Social Security is a good program. And if the president has some ideas about trying to improve it, I'll talk to him, and we as Democrats will, but we are not going to let Wall Street hijack Social Security. It won't happen. They are trying to destroy Social Security.
MR. RUSSERT: No private accounts?
SEN. REID: They are trying to destroy Social Security by giving this money to the fat cats on Wall Street, and I think it's wrong.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, there are now 40 million people on Social Security. In the next 20 years, there's going to be 80 million. Life expectancy used to be 65 years old. It's approaching 80. If you have twice as many people on these programs for 15 years, you've got to restructure them in some way, shape, or form. What is your solution?
SEN. REID: Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: What is your alternative?
SEN. REID: Tim, all experts say that Social Security beneficiaries will receive every penny of their benefits that they're entitled to--100 percent of them--until the year 2055. After that, if we still do nothing, they'll draw 80 percent of their benefits. I want those beneficiaries after year 2055 to draw 100 percent of their benefits. But this does not require dismantling the program. For heaven's sakes, they're crying wolf a little too regularly here. There is not an emergency on Social Security. We can do this. The president should not try to jam this private accounts in an effort to destroy Social Security.
In the early--when Social Security came before the Congress, who opposed it? The Republicans. And they have a long memory. They've been trying to destroy Social Security for a long time and now they think they have an opening to do it.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you look at increasing or raising the age of eligibility? Would you look at means testing? Would you look at any reform?
SEN. REID: Of course. There are reforms that probably can happen in Social Security, and we're not, you know, saying don't even touch it. Let's take a look at it. I said I want people after the year 2055 to be able to draw all of their benefits. And, sure, we'll take a look at it, but don't give the ball to Wall Street.
MR. RUSSERT: No private accounts of any kind?
SEN. REID: Not as far as I'm concerned.
MR. RUSSERT: You also said this back in 1994. "I believe in a consumption tax. ...The income tax is not working as well as it should. I think we should do away with it." Is that still your view?
SEN. REID: Tim, there's no question that the Social Security system--I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Back-- we're off Social Security, right. The income tax code, as we know it, is tough, it's unworkable. You know, we couldn't put the code on this desk. And I think we should work towards simplifying it. We had a pretty good program, Bradley-Gephardt, where we had three tax structures, but, of course, we changed that. Congress changed that and now it's more complicated than ever.
What I am concerned about that's happening with the talk that's coming from 17th and Pennsylvania Avenue is that they're talking about having a consumption tax and an income tax. That's the worst of all worlds. That's what they have in Europe where you have an income tax and you add on that the value-added tax. It's a terrible system. So what I say is if we can figure out a way to make our tax less burdensome and if we could go to a consumer based tax, I think it would be wonderful. But the transition rules of that are very difficult and I have looked into that. It's extremely difficult.
MR. RUSSERT: But the national sales tax or consumption tax is very regressive. Poor people get hit very hard with that as...
SEN. REID: No question.
MR. RUSSERT: ...to a progressive income tax.
SEN. REID: No question about it and I've learned a lot since the statement. I think if it's an ideal world, maybe we could work something out, but as I've learned in so many different areas, we...
MR. RUSSERT: You're less enthusiastic about a consumption tax now.
SEN. REID: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: This was the Associated Press about Harry Reid. "Reid voted with Republicans to ban a procedure that opponents call partial birth abortion. In 1999, he was one of two Senate Democrats who voted against an amendment expressing support for the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion."
Would you prefer to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe vs. Wade which allows legal abortions across the country.
SEN. REID: Tim, I have--my views on abortion are very clear. I've never tried to hide them. I think it's something that people understand about me. But I also understand that this is a very complicated issue, very difficult issue. And, you know, in our caucus, our Democratic caucus, we have wide-ranging views. My sister, as far--I don't have a sister, but as close as I have ever had to a sister is Barbara Boxer. Her views and my views differ. But, you know, we don't have a litmus test in the Senate with Senate Democrats. We don't do the so-called Specter test--"You have to agree with us or we won't let you be a chairman of the committee or subcommittee." We don't do that.
And so I say that this is an issue that is not likely going to be resolved in the Congress of the United States. I think what we should do is all work toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, unintended pregnancies. I think we should do that. That would, of course, lead to fewer abortions. That should be a goal we all have. And I think that this matter will be resolved, as--the Supreme Court has wrestled with this for years and years. And, as you know, they're having a difficult time coming up with what should or shouldn't be done.
MR. RUSSERT: But why did you vote against something that would express support for Roe vs. Wade? Do you believe that Roe vs. Wade was incorrectly decided?
SEN. REID: You know, you're asking me--I don't want to give you the Clarence Thomas decision here, but Roe vs. Wade is--I clearly oppose abortion. And this was a Senate resolution. It had no standing in law if it had even passed. So I think that my views are clear, and I think that I have worked very hard with groups all over America to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and I'll continue to do that.
MR. RUSSERT: What would happen, do you think, in the country if Roe vs. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court?
SEN. REID: Well, I think it would be a little--it would be pretty difficult for everybody, so I think that's why the Supreme Court has wrestled with it
MR. RUSSERT: You are a Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints had a statement on marriage: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."
Do you accept that message, the statement from your church?
SEN. REID: Tim, we have in America today many, many states--I don't know the exact number; I think 11 or 13 in this last election cycle--said there can no--in our state, you have to have marriage between a man and a woman. That's the law in the state of Nevada. And within a couple years, even Massachusetts, that will be the law. And we in Congress recognized there would be some controversy over this, so we passed the Defense of Marriage Act that says you do not have to recognize the marriage laws of another state. That's the law of the land. And I think that we have to be very, very careful about how we tamper with the Constitution. I have agreed reluctantly on several occasions to agree to constitutional amendments. But frankly, in the history of this country, there've been over 11,500 attempts to amend the Constitution, and I want to approach those amendments very, very cautiously. I do not think it's necessary at this time to have a constitutional amendment in that regard.
MR. RUSSERT: Will that upset your church leaders?
SEN. REID: You'll have to ask them.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to judicial nominations. Again, Harry Reid on National Public Radio, November 19: "If they"--the Bush White House--"for example, gave us Clarence Thomas as chief justice, I personally feel that would be wrong. If they give us Antonin Scalia, that's a little different question. I may not agree with some of his opinions, but I agree with the brilliance of his mind."
Could you support Antonin Scalia to be chief justice of the Supreme Court?
SEN. REID: If he can overcome the ethics problems that have arisen since he was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court. And those ethics problems--you've talked about them; every people talk--every reporter's talked about them in town--where he took trips that were probably not in keeping with the code of judicial ethics. So we have to get over this. I cannot dispute the fact, as I have said, that this is one smart guy. And I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are very hard to dispute. So...
MR. RUSSERT: Why couldn't you accept Clarence Thomas?
SEN. REID: I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.
MR. RUSSERT: The Republicans have said that the Democrats have been obstructionist in terms of judicial nominations. And one of the things that's being considered is the so-called nuclear option, where Vice President Cheney would preside over the Senate, and there would be a motion to say that a Democratic filibuster against a judicial nominee violates the constitutional duty of senators to advise and consent on the issue of nominations, and a majority, 51 senators, could uphold the ruling of the chair and, in effect, do away with the filibuster when it comes to judicial nominations. What will you do if the Republicans exercise that option?
SEN. REID: George Will wrote in last week's Newsweek magazine that he had originally thought it was a good idea. He thinks it's a bad idea. I agree with George Will. We have a situation where during the four years that President Bush has been president, we've approved 207 federal judges and turned down 10. We have an obligation under the Constitution to give advise and consent to the nominations of the president of the United States.
If you look at Orrin Hatch's autobiography, in that he talks about what President Clinton did. He says that President Clinton came to him and said "Give me some suggestions as to who you think could be approved." And he suggested--Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee--he suggested Breyer and Ginsburg. And sure enough, they were submitted by President Clinton. And with no problem, they were approved. That's the same model that President Bush should follow, if in fact we have Supreme Court nominees come before us. In the meantime, the president should be happy with what he's gotten, 207-to-10. That's a pretty good record for him.
MR. RUSSERT: You have written President Bush and asked him to consult with you about Supreme Court nominees before he nominates individuals?
SEN. REID: Just like Clinton did with Orrin Hatch. I wrote the letter Friday. I'm not sure the president has it yet. I hope he has. But I think that's the model he should follow. That would solve so many problems for us. We don't need a knockdown, drag-out fight on who should be approved on the Supreme Court. It should be approved as easy as Breyer and Ginsburg.
MR. RUSSERT: What if the president says, "Harry, I'm sorry. I'm the president. I was re-elected by this country. I get to appoint--to nominate Supreme Court justices, and you don't have a right of veto."
SEN. REID: Well, of course, if you read the Constitution, that's absolutely wrong. We do have a right of advise and consent. And I say to the president, he should follow what President Clinton did. President Clinton didn't have Orrin Hatch approve who he wanted. I mean, he gave him some suggestions and the suggestions were good. Orrin Hatch should be commended for that.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you going to be able to work with Senator Bill Frist, the Republican, and actually achieve anything?
SEN. REID: I think Bill Frist is one of the finest persons I've met. Here is a man how gave up a career in medicine--he was a transplant surgeon--to come here and spend some time in public service. He's doing his very best. His caucus is so much more difficult to deal with than mine. I'm going to have a much easier time with my Democrats than he is with his Republicans. But I look forward to working with him. We have a good relationship now, and I think it will get better during the next couple years.
MR. RUSSERT: But you're down to only 45. That's very few Democrats.
SEN. REID: Well, we have three less than we had last time. I think we have a pretty strong group of people, and we're going to do what we're entitled to do under the Constitution because we represent the American people.
MR. RUSSERT: Harry Reid, senator from Nevada, the new minority leader of the Democrats in the Senate. We thank you for sharing your views.
SEN. REID: Tim, thanks for allowing me to be on your show. It was such a breeze.
© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
---------------------------
Provo Daily Herald
December 05, 2004
In our view: Nuclear power was a mistake
The Daily Herald
After nearly a half-century, it's time for people to admit that nuclear power generation was a bad idea.
Nuclear reactors were seen as an alternative to coal, natural gas and other nonrenewable sources of energy to generate electricity. They have allowed the creation of such things as U. S. Navy warships that can remain at sea indefinitely without refueling.
But in the rush to build nuclear reactors, little thought was given to the question of how -- in the long run -- to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. Disposal seemed easy, and sites were close at hand. The benefits blinded people to the consequences, much like a compulsive shopper who never stops to think about what happens when the credit card bill comes due.
Now, with deadly nuclear waste piling up back East, the nuclear power industry and its friends in government are looking to the wide-open spaces of the American West to sweep it under the rug. The government is constructing a depository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., that it claims will be able to contain the radioactive material safely for 10,000 years.
Meanwhile, Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of eastern power producers, is working with the Skull Valley band of Goshutes to construct a "temporary" storage site on the Indian reservation in the West Desert.
Both actions are being fought by Utah and Nevada on the grounds that there is substantial risk in shipping radioactive waste across those states, and the immorality of forcing states that do not benefit from nuclear energy to have to handle the waste products for those that do.
Unfortunately, Utah's and Nevada's efforts have not been coordinated. They have important common interests, but they are pitted against each other on nuclear waste in a game of hot potato, and as a result, both could easily lose their fights to keep the stuff out.
Nevadans are opposed to shipping waste to Yucca Mountain, located 90 miles from Las Vegas. Utah's congressional delegation, with the exception of Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, the son of a Downwinder, voted in favor of Yucca Mountain in 2002 after being assured that supporting Yucca Mountain would derail PFS's plans for Skull Valley by blocking federal funding for the project.
However, that hasn't seemed to have stopped PFS, which is still pushing to build the facility. And now it seems Nevada has repaid Utah for the Yucca Mountain vote. An amendment designating Bureau of Land Management property around Skull Valley as wilderness was stripped from a defense appropriation bill in a congressional conference committee. By designating the area as wilderness, PFS would not have been allowed to build a rail spur to its depository site.
The amendment designating the new Utah wilderness area was opposed by Nevada's senators who claimed it was bad environmental law, but U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, sees it as Nevada playing a tit-for-tat game with Utah over Yucca Mountain.
This bickering between the two states is not going to help either one keep nuclear waste out of the West. Instead, we're diluting our political power and allowing the nuclear industry and government to divide and conquer.
The Utah and Nevada congressional delegations, as well as the state governments, need to stop playing hot potato, in which the winning side forces its opponent to keep the nuclear waste. If we don't start teaming up to achieve common goals -- keeping waste where it is, for example -- we could wind up with nuclear waste in both states, since there isn't enough room in Yucca Mountain to handle everything for the whole nation.
Utah and Nevada need to present a united front as two states that refuse to become the nation's dumping ground. Both have already paid more than their fair share for America's Atomic Age achievements in the form of people stricken with radiation-related illnesses from bomb tests. We don't need to risk more citizens to transportation accidents involving nuclear waste.
With Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah, as one of the Senate's senior members and Nevada Sen. Harry Reid serving as the Senate Minority Leader, the two states should have some clout on Capitol Hill -- if only they could get along.
Taking a broad view, nuclear power would not have a chance if it were proposed today. The fact that no new plants have been proposed since 1973 is telling. It's dangerous technology. The byproducts remain deadly for tens of thousands of years, and disposal is a bigger problem than was ever imagined in the latter half of the 20th century. Americans are more aware of dangers of nuclear power after the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. They are shocked that sloppy disposal practices of the past threaten Earth's oceans today. Many thousands of storage containers lie where they were dumped on the ocean floor, and they are corroding and leaking. Transportation of waste to Utah or Nevada represents a new threat to America's cities.
Waste should be kept out of Utah and Nevada, but America should gradually decommission the plants it has already built for civilian power generation. It's time to stop creating heaps of deadly waste.
Just stop.
If that were to happen, existing piles of poison could stay where they are -- in the East near the cities that used the juice.
Nuclear reactors operating in the U.S., 2000
Plant
Operator Name Plant
Net Generation (MWh)
1 Palo Verde Arizona Public Services Co. 30,415,572
2 Oconee Duke Energy Corp. 19,836,917
3 South Texas Reliant Energy HL&P 19,413,369
4 Sequoyah Tennessee Valley Authority 18,965,943
5 Braidwood Commonwealth Edison Co. 18,955,737
6 Alvin W Vogtle Southern Nuclear Operating Co. 18,448,477
7 Limerick (PECO) PECO Energy Co. 18,298,496
8 Browns Ferry Tennessee Valley Authority 18,291,610
9 Byron Commonwealth Edison Co. 18,082,620
10 Peach Bottom PECO Energy Co. 18,020,915
---------------------------
Salt Lake Tribune
December 05, 2004
Bear maintains grip on power
Critics find it difficult to oust him from Goshute leadership
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Leon Bear's decision two weeks ago to forgo Skull Valley Band of Goshutes leadership elections because there wasn't a quorum of voting members has allowed him to remain tribal chairman beyond the four-year term he began in November 2000.
The action violates tribal traditions, says one of Bear's most persistent critics, because it bypassed the tribe's adult members, who cast votes as the tribe's General Council.
"He can't tell people he is still the chairman. He has to have other people tell him that," Margene Bullcreek said.
"His term is up."
But because of the way the tribe has chosen to organize itself, there may be little anyone can do to stop Bear from leading as he sees fit or remaining chairman as long as he likes - and thereby retaining control of a lucrative deal that would allow a private company to store 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel on the reservation.
"As long as he can claim the leadership by not having the quorum in place, he can continue as the leader out there without a valid election indefinitely," said Mark EchoHawk, an Idaho attorney and tribal law expert.
EchoHawk and his brother, Paul, have represented Bullcreek and other dissident Goshutes in their disputes with Bear over tribal business, including a 1997 agreement with a nuclear utility consortium that wants to build a nuclear waste storage facility in Skull Valley.
Mark EchoHawk views Bear's action as a move away from tribal ways that rely on precedent. "The most important question is not should Mr. Bear continue to be chairman, but does the Skull Valley Band have a fair procedure to elect an official?" he said.
Bear did not respond to repeated requests for an interview. Attorney Scott York, who represents the Goshute Band as directed by its leadership, said Friday that Bear doesn't intend to "manipulate the process." Neither was it necessary for Bear to step down from leadership just because the election term is up. "You still need to keep the tribe doing business or it comes to a screeching halt," York said.
Bullcreek, who says she will continue to challenge Bear's leadership of the tribe, said Bear is behaving as if he were a chief executive of a corporation, not a tribe. With some trepidation, she has sought help from Chester Mills, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs Uintah-Ouray superintendant based in Fort Duchesne, whose office has jurisdiction over the Skull Valley Band. Mills usually attends the tribal meetings.
"We don't really want the BIA to be involved in this because it is a tribal matter. Our sovereignty is really important to us," Bullcreek said. On the other hand, having Mills or another BIA official at the meeting offers a measure of protection for the process.
Mills this week said he was at the BIA regional office in Phoenix when the Goshute tribe notifiedhim of the meeting, but his Fort Duchesne staff didn't forward the message to him. He said had he known, he would have sent a representative.
The BIA "really wouldn't have any role at all except to observe. We do not interfere [and] do not have any role to play in tribal elections," Mills said.
The BIA has injected itself, however, when it affirmed Bear's leadership after other tribal members claimed they ousted him three years ago.
On Nov. 20, the tribal elections didn't proceed as scheduled when Bear called off the meeting around 10:30 a.m. Bullcreek, who had planned to challenge Bear for the leadership post, said about 35 people were present at the time. Tribal rules require that half the 81 adult members be present for a quorum.
Miranda Wash, another Bear critic who says she and two others were elected to tribal leadership after Bear was ousted in August 2001, said Skull Valley Goshutes came from Colorado, Idaho and Nevada for the failed election. Wash said the latest meeting lasted only five or 10 minutes.
Bear promised to hold another election meeting in March and quarterly thereafter until a quorum could assemble for a vote, they said.
York confirmed their account. "If they keep trying to get a quorum quarterly, that's great," he said.
Bear is scheduled to go to trial on federal embezzlement and tax fraud charges Feb. 22. Blackbear, Wash and Marlinda Moon, who claim they were elected to tribal leadership in 2001 and therefore within their rights when they moved tribal funds between multiple bank accounts, are scheduled to go to trial on bank fraud charges Dec. 13.
Bullcreek is trying to contact the tribe's members to call another meeting - something they would be allowed to do as the General Council, she said.
It's not clear that the General Council has a say over election matters, Mills said. The band may have passed resolutions allowing the tribe's executives that power. If Bullcreek wants to prove her allegations, he said, the first step is to get copies of the resolutions regarding how the band governs itself.
But Bullcreek said Bear won't cooperate.
In 1934, Congress passed the Wheeler-Howard Act, also known as the Indian Reorganization Act, that restored to Indian tribes the right to manage their own assets. The bill also returned to the tribes the right to local self-government. Some tribes organized with bylaws and constitutions; others, like the Skull Valley band, chose to maintain more traditional tribal ways.
The Goshutes' adult members form the General Council, which uses majority rule on votes. The tribe also governs itself by resolutions passed by a majority of the General Council, and has a three-person executive committee made up of a chairperson, a vice-chairperson and secretary.
EchoHawk said he isn't certain how elections now are governed. There is no set code that contains all the tribal laws. "We're concerned that Leon Bear controls the elections, and notice about the elections, and frankly, we don't have any assurance that he sent out adequate notice to all the members before the election," EchoHawk said. "If I had Mr. Bear's ear, I would say, 'Show me the law that says you can continue as leader when your term has expired.' "
There is no way to compel Bear to answer, however, because the Goshutes don't have a tribal court. Bear won't even give Bullcreek or her attorneys a list of tribal members' addresses.
York dismissed the concern of the dissidents, whom he characterized as troublemakers stirred to action by people outside the reservation, particularly former Gov. Mike Leavitt.
Bullcreek and others have tried to get help from federal courts, but have been turned away because they haven't exhausted administrative remedies through the Department of the Interior, the BIA's umbrella agency.
Two administrative appeals are pending with Interior. One pertains to a leadership dispute between Bear and Sammy Blackbear, who claims he was chosen to be tribal chairman after Bear was ousted in an August 2001 vote of the tribe.
EchoHawk said mediation attempts on that matter "are just kind of floating out there." The BIA didn't respond to a request for informationon the appeal's status.
The other appeal is Bullcreek's request that Interior reconsider the BIA's 1997 conditional approval of the lease agreement with Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of eight nuclear power utilities. PFS wants to store 4,000 concrete and steel casks, each weighing 172 tons. The casks would sit on a 100-acre cement slab across the state highway from the Goshute reservation village, 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.
The consortium is seeking a 20-year renewable license for the $3.1 billion facility, which is advertised as interim storage for nuclear waste that eventually will go to a federal repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles north of Las Vegas. Utah leaders oppose the deal, and have passed laws and filed multiple lawsuits to stop it.
---------------------------
Axis of Logic
December 05, 2004
Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble Part 1: The 9-11 Commission
Karl W. B. Schwarz
What follows is information contained in a letter to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and William Casey, chief investigator for the Attorney General's Office. In fact, the letter was hand delivered to Mr. Spitzer?s office before this article was published as the first of a six-part series of articles.
The best way to expose mythology as an operative lie is to start at the most recent instances (most easily remembered) and work backwards in time to the source of that lie. As lies often do, they change complexion much like a chameleon does when facts expose the liars and they have to shift gears and spin the lies in different directions. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al have had to shift gears many times in case you have not noticed.
This is where I have a real bone to pick with our witless major media people who are either part of the mythology by design or because they are just flat out too stupid to see it for what it is [lies] or too gutless to stand up for America and tell the truth. The purpose of a Free Press is to keep America informed and in that role they have failed miserably, either through fait accompli as if the lies are now irreversible facts, or just too lazy, cowardly or blind to do their job.
The most recent Great Lie was the 9-11 Commission. That the commission was appointed to find the truth out about 9-11 and bring those parties to justice. No, they decided instead to use the public forum as a means of lying to us all and then attempting to further the fascist, neocon agenda of changing the Constitution and lessening the freedoms of the American people.
Heads up and pay attention: the Department of Homeland Security was created to defend this government from the citizens of the United States because they fear we will find out and we will rise up and cast them from power. It does not defend this nation, you, your family, friends, or loved ones. It defends only the government not from Al Qaeda but from us. They know when Americans figure this out, Americans are going to be way past livid and heads in Washington, DC, are going to roll and butts are going to prison.
In writing my book One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas, I not only analyzed 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq, defense spending, Homeland Security spending, flaws in national security, the intentional weakening of the U.S. dollar and use of terrorism to drive up the price of oil and gasoline, the absence of "rule of law" if Bush buddies or Clinton buddies were being bad actors, but I also investigated the talking heads they put before us to spin their web of lies.
In that effort we found a considerable number of serious conflicts of interest that should have barred eight of the 10 commissioners from ever being appointed to the 9-11 Omission Commission, but then had they been looking for the truth, each of them would have been directly undermining their own bottom lines and those of major corporations and firms they represent, or their precious little jobs.
Without further delay, let us take a look at those eight conflicted parties and you come to your own conclusions.
Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean (R)
Many do not remember that Henry Kissinger was originally slated to be the 9-11 Commission chairman until the public uproar gave cause to head a different way. One of the matters we have turned over to Eliot Spitzer's office is an evidence trail indicating that the insurance on the World Trade Center (WTC) was increased by 300 percent in June and July 2001 and one of the three U.S. named beneficiaries of that windfall is one Henry Kissinger according to the document trail uncovered by an attorney. That may or may not prove out in court, but it is odd that the name surfaces in a possible insurance scam on WTC and he also was the first choice to head the 9-11 Commission supposedly looking into the matter to find the truth.
Kean was appointed instead and he sits on the board of directors of Amerada Hess Oil, and that company is directly involved in the Caspian Basin and is directly benefiting by the Taliban and Bridas Corporation being removed as the last remaining obstacle to the TAP [Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline].
Also on that board are Nicholas F. Brady and Edith E. Holiday. Nicholas Brady is of course the former Secretary of the United States Treasury and chief architect of the Brady Bonds program, which has exposed itself over the years of being just a huge scam and blunt instrument to take assets and natural resources from smaller nations and put them into the hands of—guess who—the proponents of the Brady Bonds: the U.S. wealthy elite robber barons.
"The President today announced his intention to nominate Edith E. Holiday to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury. She would succeed Mark Sullivan III. February 2, 1989"
"Since 1988 Ms. Holiday has been an Assistant Secretary (Public Affairs and Public Liaison) of the Department of the Treasury and Counselor to the Secretary. Prior to this she was chief counsel and national financial and operations director for the Bush-Quayle '88 Presidential campaign and served as director of operations for George Bush for President. She was also special counsel for the Fund for America's Future and Executive Director for the Quadrennial Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries, 1984 - 1985. Ms. Holiday practiced law with the firm of Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, 1983 - 1984 and with the firm of Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, 1977 - 1983. She also served as legislative director for then-U.S. Senator Nicholas F. Brady."
Edith Holiday was later elevated to Secretary of the Cabinet in the George H. W. Bush administration. She also sits on the boards of White Mountains Insurance, and Heinz (which I found interesting). On the White Mountains board is another Amerada Hess board member, Frank A. Olson, and another from Citigroup, Arthur Zankel. It only took one ?Google? to find a gaggle that included WTC Larry Silverstein and Mr. Zankel.
We might even have a Walker—Bush relative buried on that board too: F. Borden Walker, former Mobil Oil, Fairfax County, Va., board and now with Amerada Hess. That nasty matter of bribes in Kazakhstan involving Mr. James H. Giffen did involve Mobil, as well as Texaco, Amoco and Phillips Petroleum.
Yes, Mr. Kean, Nicholas Brady, Ms. Holiday and F. Border Walker will all benefit by the removal of the Taliban and Bridas Corporation. Part II—Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble in part addresses the pipeline all of these people conspired to take over. They could not make billions from oil investments in Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and not have a way to get the landlocked oil and gas out. They had to have that pipeline across Afghanistan and the Taliban / Bridas Corporation were blocking the way. Chevron and Condoleezza Rice had to have been sitting in that boardroom down there, too, trying to figure out ways to get control of that pipeline so the oil and gas could get out.
Now they want a pipeline through Georgia and the Ukraine to the Black Sea too, so that is in part what the hubbub is over in Ukraine in regard to the U.S., Republican International, National Democratic Institute ["NDI"] and George Soros' efforts to control that election.
What Caspian ?doers? does Baker & Botts represent? BP Amoco, Unocal (Delta/Saudi), Amerada Hess (Delta/Saudi), PennzEnergy (now Devon Energy), Remington Holdings, Ltd / Western Acquisitions, Inc, LLC and LP that were lucky enough to get $130.75 million in financing from OPIC to acquire oil and gas reserves in Pakistan. This one smells "pay off" and all Americans have the right to know who Remington Holdings and Western Acquisitions, Inc, et al, are, since both are reported to be Washington, DC-based Baker & Botts clients.
"OPIC AGREES TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE OF PAKISTAN OIL AND GAS CONCESSIONS, 7/1/2002: The Overseas Private Investment Corporation and Western Acquisitions, Inc. entered into a finance agreement on April 9, 2002 whereby OPIC agreed to finance Western Acquisitions' purchase of nine oil and gas concessions being privatized by the Government of Pakistan. Collectively, these concessions contain nearly 50 oil and gas fields producing approximately 26,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day and 168 million cubic feet of gas per day. [Author's note: Western Acquisitions, LLC and LP in Washington, DC come up, no information as to who the owners are of the "Inc.," think "nesting doll arrangement." Might be another "9-11 suspect."]"
"Remington Holdings, Inc. Purchase oil and gas concessions $130,750,000 Finance, (Western Acquisitions, Inc.)
Baker, Kean, Amerada Hess, Caspian Basin, bribes in Kazakhstan, Nicholas Brady, Edith Holiday, had to have a pipeline and got really big deals cooking in Pakistan, too, that conveniently have not been disclosed publicly on a wide basis and that wayward pipeline that can get natural gas to Pakistan's electrical plants, too. Come to your own conclusion.
Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton (D)
Lee Hamilton was already on the Homeland Security Advisory Council and that alone made him suspect to me once one better understands that Homeland Security is all about protecting the DC government, not the United States of America, or you, or me. Lee Hamilton's weak link is he is the Director of the Wilson Center; that center is closely tied to Kissinger and that center is dependent on major contributors and Hamilton did not want to be removed from his job for daring to not play along. What is truth when resumes, or a job, or prestige are at stake?
A previous article I wrote addressed Mr. Jock Covey, formerly of Kosovo UN mission and now with Bechtel. Mr. Covey formerly worked with Kissinger and, of course, Bechtel is the type of company that entities like the Wilson Center rely upon. The money flow stops, the think-tank dies. Part VI will expose something about UNMIK (United Nations Mission in Kosovo) that has not been disclosed to Americans, and it happened on 9-11-2001.
"However, behind the scenes we have Phillip Zelikow, who co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice but we also have as "Deputy Executive Director? a former Lee Hamilton staffer while he was in Congress, Christopher Kojm. We can all sit back and breathe a deep sigh of relief that we will not get anything but Where's Waldo? from these two Bushmen, since the Executive Director Zelikow and his "deputy" are controlling what and who comes before the 9-11 Commission. They might be the real problem—the information that is seen and heard. Lee Hamilton does appear to me to be a man who wants the truth, but if I am right maybe he does not as bad as he thinks he does."
"[9-11 Commission biography] Christopher Kojm, Deputy Executive Director: Christopher Kojm served from 1998 until February, 2003 as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Policy and Coordination in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He served previously in the Congress on the staff of the House International Relations Committee, under Ranking Member Lee Hamilton as Deputy Director of the Democratic staff (1997-98), as Coordinator for Regional Issues (1993-1997) and under Chairman Hamilton on the Europe and Middle East subcommittee staff (1984-92)."
"[White House biography of Condoleeza Rice] Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow [Author's note: Executive Director of the 9-11 Commission and controlling what is and is not looked into.] She was a member of the board of directors for the Chevron Corporation."
"His name is Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the commission. Though he has no vote, the former Texas lawyer arguably has more sway than any member, including the chairman. Zelikow picks the areas of investigation, the briefing materials, the topics for hearings, the witnesses, and the lines of questioning for witnesses. He also picks which fights are worth fighting, legally, with the White House, and was involved in the latest round of capitulations—er, negotiations—over Rice's testimony. And the commissioners for the most part follow his recommendations. In effect, he sets the agenda and runs the investigation."
"The 9-11 Executive Director, acting as counsel and limiting what the Commission sees and hears to a great extent, is Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Council for Foreign Relations, an attorney from Texas, co-author with Condoleezza Rice of the book Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft, Rice hired him, they worked together, he was in the Bush I administration, he was on the Bush II transition team, yada, yada, yada. Shortly after 9-11 Bush appointed Zelikow to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, yada, yada, yada."
Fred Fielding (R)
"Fred Fielding is a board member of Committee for Justice along with M. Diane Allbaugh, an energy lobbyist (Texas) and wife of former Bush—Cheney 2000 Campaign Manager Joe Allbaugh; also part of the Bush 2000 Transition Team. Just before the Iraq invasion Mr. Allbaugh left as head of FEMA to set up Newbridge Strategies to represent those that wanted to ?get in? on the multi-billion rebuilding of Iraq. Supposedly FEMA had a team arrive in NYC on September 10, 2001 and were "first on scene." Neil Bush is a 4 hour per week, $60,000 a year advisor to Newbridge via Crest Investments, Houston, Texas."
"Also tightly tied to Newbridge Strategies is brother Neil Bush of Houston based Crest Investments who testified recently in his divorce proceedings that he gets paid $60,000 a year for doing about 4 hours a week of 'hard labor' for Newbridge Strategies, LLC. Of course, that is the same Neil Bush that managed to get out of going to prison over the Silverado S&L scam that did send its chairman to the federal penitentiary and a special Republican fund raiser was held to raise money to pay his way out of the fines levied upon him."
"[footnote] Mr. Bush said he was co-chairman of Crest Investment Corporation, a company based in Houston, Texas, that invests in energy and other ventures. For this he received $15,000 every three months for working an average three or four hours a week.
[footnote] In 1990, Bush paid a $50,000 fine and was banned from banking activities for his role in taking down Silverado, which actually cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. A Resolution Trust Corporation Suit against Bush and other officers of Silverado was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million. And the fine wasn't exactly paid by Neil Bush. A Republican fund-raiser set up a fund to help defer costs Neil incurred in his S&L dealings."
James R. Thompson (R)
James R. Thompson, chairman of Winston Strawn, lobbyist has direct ties to Van Scoyoc Associates and that firm represents many of the possible suspects and "highly motivated parties." James R. Thompson also sits on board of FMC, a firm directly benefiting from removal of Taliban / Bridas. Winston Strawn has possible legal problems in Nevada involving DOE deal according to several media reports and Senator Reid of that state.
"After Mayer Brown?s Richard Ben Veniste and Tim Roemer, there is former Illinois governor James R. Thompson, Commissioner.
"Illinois' longest-serving governor (1977-1991), is chairman of the law firm of Winston & Strawn, headquartered in Chicago."
The Mayer Brown lobbyist also represents Bechtel, Parsons Brinkerhoff and James R. Thompson?s law firm Winston Strawn does too and Van Scoyoc represents Bechtel. The overlaps are conflicts of interest when it comes to seeking the truth on 9-11.
FMC Corporation:
Jacques Cosmao, Director; Involved in carrying out the proposed TDA funded feasibility study of the Turkmenbashi oil terminal. FMC Coordination Center SA/NV, Avenue Louise 480 B 91050 Brussels, Belgium. (James R. Thompson sits on parent company board, has an oil and gas products subsidiary.)
Halliburton International, Inc.:
Oil field service contractor involved in Lamarg (Netherlands), Monument (Great Britain), and Petronas (Malaysia) operating in Turkmenistan; Mr. Roger Rion, CEO, P.O. Box 819052, Dallas, TX 75381-9052; Cecil Davidson, Country Manager, Mizan Business Center, Berzengi, Ashgabat 744000
Mayer, Brown & Platt:
Consulting with the Oil & Gas Ministry, Ashir Abdullayev, Attorney, Oil and Gas Ministry, 27 Bitarap Turkmenistan St., Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, 744000; Sergey A. Lomako, Attorney, 700 Louisiana St., Suite 3600, Houston, TX 77002-2730
Unocal Corporation (Unocal/Delta Alliance):
Wade Lundstrom, General Manager; J.R. Williams, Financial Comptroller; Tsalik Nayberg, Government Relations; Contract to explore, produce and export hydrocarbon reserves, Ashgabat Business Center, Ashgabat,"
"Thompson also sits on the board of Hollinger International, that recently disclosed 'House of Corruption'" led by Conrad Black, and also on that board was Richard Perle and Henry Kissinger.
"Hollinger International (publisher of the Chicago Sun-Times)"
[footnote] Globe and Mail, Report on Business, November 22, 2003 - Black involved in U.S. defence firm, Investor, director of controversial fund; By Paul Waldie: Conrad Black is personally involved in a controversial defence company headed by Richard Perle, a U.S. Department of Defence adviser and director of Hollinger International Inc., Hollinger disclosed yesterday in a securities filing.
Mr. Perle, who has been a strong advocate for war in Iraq, ran into controversy earlier this year over his role on the influential Defence Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon. News reports alleged he misused his position on the board to drum up business for New York-based Trireme and other ventures. Mr. Perle was also briefly retained by insolvent telecom giant Global Crossing Ltd. when it was trying to overcome resistance from the Defence Department for its planned sale to Asian interests. [Author?s note: more on this ?pimping of influence? in Chapters 12, 13, 14.]"
"Seems Winston & Strawn was having problems out in Nevada and at least one US Senator is mentioning the 'C' word, as in crime. Seems their lobbyist work in DC is directly for some major names that are directly profiting from the Bush-Cheney belligerent War Policy. Is the Bush quid pro quo to overlook Nevada and let us all go muck up the 9-11 investigations? What is the connection?"
"[footnote] December 03, 2001, Winston & Strawn still in Nevada's cross hairs; State's delegation may push for criminal charges: Nevada's congressional delegation may push for criminal charges against the law firm that last week quit work on the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain project. Conflict-of-interest allegations prompted Winston & Strawn last week to end the firm's relationship with the department, the firm said. It withdrew from its $16.5 million contract, but admitted no wrongdoing. The threat of criminal charges came from a separate federal investigation into whether someone at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission leaked a confidential document to Winston & Strawn, which may have leaked it to the DOE. 'I believe what they've done is illegal,' Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Saturday. 'I believe they may have committed crimes.'"
John F. Lehman (R)
John F. Lehman is head of a firm [J. F. Lehman & Company] that benefits from Bush-Cheney War Policy and involvement in private equity investments into defense and Homeland Security companies. His partners are all former Boeing, Martin Marietta and United Technologies
"John F. Lehman , Commissioner was Secretary of the Navy under the Reagan Administration when George H.W. Bush was vice president. Big defense spending was the name of the game back then and is again under Bush—Cheney."
"John Lehman is chairman of J.F. Lehman & Company, a private equity investment firm. Lehman was appointed Secretary of the Navy by President Reagan in 1981 and served until 1987. During his tenure as Secretary of the Navy, Lehman was responsible for building a 600 ship Navy, establishing a strategy of maritime supremacy, and reforming ship and aircraft procurement. He is also chairman of OAO Technology Solutions, director of Ball Corporation, Insurance Services Office, SDI Inc., Elgar Inc., and Racal Instruments, Inc.,"
"Racal Instruments also manufactures fiber optic telecom equipment and that colossal fraud named Global Crossing acquired Racal Communications during its "Fleece America" program - more on that matter in Chapters 12-14."
If I were the chairman of a 9-11 Truth Commission, Mr. Lehman would be answering questions for a long time regarding a takeover bid in Canada he was involved in.
Tim Roemer (D)
"Tim Roemer accepted campaign funds from Van Scoyoc Associates, a firm that represents SAIC, Advanced Power Systems Intl, Citigroup, Bechtel, Fluor, and Unocal. He also accepted funds from Carlyle Group, Chevron, Texaco and Citigroup, a bank that is leading many loan deals with OPIC guarantees. His former contributors, relationships, are benefiting by the removal of the Taliban and Bridas."
"We had Condoleezza Rice come before the 9-11 Commission on April 8, 2004 and I submit due to her prior relationships with Chevron and Texaco, a Chevron Supertanker named for her, and Chevron Texaco involved in the Caspian Oil & Gas escapade, Mr. Roemer would not be seeking the truth from Ms. Rice too aggressively. I hoped that I would be wrong, but I am drafting this on April 4, 2004 and that is the way I see what is coming. I will watch on April 8 and I fully expect to see a 'song and dance' routine that is more vaudeville and less 'truth centered' than America deserves. Even after watching on April 8, 2004, no change to this part of the chapter.
"We cannot have Mr. Roemer looking too close and see all of these Van Scoyoc Associates to be the 'Big War Pigs' and 'Big Oil Pigs' that they truly are, or start making inquiries as to who benefited from Bridas and the Taliban being beat to Hell and back on a 'business deal,' with B-52s, B-2 Stealth Bombers, armored forces, aircraft carriers, Special Forces, etc all over there to make way for that pipeline and that Colossal Caspian Oil & Gas Deal under Bush Buddy control, not Bridas Corporation and the Taliban.
"We cannot have Mr. Roemer cross-examining Mr. Richard Ben Veniste on who his firm represents in the Caspian Basin Excellent Adventure. Or his firm's role in jerking Bridas Corporation around for years while the 'military policy' was put into play or that his firm represents Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan or that Pakistan electric power plant that was at one time owned by a US energy company. Or focus on that natural gas fired plant in Pakistan, since so many were focused only on Enron and the Enron end of that pipeline at Dabhol, India."
With Mr. Roemer being the new president of a venerable Washington, DC, think-tank, Center for National Policy, funding could dry up and turn that into a dinosaur if he solved 9-11 with incisive questions and fact finding, no one should have expected much from Mr. Roemer once a person accepts that "both sides of the aisle" are in on this 9-11 cover-up. ("In October 2003, Timothy J. Roemer was named president of CNP.") John Kerry just proved that in rolling over for the elections with proof of voter fraud surfacing in many states.
Richard Ben Veniste (D)
Richard Ben Veniste, Senior Partner Mayer Brown, Rowe & Maw should have never been appointed to the 9-11 Commission except to cover up Bridas and Caspian related matters. The fingerprints of his law firm are all over Pakistan and the Caspian deals, and even a blunt instrument to keep Bridas tied up while they were going to be breached with military force. He was just waiting on 9-11 and hoping no one figures out the role his firm is playing on all sides of the deal.
What Caspian ?doers? does Mayer Brown represent? Enron, Uzbekistan natural gas deals, Uzbekistan government, Shurtan II and when the deal was announced there was a sudden surge in "terrorism" that might have been "outrage," Kazakhstan government, BP (Amoco), Pakistan, Turkmenneft (in the matter of Bridas Corporation v. Turkmenneft, 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, Case 03-1018, denied the Turkmenneft writ of certiorari to overturn 5th Circuit, and all while Mr. Ben Veniste was sitting on the 9-11 Commission playing Where's Waldo?)
"Shurtan II/Uzbekistan: Represented ABNAMRO Bank, as arranger, in a project financing of the Shurtan II compressor station for Uzbekneftagaz, supported by Export-Import Bank of the United States and IFTRIC of Israel" (and Bank Hapaolim of Israel too).
Who represented Turkmenistan / Turkmenneft to keep Bridas tied up in court? Correct answer is: Mayer Brown, Rowe & Maw, during same time they are lining up deals in the Caspian and clients. Of course, if one did not know to look for SAPIC down at 5th Circuit, they would not know to look for Bridas Corporation. We all need to keep our eyes on Prisma Energy International (the post-bankruptcy Enron, now Cayman Islands domiciled) and the Caspian Basin and those pipelines.
No, we couldn't have Mr. Ben Veniste looking too close at Pakistan or bringing up Bridas Corporation and tipping his hand on how much in future fees his law firm has lined up in the Caspian Basin. Might be in the tens or hundreds of billions over the next 30 years or so. Got all of those senior partners at the hog trough so let us all make sure they stay there.
Jamie Gorelick (D)
Jamie Gorelick sits on the boards of two companies directly benefiting from Bush-Cheney policy, one oil related (Schlumberger), one defense related (United Technologies), not to mention her prior position as general counsel of the Department of Defense while the Bridas "mugging" was in progress in two countries—Pakistan and Turkmenistan. Christine Todd Whitman, former Bush EPA head, sits on the United Technologies board too. What environmental policy?
After being [s]elected president, Bush found ?friend? Victor Ashe a cushy job at Fannie Mae, and that agency is now under investigation by the SEC for some serious wrongdoing. Of course, 9-11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick was also on that board during the period of time that the SEC was investigating. When news got out that people were digging into a 1984 Chattanooga matter and seeking Victor Ashe, Bush appointed him ambassador to Poland so he would be too busy with our GWOT buddies over in Poland to talk to the media.
"I thought maybe Jamie S. Gorelick, Commissioner was a go-getter until I saw the Big War Pig and Big Oil Pig boards she sits on and her former role as general counsel for the Department of Defense, and they are certainly 100 percent behind the Bush-Cheney Ball Busting Foreign Policy.
"From May 1993 until she joined the Justice Department, Gorelick served as general counsel of the Department of Defense."
"She also serves on several boards, including the Fannie Mae Foundation, United Technologies Corporation, Schlumberger, Limited, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Harvard College Board of Overseers, America's Promise, the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, and The National Park Foundation, and currently serves on the Central Intelligence Agency's National Security Advisory Panel as well as the President's Review of Intelligence.
"Since it is this particular CIA committee and Richard Clarke that everyone wants to point the finger of blame towards, I am not sure how this person got on the 9-11 Commission to "investigate itself" as it pertains to the CIA. Hmmm, Gorelick was General Counsel of DoD while the Bridas mugging in Texas (and Turkmenistan and Pakistan) was in progress. How interesting. Maybe we should look for her legal opinion on 'breach of contract with military force' since Bridas won in the US Courts its interference of contract claims against Unocal and Turkmenneft. Took years, but the truth prevailed.
"Schlumberger just started reporting in the third quarter of 2004, about the same time the 9-11 Commission was signing off and making its recommendations to Congress, that it is in fact doing work in Kazakhstan and doing quite well with a 'significant surge in revenues due to Caspian Basin related work.' Now, why did they apparently keep that quiet during the entire time of the 9-11 Commission hearings? Also note that Chevron (with Condoleezza ties) stayed mum about their efforts in the Caspian for the most part. We cannot have Big Oil Pigs thumping their chests too much while the investigations are in progress and American soldiers are dying for lies and being told they are going to be over there a long time protecting this Bush Oil Legacy.
"It also came up during John Ashcroft's testimony before the 9-11 Commission that Ms. Gorelick was involved in a memorandum or opinion regarding 'domestic wire taps' and 'foreign intelligence wire taps' under FISA [Foreign Intelligence Security Act] that blocked FBI agents from even sharing information together, or something to that effect. Just sounds like another reason she should be on the other side of the table rather than sitting on the 9-11 Commission."
Of course, Fannie Mae is now disclosing that their 3rd quarter losses could run as high as $9 billion. The way Old Wastrel George blasts through our taxpayer money and keeps piling up the debt at record levels, what's a mere 9 billion bucks to our president that has not a clue what "stewardship" means?
Have you heard about FBI Translator Sibel D. Edmonds and efforts to silence her? The White House and Ashcroft have been working overtime to shut her up. Her translations did not expose 9-11 and use of planes. It exposed drug trafficking and money laundering, foreign names and American names—pre-9-11 funding.
Stop and THINK! What does "How they paid for 9-11" have to do with National Security, other than WHO DID IT?
Please sign the Justicefor9-11.org petition if you too demand the truth and justice regarding September 11, 2001. There is much truth to be found and we have a National Capitol that is full of people that have an aversion to the truth. It is time that we as American Citizens get to the bottom of what they fear so much and why they fear the truth.
It is time for all Americans to wake up. They are not there for "what is good for America"; they are doing what they do as "what is good for DC" and them personally, including their wealthy contributors who could not care an iota about justice with so many trillions in oil and gas deals to conquer.
Karl W. B. Schwarz lives in Little Rock, AR and is the author of "One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas, a Conservative Republican Speaks Out." He is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC and I-nets Security Systems, a designer of intelligence and communications UAV systems. You can email him here.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120404Schwarz
---------------------------
Pahrump Valley Times
December 3, 2004
State officials find a new way to attack Yucca
By Steve Tetreault
PVT Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Attorneys for the state of Nevada say they have found another arrow to shoot at the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
State officials are focusing on an Energy Department decision this summer to delete structural supports for the repository's underground tunnels from a list of features requiring the strictest quality assurance controls.
The supports consist of rock bolts and steel beams that hold up repository walls and ceilings and add a layer of protection for canisters of highly radioactive spent fuel that would be stored within the tunnels.
DOE officials removed the tunnel supports from a "Q list" of Yucca systems that are considered important to prevent radiation from escaping the mountain and entering the environment.
Because they deal with deadly radiation, systems on the "Q list" also require the most stringent quality assurance rules, including pain-staking documentation and detailed reviews.
Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said DOE "is obviously trying to minimize the number of areas that QA has a role to play. I don't think they can fully comply with QA requirements so they are trying to eliminate them."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Government Accountability Office have criticized the rigor of the Yucca Mountain quality assurance in reports this year, prompting DOE and contractor managers to increase their attention to that program.
Allen Benson, an Energy Department spokesman, said in an email the tunnel supports are not on the Q list "because other engineered systems provide for radiological protection."
DOE plans to install titanium drip shields over waste canisters within the tunnels and to store the radioactive material in special alloy containers scientists believe will be corrosion-resistant.
While not on the Q list, Benson said the tunnel supports fall under an "Augmented Quality Assurance Program. AQAP is a robust quality assurance program that addresses the same general areas as our nuclear safety QA program."
Joe Egan, a Virginia attorney who leads a legal team challenging the Yucca Mountain Project for Nevada, charged DOE "is cutting corners one more time."
Egan said Nevada will file a formal contention on the tunnel supports during repository license hearings.
"They are making an incorrect determination that the tunnel supports are not important to safety, and we don't believe that is the case," Egan said.
Falling debris will cause canister cracking and will accelerate corrosion that will ultimately allow radionuclides to escape, he said.
"Even an earthquake that doesn't bust up the zone is going to shake free the rock," Egan said.
Rock-clogged tunnels also could prevent the government from retrieving nuclear waste, Egan said. DOE is required to be able to pull out waste for a period of 300 years before the repository is sealed, he said.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
December 3, 2004
Reid now the face of Senate Democrats
Doug Abrahms
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Harry Reid showed his mastery of Senate procedure this past week by pushing his staff member onto the Nuclear Regulatory Commission´s board despite opposition by both the White House and many Senate Republicans.
Reid will need that kind of political skill when he takes over in January as leader of the Senate Democrats. He will be put in a precarious political position — his predecessor lost re-election — as head of a party that lost four Senate seats Nov. 2 and has less clout in a government dominated by Republicans.
But Reid, just re-elected to a fourth six-year term, said he can continue to work with Republican lawmakers and for Nevada constituents on many issues.
“We´re ready to work with the majority, but we´re not going to be pushed around,’ said Reid, a one-time amateur boxer. “We have to make sure we have to pick fights we can win.’
The party is struggling with its direction after November´s election losses and can use a leader like Reid who is moderate and not considering a run for president, said Eric Herzik, a Republican and political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno.
“Reid can give the Democrats some breathing space while they figure out what their message is to the rest of the country,’ Herzik said. “I think he´s the right guy for the Democratic Party at this time. He knows how to play this game behind the scenes.’
The NRC board appointment is one example of the way Reid plays the game.
Reid held up approval for 175 Bush administration nominees for federal positions until his staff adviser Gregory Jaczko, who has a doctorate in physics, was given a temporary seat on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The commission will soon start reviewing the application to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, which Reid opposes.
“Reid is really one of the people that understands how the process works,’ said Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University who specializes in Congress. “Although his manner is low key and deferential, he´s a tough character and a hard bargainer.’
Party´s face
Reid will become one of the main faces of the Democratic Party when he takes over in January from Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.
That can be politically dangerous when your party is out of power. Daschle lost re-election in South Dakota to John Thune, a Republican strongly backed by the White House.
Daschle was labeled an obstructionist by Republicans. And he was forced to take positions in support of Senate Democrats that sometimes conflicted with interests of South Dakotans, said University of South Dakota political science professor Bill Richardson.
“I think what happened to Tom Daschle is a cautionary tale to Sen. Reid,’ Richardson said.
“(Senate Democrats) are not supposed to be a rubber stamp, but given the acute partisanship that´s going on now and the inevitable hostilities between the parties that will play itself out in the Senate … I think Senator Reid is in for some really nasty fights,’ he said.
Like Daschle, Reid is more liberal than most voters he represents, Herzik said.
But unlike Daschle, Reid cruised through his re-election this month with 61 percent of the vote — by far the largest margin of victory in his four Senate races.
Reid has shown balance in environmental issues, for example, because he is able to maintain support of environmentalists while also helping the mining industry, Herzik said.
Impact on Nevada
Reid doesn´t expect his new position to significantly change work on Nevada issues. He plans to continue to oppose Yucca Mountain, and will fight to bring federal money to Lake Tahoe and slow the increase in royalty fees mining companies pay the federal government.
Nevada first-term U.S. Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, said Reid´s elevation to minority leader can only help the Silver State.
“My experience with Sen. Reid is if you have the right relationship with him, you can get things done,’ he said. “In the past, when he´s given me his word, he´s kept his word.’
Reid has spent nearly all his adult life in Nevada politics, starting as a city attorney in Henderson and becoming the state´s youngest lieutenant governor at 30. He has been representing Nevada in Congress and then in the Senate since 1983.
For the past six years, he has been the party´s No. 2 leader in the Senate. As minority whip, his job was to round up votes for legislation.
Whether that behind-the-scenes expertise will make him a good front man for the Democrats remains to be seen, Ensign said.
Democrats´ agenda
Senate Republicans will be bolder next year because they will have 55 votes instead of 51, but they still lack the 60 votes needed to end debate on legislation, Ensign said.
Reid isn´t specifying which issues Senate Democrats plan to highlight next year, noting that the agenda in Washington will be set by Republicans, who control the White House and both houses of Congress.
He said the Bush administration will have to confront several problems it has created, including:
o A huge budget deficit,
o More funding to implement Bush´s No Child Left Behind Act education reform law, and
o The war in Iraq.
U.S. troops will have to remain in Iraq for years, said Reid, who voted for the resolution to give Bush authority to invade Iraq.
“I voted to go into Iraq. The problem is the plan was faulty,’ Reid said. “But I think we have to stay there and win.’
Senate Democrats must do a better job defining who they represent, Reid said, as well as getting their message across.
For example, despite approving 206 federal judges and blocking only 10, Senate Democrats were labeled obstructionists, Reid said.
“One of the myths out there is Democrats have held up the president´s judges,’ Reid said. “We haven´t done that.’
“I don´t think (Democrats) need to change,’ he said. “I think we need to project who we are better.’
---------------------------
MSNBC
December 03, 2004
What's Next For Yucca MountainKVBC-TVLas VegasUSA - It appears the Yucca Mountain project may be in dispute for several more years. This, after one group says it won't take their argument to the U.S. Supreme Court. News 3's Mitch Truswell explains what's changed and what's next.
There are some who think opponents of Yucca Mountain got an early holiday gift. The Nuclear Energy Institute, that's a lobbying group for the nuclear power industry, said it will not ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a lower court's decision. That puts the Department of Energy's plan to submit a license application next month to store nuclear waste in jeopardy. It also could jeopardize the plan to open the repository in 2010.
The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year the 10,000 year safety standard, used by the Department of Energy in planning the Yucca Mountain project was not long enough to protect the public health. So, according to Nevada's office for nuclear projects, which is fighting the Yucca project, there are two things that could happen now:
First, congress could re-write the law, claiming the 10,000 year standard is safe for the public. Some see that as a long shot and a risky, politically. It's more likely the Environmental Protection Agency will come up with a new safety standard for storing waste inside Yucca Mountain. Will it be safe for 50,000 years -- 300-thousand years?
Only when that question is answered can the application to store nuclear waste inside Yucca go to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It's a slow process. The research, writing and public commenting on any new health standard could take up to 5 years -- or longer.The Nuclear Energy Institute decided not to appeal their case to the Supreme Court after realizing it was unlikely the court would agree to even hear the case.
---------------------------
Las Vegas SUN
December 02, 2004
Weaker nuke cleanup standards to be proposed
By Benjamin Grove
<grove@lasvegassun.com>
Sun Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Homeland Security Department plans to recommend weaker cleanup standards in the event of a nuclear "dirty bomb," a coalition of environmental groups said today.
The department is preparing to unveil new recommendations that would "dramatically weaken requirements for cleaning up radioactive contamination from a terrorist radiological or nuclear explosive," the groups said.
More than 50 activist groups signed a letter sent to the department, urging the agency not to move to weaken clean-up standards. The groups include the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
At issue is a department "guidance" aimed at federal and state agencies that would be responsible for cleanups. The document also is expected to recommend an increase in the level of radiation considered safe for emergency response workers.
The guidance document is the result of long deliberation by agencies including Homeland Security, the Energy Department, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The guidance proposes standards that are up to 2,500 times less protective than the risk levels considered by the EPA as acceptable for cleanup at radioactive sites, the groups said. The guidance would permit ongoing contamination levels after cleanup equal to tens of thousands of chest X-rays over 30 years, increasing latent cancer rates, the groups said.
"By permitting such high radiation levels to remain without cleanup, Homeland Security would actually be increasing the casualty count," said Diane D'Arrigo, radioactive waste project director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
Homeland Security Department spokesman Don Jacks today said he could not respond to those charges. The guidelines were based on 1980s guidelines for nuclear power plant accident cleanups, he said.
The guidelines were set for a possible mid-December release, but Jacks didn't know if that schedule would be kept. After internal approvals, the guidelines would be published in the federal register and subject to public comment.
In a separate letter, the groups urged the EPA not to adopt new cleanup standards based on the new guidance that are significantly weaker than EPA's current standards.
Response agencies would not be bound by the guidance document, which would not be a law or regulation. But "it will have great weight," especially because it will set a precedent for easing radiation standards at other sites -- including Yucca Mountain, said Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a leader of the activist groups.
"It's clearly an effort by nuclear agencies to relax clean-up requirements more broadly," Hirsch said. "This is the first salvo in that effort."
Radiation safety standards are a critical issue facing the Energy Department's proposed Yucca project. The project suffered a setback this year when a federal court threw out an EPA radiation standard for being weaker than standards recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.
Nevada officials have long argued that the federal plan to ship high-level nuclear waste to Nevada for storage in the proposed waste repository could invite a terrorist attack.
---------------------------
Guardian
December 03, 2004
Planned Cleanup for Dirty Bombs Called Lax
H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Standards for cleanup after a ``dirty bomb'' terrorist attack would permit long-term radiation levels that pose cancer risks many times greater than those acceptable at Superfund sites, nuclear waste dumps and commercial reactors, according to a draft of a government proposal.
The Homeland Security Department is expected to issue the proposed guidelines, which have been developed over the last two years, within a few weeks, probably before the end of the year. They would become final after a 60-day comment period.
The draft acknowledges that the consequences from a dirty bomb, a device that spreads radioactive material using conventional explosives, ``may range from a very small, localized area ... to conceivably many square miles.''
And it says that if there is widespread contamination from a dirty bomb or an ``improvised nuclear device'' - where there actually would be a crude nuclear detonation - areas may have to be put off limits permanently.
In such cases ``existing land uses may not be practicable,'' the document says.
As a result, the interagency task force developing the guidelines decided against issuing specific numerical radiation levels to guide long-term cleanup goals, although an earlier draft written last year contained specific allowable radiation levels proposed by different agencies.
The latest version says cleanup efforts should be guided by radiation benchmarks established by various advisory groups, such as the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and the Health Physics Society, as well as federal agencies.
``They basically punted,'' said Daniel Hirsch, head of an anti-nuclear advocacy group, Committee to Bridge the Gap.
Hirsch said the ICRP benchmark would allow long-term levels of radiation from 100 millirems to as much as 10,000 millirems, a level equivalent to as many as 50,000 chest X-rays over a 30-year period.
The benchmark levels from the Health Physics Society would allow an area to continue to emit 100 millirems to 500 millirems per year, the equivalent of as many as 2,500 chest X-rays over 30 years.
A 500 millirems-per-year radiation exposure is estimated to produce about 1 additional cancer for every 80 people exposed, according to government cancer-risk calculations, said Diane D'Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nuclear industry watchdog group.
By comparison, the Environmental Protection Agency requires cleanup standards at Superfund toxic waste to assure an additional cancer risk no greater than 1 in 10,000 people exposed, said D'Arrigo. The government plans to limit the maximum radiation exposure to the public at the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site to no more than 15 millirems per year.
A typical chest X-ray exposes a person to 6 millirems. Normal background radiation is about 300 millirems per year.
The draft says the guidelines are ``not intended to define `safe' or `unsafe' levels of exposure or contamination'' but represent ``the approximate levels at which the associated protective actions are justified.''
The contents of the so-called ``interim final'' draft document were first reported by an independent newsletter, Inside EPA. Copies of the draft, as well as an earlier version dated July 18, 2003, were obtained and provided Thursday by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
Don Jacks, a spokesman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said he could not comment on the contents of the draft. He said the document could still change as it goes through the final approval process at FEMA, the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Homeland Security Department and after the planned public comment period.
``Trying to interpret (the guidelines) now is way ahead of the curve,'' said Jacks.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------