Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Javad Zarif listens today as the U.N. Security Council votes to demand a halt to Iranian uranium enrichment activities (Timothy Clary/Getty Images). U.N. Demands That Iran Suspend Nuclear Work by Aug. 31 The U.N. Security Council today passed a resolution that would give Iran until Aug. 31 to halt uranium enrichment, or potentially face international sanctions, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, July 28). The resolution makes suspension of all enrichment-related activities mandatory and calls on member states “to exercise vigilance” in preventing WMD-related technology transfers to Iran. ..Full Story

Engineered Microbes Pose New Bioterror Threat Rapid advances in microbe engineering that could new biological weapons are outstripping U.S. efforts to prevent bioterrorism, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, June 29, 2005)...Full Story

Pakistan Says New Reactor Will Not Spark Arms Race Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri said Friday that construction of a large heavy-water nuclear reactor would not cause an arms race with neighboring India, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, July 28)...Full Story

	Monday, July 31, 2006

Prewar Iraq Intelligence Report Delayed A congressional investigation into U.S. intelligence on prewar Iraq might not be completed until after November elections, the Washington Post reported yesterday (see GSN, June 30). The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has yet to complete the work, even though Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said the document was nearly finished nine months ago. Committee sources, however, said work on the report largely began in November after Democrats protested the slow pace of the investigation. Two of its five sections are ready for a panel vote, according to staffers The delay in part is the result of Roberts’ desire to allow members to contribute, said spokeswoman Sarah Ross Little. She the two completed sections would be made public “when they are approved by the committee and have been declassified,” ahead of the other three still in progress. The section Democrats are most concerned about examines the administration’s considerations of prewar intelligence, as well as officials’ public characterizations of that evidence. It is not yet in draft form and might not be released until after November elections, staffers said. The first part of the committee’s report was issued in 2004, the Post reported. That investigation found that U.S. intelligence had overestimated prewar Iraq’s weapons arsenal. The second phase is now expected to focus on the White House use of intelligence and public statements about the threat. Staff members said the portion of the inquiry on the Pentagon’s Special Plans Office, which stopped cooperating with the Senate panel last year, is on hold pending a separate investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general (Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, July 30). Back to top

U.N. Demands That Iran Suspend Nuclear Work by Aug. 31 The U.N. Security Council today passed a resolution that would give Iran until Aug. 31 to halt uranium enrichment, or potentially face international sanctions, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, July 28). The resolution makes suspension of all enrichment-related activities mandatory and calls on member states “to exercise vigilance” in preventing WMD-related technology transfers to Iran.  It requests a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency by Aug. 31 on Iran’s compliance, AP reported. China and Russia resisted language in earlier drafts, in which Iran’s noncompliance would immediately have triggered sanctions. The adopted version requires additional discussions to impose sanctions, according to AP. The draft passed by a vote of 14-1, with Qatar casting the only dissenting vote. “We do not agree with the tabling of this resolution at a time when our region is in flames,” said Qatar’s ambassador, Nassir Al-Nasser said. “We see no harm in waiting for a few days to exhaust all possible means and in order to identify the real intentions of Iran.” Iran quickly blasted the resolution. “All along it has been the persistence of some to draw arbitrary red lines and deadlines that has closed the door to any compromise,” said Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif. “This tendency has single-handedly blocked success and in most cases killed proposals in their infancy” (Nick Wadhams, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 31). U.S. officials have said Washington would “forcefully” push for sanctions if Tehran does not comply, Agence France-Presse reported today. “I think the Iranians are cornered,” U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said yesterday. “What they specifically thought was that they could divide China and Russia, on the one hand, from the United States and Europe on the other, and that’s not happened,” he said. Burns said he believed Iran was “surprised” that Beijing and Moscow have not broken from the Western powers on the issue. “This is going to be a significant blow to them,” he told Fox News. Asked about potential sanctions, Burns said: “Obviously, we’re going to have to focus on the nuclear industry and try to cut off dual-use exports, exports of technologies that can help them further their enrichment and reprocessing activities.” “We certainly would like to inhibit the ability of Iranians to travel, Iranian government officials, or for people to profit from our scientific and technological expertise,” he said (Tim Witcher, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 31). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday that hostilities in Lebanon have pushed Iran to reconsider the world powers’ nuclear incentives offer to his country, the Associated Press reported. “Events in Lebanon affected our evaluations about … (the) package of incentives. We should review it carefully.  I have asked my colleagues to review it more carefully,” he said. However, Iran’s Foreign Ministry warned that the package would be rejected if the Security Council approved the pending resolution. “If any resolution is issued against Iran tomorrow, the package would be left off the agenda by Iran,” spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said yesterday. “We will definitely revise our nuclear policy” (Nasser Karimi, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, July 31). An Iranian state radio commentary Saturday said Tehran would reject the resolution’s Aug. 31 enrichment freeze deadline, AP reported. “Iranians will not accept unfair decisions, even in the framework of resolutions by the international bodies,” state radio announced (Nasser Karimi, Associated Press III/Yahoo!News, July 30). Back to top       Pakistan Says New Reactor Will Not Spark Arms Race Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri said Friday that construction of a large heavy-water nuclear reactor would not cause an arms race with neighboring India, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, July 28). “It’s nothing new, the world knows about it, the world knows that it’s safe in our hands,” Kasuri said. “It’s five years old, if it had caused an arms race that was five years ago, not today,” he added. Kasuri would not comment on whether the plant would produce nuclear weapons material, but said Islamabad would honor international regulations (Agence France-Presse/Middle East Times, July 29). Meanwhile, experts said Pakistan’s evolving nuclear capability would soon put every city in India within striking distance, the London Sunday Times reported. Former Pakistani Defense Minister Talat Masood said this weekend that the development was the result of a “secret arms race” between India and China. He said India’s attempts to keep pace with China’s nuclear development pushed Pakistan to increase its own capability. “It means self-reliance for Pakistan, which is now more important because the United States is favoring India (in nuclear cooperation),” he said. “It means we can make smaller [plutonium] weapons which are easier to fire at longer range.” Such weapons would give Pakistan a “second strike” capability, according to AFP. Anupam Shrivastava, director of the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, said: “Unlike Pakistan, India has a no first strike policy. It completely changes India’s military planning because having plutonium gives Pakistan the option of deploying from land, sea or air.” “For Pakistan it’s a quantum leap. It gives them options to target all of India,” he added (Dean Nelson, The Sunday Times, July 30). Back to top       Greater Isolation Foreseen for North Korea Analysts said that North Korea has alienated even China and South Korea after failing to attend a regional security meeting at last week’s Association of Southeast Asian Nations forum, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, July 28). “China and South Korea, two key sympathizers of North Korea, are joining the U.S.-led front to the communist regime’s disadvantage,” said Kim Sung-han, a professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security in Seoul. “Since the missile tests, the United States has successfully formed a united front of the other five countries against North Korea,” he said. “The U.S. strategy will be to manage and maintain the five-to-one structure as long as possible. North Korea will not return to [nuclear] talks as long as it carries on,” he added. “The six-way talks will be drifting for a long period of time,” said Nam Sung-wook, a professor and North Korea expert at Korea University in Seoul. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington was willing to meet with North Korean officials “at any time, at any place and without any conditions” under the six-country framework. Japanese officials said North Korea was considering quitting the association (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 30). Meanwhile, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) criticized the Bush administration on Saturday for failing to resolve the standoff, the Yonhap News Agency reported. Richardson, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration, said the Democratic Party backs bilateral talks with Pyongyang (Yonhap News Agency, July 30). Back to top       U.S. Lawmakers Question Nuclear Lab Spending U.S. lawmakers are looking to kill a $1 billion facility being built at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico that would be obsolete eight years after it opened, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 9, 2005). “It is stupid to put money into a limited-life thing like this,” said House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee Chairman David Hobson (R-Ohio). “We are resisting spending that money.” Such complaints about the U.S. nuclear weapons research and production system have become increasingly commonplace, the Times reported. Over the last 10 years, the government has doled out more than $65 billion for the nuclear complex. Observers agree that the U.S. arsenal is ready for war, but secure from accidents or terrorists. Congressional Democrats and Republicans, along with independent analysts, however, are wary about what they refer to as shoddy management by the National Nuclear Security Administration. They note errors and excess spending on an X-ray machine at Los Alamos and a laser at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. “It has been one problem after another,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas). “The current administrator should be fired.” Agency chief Linton Brooks feels otherwise, calling NNSA maintenance of older nuclear weapons “a rousing success.” The additional spending on nuclear weapons is needed since the U.S. ceased underground nuclear testing in 1992, weapons scientists say. Upholding the reliability of the bombs, also known as “stockpile stewardship,” calls for expensive and substantial scientific work. The X-ray and laser ultimately will prove their scientific value, according to laboratory officials. They argue that the holdup with these projects are part of the process of conducting challenging and advanced research. NNSA nuclear weapons chief Thomas D’Agostino said the problems stem from the past, and that the agency is now better managing activities including the dismantlement of surplus nuclear weapons and the overhaul of existing weapons. The agency’s technical problems were coupled with other basic failures, the Times reported. The Government Accountability Office and the Energy Department inspector general found management problems, flaws in financial control and internal security problems. Critics within Congress said the agency does not have a realistic agenda. It wants to maintain the high-cost stockpile stewardship program and to build new facilities to revive new weapons production. “I do not believe we have the proper approach,” said Representative Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Energy Department. “It is not my job to maximize spending on this program.” The subcommittee voted earlier this year to eliminate the Los Alamos plutonium research site. The full House concurred.  The Senate, while expressing misgivings, supports funding the effort. Expected to be completed by 2017, the cost of the facility is high because it requires specialized security to keep the plutonium safe from potential terrorists. The facility’s plutonium research role would end by 2024 when the nation is supposed to store the material in a centralized facility for enhanced security. The $1 billion investment would still be valuable because the laboratory would continue to research chemistry and metallurgy after the plutonium is transferred. “I am a strong believer in maintaining a nuclear deterrent,” said Bob Peurifoy, a retired vice president at Sandia National Laboratories who pioneered the security systems that prevented unauthorized use of nuclear bombs. “But I would like to have some integrity within the labs and management. They’ll do anything for a buck” (Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times, July 30). Back to top       Dems Seek Probe on India Sanctions Report Timing Democratic lawmakers have asked for a formal inquiry on delay by the State Department on informing Congress about sanctions filed against two Indian companies accused of illicit missile-related sales to Iran, Reuters reported (see GSN, July 28). Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and two other representatives Friday asked the department’s inspector general to determine if the report was held until after the House of Representatives voted on legislation needed to implement a civilian nuclear agreement with India. “Not only did the State Department have a legal responsibility to deliver this report to Congress, they have a responsibility to the American people not to play games when it comes to national security,” Tauscher said in a statement. “We must get to the bottom of this issue and see whether or not the State Department manipulated a crucial national security measure before the United States Congress,” she said (Reuters, July 29). Back to top       Russia to Field New Missile Submarine A new Russian nuclear missile submarine is scheduled to undergo sea trials next year, United Press International reported Saturday (see GSN, July 3). The Borey-class submarine Yury Dolgoruky is to be equipped with the Bulava ballistic missile, adapted from the Topol-M. It is being built at the Sevmash plant in the northern Arkhangelsk Region, according to RIA Novosti. A fourth-generation submarine armed with Bulava missiles would be the center of an updated Russian submarine fleet, President Vladimir Putin said earlier this year (United Press International, July 29). Back to top

Engineered Microbes Pose New Bioterror Threat Rapid advances in microbe engineering that could new biological weapons are outstripping U.S. efforts to prevent bioterrorism, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, June 29, 2005). Diseases could be overcome and lives saved through new technologies now under study in hundreds of laboratories around the world. However, they also could be used to increase the lethality of pathogens or restore early strains such as the 1918 influenza. The technologies could also be used to improve ways to widely deliver disease agents. “The biological weapons threat is multiplying and will do so regardless of the countermeasures we try to take,” said Steven Block, a Stanford University biophysicist and former president of the Biophysical Society. “You can’t stop it, any more than you can stop the progress of mankind. You just have to hope that your collective brainpower can muster more resources than your adversaries’.” The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to date has not moved to monitor the expanding gene-synthesis industry. The supervision of controversial experiments is voluntary and irregular at universities and private laboratories in the United States, and even more rare internationally, the Post reported. Conventional biodefense practices such as stockpiling antibiotics or controlling strains of known fatal diseases are still important, but more efforts are necessary, bioterrorism experts said. “There’s a name for fixed defenses that can easily be outflanked: They are called Maginot lines,” said molecular biologist Roger Brent, a former biodefense adviser to the Defense Department.  “By themselves, stockpiled defenses against specific threats will be no more effective to the defense of the United States than the Maginot line was to the defense of France in 1940.” The development of biotechnology has been compared to the start of the nuclear age. Analysts, however, noted important differences. Rather than seeing a U.S. monopoly on such advances, there are dozens of nations conducting this work, the Post reported. No treaty or oversight agency exists to prevent abuse of this work, and biological secrets can be obtained for free over the Internet, said Robert Erwin, a geneticist and founder of Large Scale Biology Corp “It’s too cheap, it’s too fast, there are too many people who know too much, and it’s too late to stop it,” Erwin said at a recent forum in Washington. The threat comes not only from exotic diseases. Modifications to harmless bacteria that enter a body could change normal functions such as immunity or hormone production, according to “Biotechnology: Impact on Biological Warfare and Biodefense” a report authored by three biodefense experts with the Defense Intelligence Agency. There have been no recorded bioterrorism incidents involving engineered microbes, though experiments on genetically altered strains occurred late in the Cold War in the Soviet Union. Some experts say terrorists are still more likely to use ordinary germs that could produce the same deadly effect. “The capability of terrorists to embark on this path in the near- to mid-term is judged to be low,” Charles Allen, chief intelligence officer for the Homeland Security Department, told the House Homeland Security Committee on May 4. “Just because the technology is available doesn’t mean terrorists can or will use it.” More dangerous perhaps is a “lone wolf” scientist or biological hacker — working alone or in a small group — motivated by ideology or personal issues, Allen said. “All it would take for advanced bioweapons development is one skilled scientist and modest equipment — an activity we are unlikely to detect in advance,” he said. The U.S. federal “Select Agent” rule restricts access to select deadly bacteria, viruses and toxins. However, there are few CDC restrictions on transfers of synthetic genes that could be made into lethal bioterrorism agents, according to the Post. Modifications are being considered, but the lapse is an example of technology growing beyond law and policy. “It would be possible — fully legal — for a person to produce full-length 1918 influenza virus or Ebola virus genomes, along with kits containing detailed procedures and all other materials for reconstitution,” said Richard Ebright, a Rutgers University biochemist and bioterrorism expert. “It is also possible to advertise and to sell the product, in the United States or overseas.” Some scientists favor more oversight, or even peer review to impede the accidental or deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. The National Institutes of Health has set guidelines to commission volunteer institutional biosafety committees for federally funded schools and private laboratories. A 2004 National Academy of Sciences report urged the committees to expand their oversight efforts of research that could produce more lethal biological agents, the Post reported (see GSN, Sept. 10, 2004). In many cases, the committees are only theoretical bodies. The nonprofit Sunshine Project in 2004 requested meeting minutes or notes evaluating research projects from 390 committees. Only 15 of those institutions showed full compliance with NIH guidelines, said survey director Edward Hammond. About 200 had poor or missing records, or had none at all, while some committees had not actually met. New techniques and research in microbes could help overcome bioterrorism threats and cure natural diseases, but the search for new drugs is slow. Five years after Sept. 11, the government sets aside nearly $8 billion a year for civilian biodefense. Billions more have been spent to develop, purchase and stockpile new drugs, primarily related to identified bioterrorism threats such as anthrax. While efforts are being made to make the system more efficient, the development of one new drug could take up to 10 years and cost hundreds of million of dollars. If proven successful, the drug would treat only one of many illnesses on a growing list of bioterrorism threats (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, July 31). Back to top       New U.S. Biodefense Center Raises Concerns A biodefense laboratory now under construction near Washington, D.C. is to be operated under high secrecy and could raise questions about U.S. adherence to the Biological Weapons Convention, the Washington Post reported yesterday (see GSN, June 26). Research conducted at the new National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center at Fort Detrick, Md., could lead to thousands of saved lives during an act of bioterrorism. Work conducted there is to include simulating biological attacks involving pathogens such as anthrax or engineered microbes (see related GSN story, today). The center would be classified as a highly restricted facility. Few federal sites, including nuclear laboratories, operate at such high levels of concealment. Some arms control experts said such secrecy has become typical of U.S. Homeland Security Department biodefense efforts. Some of this research operates in what experts describe as a legal gray zone of the treaty restricting development, production or use of biological weapons. The Bush administration says its biodefense efforts fall squarely within treaty law. “Where the research exposes vulnerability, I’ve got to protect that, for the public’s interest,” said Bernard Courtney, NBACC scientific director. “We don’t need to be showing perpetrators the holes in our defense.” Extreme secrecy could have a negative impact, said Tara O’Toole, founder of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “The philosophy and practice behind NBACC looks like much of the rest of the administration’s philosophy and practice: ‘Our intent is good, so we can do whatever we want,’” she said. “This approach will only lead to trouble.” Critics understand the need for confidentiality, but are concerned that too much secrecy could increase the risk of bioterrorism. That could occur if the laboratory conducts experiments without adequate oversight, or if it promotes similar secret work by other nations. A limited number of public documents have been released about the laboratory, which had not quelled the concerns of critics. A 2004 slide show  indicated the site’s work would include producing and testing small amounts of weaponized microbes and possibly genetically engineered viruses and bacteria. It also listed “red team” exercises that replicate terrorist attacks. The type of research to be conducted calls for an extra effort to be transparent about the government’s objectives, according to bioweapons experts. “If we saw others doing this kind of research, we would view it as an infringement of the bioweapons treaty,” said Milton Leitenberg, a senior research scholar and weapons expert at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. “You can’t go around the world yelling about Iranian and North Korean programs — about which we know very little — when we’ve got all this going on.” The laboratory is expected to be the foremost U.S. biological research institution focused on “science-based threat assessment.” Preparing for worst-case scenarios is likely to require production of actual weapons, current and former NBACC personnel said. “De facto, we are going to make biowarfare pathogens at NBACC in order to study them,” said Penrose Albright, former assistant homeland security secretary for science and technology. Construction began last month on the $128 million, 160,000-square-foot facility. The eight-story structure is to house two NBACC divisions: a forensic testing center that would aid in the identification of bioterrorism offenders, and a Biothreat Characterization Center which would allow researchers to predict what attacks might look like. Homeland Security officials would not disclose the specific projects planned, but the slide show noted 16 priorities, including: “Characterize classical, emerging and genetically engineered pathogens for their (biological threat agent) potential”; “Assess the nature of nontraditional, novel and nonendemic induction of disease from potential BTA”; and “Expand aerosol-challenge testing capacity for nonhuman primates.” The Bush administration said the facility’s research would honor the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. “All of the programs we do are defensive in nature,” said Maureen McCarthy, Homeland Security’s research and development director. “Our job is to ensure that the civilian population of the country is protected, and that we know what the threats are.” Compliance with the treaty centers on intent and that making small amounts of biological warfare agents for research is allowed under certain interpretations.  “How can I go to the people of my country and say, ‘I can’t do this important research because some arms control advocate told me I can’t?’” Albright said. Other experts in international law, however, said some experiments conducted within the facility could violate the treaty’s ban on developing, stockpiling, acquiring or retaining microbes “of types and in quantities that have no justification” for peaceful purposes. “The main problem with the ‘defensive intent’ test is that it does not reflect what the treaty actually says,” said David Fidler, an Indiana University School of Law professor and expert on the bioweapons convention. The treaty does not distinguish between defensive and offensive efforts, he said (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, June 22). Back to top       China Updates Biological Agent Export Control List China has updated its export control list of dual-use materials that could be used to produce biological weapons, the Xinhua News Agency reported Friday (see GSN, Sept. 27, 2005). “To meet the international need of fighting terrorism and preventing proliferation and based on China’s national situation and experience in export control, the Chinese government supplemented and improved on the biological export control list promulgated in 2002,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said. The new list added 14 types of viruses, toxins, bacteria, and equipment, including the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) virus. It also strengthened export control efforts, Liu said (Xinhua News Agency, July 28). Back to top       U.S. Biodefense Laboratory May Have Been Infiltrated During Cold War, Scientists Say Biological weapons experts have said that a Soviet spy might have infiltrated the U.S. biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick in the 1980s to steal strains of deadly pathogens, the Baltimore Sun reported yesterday (see GSN, June 26). Former KGB biophysicist Alexander Kouzminov alleged in a book published last year that at least three KGB spies sought to obtain material in the 1980s from the U.S. biodefense program. Kouzminov said one spy “gained information” on experiments with pathogens that cause the Rift Valley and Lassa fevers, as well as tularemia. KGB officials also sought a U.S. smallpox vaccine sample, he said. Biological warfare experts initially dismissed the account. Raymond Zilinskas, a bioweapons expert with the Monterey Institute of International Studies, and two colleagues challenged Kouzminov’s credibility. For example, Kouzminov suggested that the U.S. military engineered a 1993 hantavirus outbreak in the U.S. Southwest, using a pathogen designed to infect American Indians — a claim the experts in a review of the book called “bizarre” and “astonishing.” However, Zilinskas told the Sun this month that his sources now believe “it was clear there was somebody at Fort Detrick” working for the KGB. The FBI declined to comment on the allegations, according to the Sun. Sergei Popov, also a former Soviet bioweapons scientist, told the Sun in recent weeks that by the early 1980s Moscow had acquired at least two strains of anthrax regularly researched at Fort Detrick. One was the Ames strain, which would become the standard for testing U.S. military vaccines, as well as the strain used in the 2001 anthrax attacks. Popov, now at the National Center for Biodefense and Infectious Disease at George Mason University, said Soviet researchers had no trouble acquiring pathogens described in Western research papers. “If you wanted ‘special materials,’ you had to fill out a request,” he said. “And, essentially, those materials were provided. How and by whom, I can’t say” (Douglas Birch, Baltimore Sun, July 30). Back to top       U.S. to Buy Anthrax Treatment from Canadian Firm The United States plans to buy 10,000 doses of an anthrax treatment from a Canadian company, the Associated Press reported Friday (see GSN, June 20). The Health and Human Services Department has approved a $143.8 million contract with Cangene Corp. of Winnipeg for anthrax immune globulin. The company is expected to begin delivering the drug next year to the U.S. national stockpile. The contract stipulates that the government will pay Cangene once the Food and Drug Administration authorizes marketing of the drug in the United States. The agreement, however, allows for the delivery of the treatment prior to receiving licensing in the event of an emergency. Health and Human Services awarded a $165 million contract last month to Human Genome Sciences Inc. for 20,000 doses of a different anthrax treatment, ABthrax. Pending FDA approval, the delivery of the antitoxin is due to begin in 2009 (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 28).   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.