President George W. Bush, shown yesterday, said U.S. missile defenses were ready to “defend our country” from North Korean missiles (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images). North Korean Missile Threat Overstated, Critic Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. news media and officials in Washington have significantly overstated the capabilities of both North Korea’s ballistic missiles and U.S. national missile defenses, a prominent defense analyst wrote in an analysis released Wednesday (see GSN, July 5)...Full Story

Outlook Good for U.S.-Russian Plutonium Disposition, Energy Department Official Says By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire MOSCOW — There is a “sense of optimism” about plans to eliminate weapon-grade plutonium in Russia and the United States, a senior U.S. Energy Department official said this week, without mentioning legislative moves in Washington that could strip the program of all funding (see GSN, June 28)...Full Story

Missile Activity Continues in North Korea South Korean officials said intelligence has indicated continuing activity at North Korean missile sites, though a launch does not appear imminent, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, July 6)...Full Story

	Friday, July 7, 2006

NYC Area Gets More Antiterror Dollars The New York City area expects to see nearly $54 million in antiterror funds earmarked to protect its transportation systems, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, June 22). The $53.8 million grant is 25 percent above last year’s outlay. It provides $47 million for rail security, $5.5 million for bus systems and $1.3 million to safeguard ferries. The funding makes up about 44 percent of all Homeland Security Department transit grants awarded nationally this year, the Times reported. The city’s fiscal 2006 antiterror funds were cut nearly in half to $124 million, inciting criticism of Homeland Security from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other area lawmakers (see GSN, June 15). Late last month, the government announced cuts in fiscal 2007 antiterrorism funding for high-risk areas nationwide by $20 million to $745 million. “The Department of Homeland Security is finally putting some of its money where its mouth is and seems to have realized that New York City’s subways and buses remain under constant threat,” Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said (Eric Lipton, New York Times, July7). Back to top

U.S. Pushes India to Join Counterproliferation Effort The United States is pushing India to join the Proliferation Security Initiative, an effort aimed at interdicting illicit WMD-related shipments on the high seas, The Asian Age reported yesterday (see GSN, June 23). Washington wants the Indian navy, the only aircraft-capable navy in the region, involved in the program, according to the Asian Age. Legislation in the U.S. Congress needed to implement a pending U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear deal also calls for New Delhi to join the program (The Asian Age I/Islamic Republic News Agency, July 6). New Delhi has meanwhile modified its export control laws to conform to Australia Group and Wassennaar Agreement guidelines, the Asian Age reported (The Asian Age II/BBC Monitoring, July 6). Back to top

Outlook Good for U.S.-Russian Plutonium Disposition, Energy Department Official Says By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire MOSCOW — There is a “sense of optimism” about plans to eliminate weapon-grade plutonium in Russia and the United States, a senior U.S. Energy Department official said this week, without mentioning legislative moves in Washington that could strip the program of all funding (see GSN, June 28). An agreement addressing liability for U.S. contractors working on planned Russian facilities could be signed before the July 15-17 Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, said Mark Whitney, executive director of the department’s Moscow office. Meanwhile, preparations are continuing on the U.S. facility that would convert plutonium to mixed-oxide fuel for use in nuclear power reactors, and talks are progressing on the technology Russia would use to burn its fuel, he said. “The plutonium disposition program, which is everybody’s favorite topic, [is] one where I think there is a renewed sense of optimism and a sense of hope,” Whitney said Tuesday during a conference here on energy and nonproliferation issues (see GSN, July 6). “I think we’ve really made a lot of progress in the last year and I think we’re on the verge of coming to terms on a program for the future.” Moscow and Washington agreed in 2000 to each eliminate 34 metric tons of surplus plutonium. The project has been delayed for years as the two nations negotiated the question of liability for damages incurred during construction of the Russian plants, which Whitney said was first hoped to be concluded in 2003.  The two sides resolved their differences on the liability dispute in September, and are “very close to having a signed protocol,” he said (see GSN, Nov. 9, 2005). Whitney declined to discuss details of the agreement, except to say that acts of willful sabotage “are addressed to the satisfaction of both sides.” A more recent point of contention is Moscow’s demand that the United States and its allies pay the full cost of the effort, including building a facility to produce MOX fuel for Russia’s light-water power reactors. If the international community wants Russia to contribute financially to the project, it would have to agree to Russia using its existing BN-600 fast-neutron reactor and building another, larger fast-neutron reactor. MOX-fueled fast-neutron reactors produce more plutonium than they start with, and Russia has long promoted their use as a way to maximize the value and use of nuclear fuel, said Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate at Harvard University’s Managing the Atom project, in an interview today from Cambridge, Mass. “It’s deeply ingrained in the ideology of the Russian nuclear community. It offends their sensibility to dig up ore out of the ground and throw away almost all of it,” he said, referring to the small amount of uranium that is actually consumed in a nuclear reactor.  Also pushing Russia’s desire to breed plutonium is the nation’s relative paucity of domestic uranium reserves following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia has been forced to contract with its Central Asian neighbors to acquire enough uranium for its power needs, Bunn said. Congressional Frustration The delays and maneuvering have frustrated U.S. lawmakers as they prepare the fiscal 2007 federal budget. The House Appropriations Committee voted to strip all money for the program, while its Senate counterpart recommended that funding be cut by more than $206 million. “This committee has run out of patience with the Russians and believes that maintaining the unilateral commitment by the U.S. government to destroy 34 tons of weapons-grade material is a worthy endeavor,” the Senate Appropriations Committee said in its report on the energy bill. The House Armed Services Committee cut support for the program by more than $100 million, while the Senate Armed Services Committee supported full funding, but set stipulations on delivery of most of the money. Conference participant Paul Walker praised Whitney’s presentation as “very thorough and very straightforward,” but said he is less optimistic about the future of the program. “I would say he was a bit overly optimistic given the funding and political issues surrounding it in Washington,” said Walker, director of the Legacy Program at Global Green USA. Whitney generally noted “problems” with financing and technology matters on the Russian project, but stressed the upside of fast-neutron reactors. The BN-600 reactor is already in place, meaning that — with changes made to keep it from producing plutonium — it could begin using MOX fuel by 2010. The United States would not start burning fuel until 2015. The Russian reactor, though, would only burn up to 300 kilograms of fuel per year, compared to 2 metric tons at the U.S. facility, Whitney said. Ultimately, under Moscow’s proposal, it would be replaced by a BN-800 reactor that would produce an additional 200 megawatts of power. “We’re not eliminating any options, including MOX and light-water reactors,” Whitney said. “Both sides are open to discussion.” The United States is pressing forward with the original plan for a MOX facility and light-water reactor, Whitney said.  The design of the MOX production facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina is nearly finished, and site clearing is under way. Whitney also noted a successful trial run in which MOX fuel produced in France was used to power a nuclear plant in South Carolina (see GSN, April 13, 2005). “The bottom line that’s important, I think, is that both sides” can go forward with the project with “as much as parallel progress as we can,” he said. Global Security Newswire Editor Greg Webb contributed to this report. Back to top       Bush Rules Out North Korea Nuclear Incentives U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday dismissed the possibility of bilateral negotiations or of offering North Korea new incentives to end its atomic weapons program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, July 6). “The problem is we tried that and it didn’t work,” Bush said. “There have been incentive packages laid out for the North Koreans, which they took and then didn’t honor the commitment they made,” he said. Bush rejected direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, saying, “I think he’d love to have the United States sit down at the table alone.” “We want to solve all problems diplomatically. That’s our first option.  But, of course, the president has got other options,” he added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 7). Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the top U.S. envoy to stalled multilateral talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions, arrived in Beijing today for meetings with Chinese officials, the Financial Times reported (Financial Times, July 7). Back to top       Iran to Address Nuclear Offer Next Week Iran’s top nuclear negotiator said yesterday that his country was committed to pursuing negotiations with the European Union aimed at resolving the standoff over Tehran’s controversial nuclear program, Reuters reported (see GSN, July 6). However, Ali Larijani, who met with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana earlier in the day, said he would not yet respond to a compromise offer put forth by world powers last month. “We are serious about continuing negotiations and will start next Tuesday with talks,” Larijani said. He said he attended yesterday’s dinner “out of respect” for Solana but that he would not discuss responses to the incentives package until Tuesday (Reuters/Yahoo!News, July 7). The United States warned that the U.N. Security Council could take action if Tehran fails to compromise, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. “There’s the positive pathway. There’s a negative pathway (that) leads to further isolation,” said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. “There’s agreement among all the ministers about where this heads if the Iranians don't meet the conditions, and that is down the pathway of the Security Council,” McCormack said (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, July 6). “The Iranian leadership said it is ready for dialogue and will answer by August,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said. “In our view they could have done this earlier.” He added, however, that Moscow remained opposed to sanctioning Tehran, AFP reported. “I agree that waiting endlessly is counterproductive, but even more counterproductive is to push the problem into a dead end which we will not know how to exit from,” he said (Agence France-Presse II/IranMania, July 6). Back to top       IAEA Safeguards Team Heads to India The International Atomic Energy Agency has dispatched a high-level delegation led by Safeguards Director Olli Heinonen to New Delhi for two days of talks on bringing Indian civilian nuclear facilities under agency monitoring, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, July 5). Some U.S. lawmakers have said India must complete its safeguards agreement before they will grant final approval to the planned U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation deal. Under that agreement, New Delhi would negotiate an agency inspections regime for nuclear facilities it deems to be civilian, as well as negotiate technical aspects of a formal treaty with Washington. An agency diplomat said safeguards negotiations could take up several months. “This will be new territory for us as we have never had a (presence) there before. This is the start of technical discussions,” the diplomat told Reuters (Mark Heinrich, Reuters, July 7). Back to top

More Chemical Bombs Expected at Chinese Site More than 200 bombs are expected to be found in a pit near a school in China that has already offered up seven chemical munitions abandoned by Japan at the close of World War II, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, July 6). A Chinese official expressed displeasure with the rate of work by Japan in collecting what the countries estimate to be between 700,000 and 2 million weapons, according to the Xinhua News Agency. The deadline under the Chemical Weapons Convention to dispose of all the bombs could be pushed back from 2007 to 2012. “We’re not satisfied with the speed of processing the abandoned chemical weapons by the Japanese side in China,” said Liu Yiren, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official. Japanese officials plan to ask the government in Tokyo for additional funds and staff to aid in the handling of the weapons. “Basically, we are beefing up our efforts so that we can promptly respond to the issue. We are making efforts,” said Keigo Akashi, who leads work on the matter for the Japanese Cabinet Office (Ng Han Guan, Associated Press, July 6). Back to top       Oregon CW Depot Workers Detect Sarin Vapor Workers at the U.S. Army’s Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon detected trace levels of sarin nerve agent vapor on Wednesday, the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency said (see GSN, May 16). An operations monitoring team made the discovery inside a depot storage structure containing 155 mm projectiles. The structure’s “passive” filter system prevented the chemical agent vapor from escaping. As an additional measure, depot personnel installed a powered filter system. Officials said the incident posed no threat to the public or environment (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, July 5). Back to top

North Korean Missile Threat Overstated, Critic Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. news media and officials in Washington have significantly overstated the capabilities of both North Korea’s ballistic missiles and U.S. national missile defenses, a prominent defense analyst wrote in an analysis released Wednesday (see GSN, July 5). Neither has been demonstrated through testing, but nevertheless they have been portrayed as proven operational systems, according to Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst Anthony Cordesman, responding to coverage and commentary of a failed flight of a multistage North Korean missile this week. “If we fired today’s [U.S. missile defense] test bed systems, they might well malfunction just as badly as the North Korean test did. The future may well be very different, but the incapable shooting at the incapable is not a particularly good way to celebrate the Fourth of July,” he wrote in an analysis.  Worst-case assessments of a North Korean long-range missile capability have been based on “wild-assed guesses” about capability, he wrote. The North Korean missile — which has been portrayed in the press as an ICBM capable of reaching the United States and used to justify a multibillion long-range U.S. missile defense deployment — has not shown it can work and is not even clearly an ICBM, according to Cordesman. “In the real world, it is only possible to talk about missile performance once a system is actually deployed and tested, its warhead is known, and enough firings have taken place to confirm actual operational capability,” he wrote. “It is far from clear that North Korea is any closer to a real-world capability to attack the U.S. than it was before this series of tests, or that the large missile it tested was ever intended to be any form of ICBM,” he wrote. Taking aim at the media, he wrote, “Rushing out to print maps with worst-case maximum ranges — rather than showing the uncertainty involved — is irresponsible journalism. This is particularly true when some analyst outside the intelligence community rounds up to a scare figure, and it is suddenly taken as fact. Reality is littered with the wrong guesses of retired “experts,” intelligence officers, and military officers who grabbed 15 seconds of fame without a single hard fact,” Cordesman said. Cordesman charged the administration with posturing for “talking about activating an unproven ballistic missile defense, whose booster seems to have serious reliability problems, to deal with a test it probably was almost certain would never hit the United States.” The U.S. Northern Command in a July 5 release said the elements were “operational” during the test. Command spokesman Mike Kucharek told Global Security Newswire today, “We would have to be prepared for any eventuality. Obviously we’re getting classified intelligence on the things. I don’t think anybody knows what the capability of that missile is.” Criticizes Media ‘Across the Board’ Cordesman is also a national security analyst for ABC News and, among many other roles, served as an intelligence assessment director in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In an interview yesterday, he would not comment specifically on the coverage by his own network, or any other specific news source, saying, “that’s not productive.” During an ABC News World News Tonight broadcast following the tests, reporter Martha Raddatz said, “The only relief is that the test failed. … With a range of more than 6,000 miles, it is a missile capable of reaching the United States.” “You’ve had pretty much everybody saying that sort of thing. I didn’t see any exceptions frankly and I still haven’t,” Cordesman said.  Quoted next in the newscast, Cordesman downplayed the implications of the test: “To have it blow up shortly after it took off — and while it was still the first stage — is much more an indication of North Korea’s incompetence than it is that North Korea is a threat.” In his written analysis, he criticized various expert assessments that the North Korean missile’s maximum range was as high as 5,000 kilometers. “All are sheer guesswork, and all ignore the fact that missiles do not have maximum ranges; they have range-payloads,” he said. “If you do not know (or at least state your assumption about) the weight of the warhead or payload, your guesses are undefined and irresponsible rubbish.” Globalsecurity.org Director John Pike, who has been widely interviewed on television assessing a substantial North Korean ICBM capability, said some experts, including Cordesman, appear to be making overly conservative estimates of North Korea’s capabilities. Pike and his organization have assessed that the longest-range missile North Korea fired Monday was “modestly” larger and more powerful than previous intelligence assessments of the country’s multistage Taepodong rocket. He said his estimate is not achieved by analyzing any photos of the missile, which apparently are not publicly available, but rather by estimating from satellite imagery the size of the gantry apparently intended to hold the missile before launch. “The missile that he’s [Cordesman] talking about is not the missile tested July 4,” he said. “Some may call it ‘wild-assed-guesses,’ we call it assessment,” he said. Experts have also underestimated North Korea’s ability to build a light-weight nuclear warhead that could allow a missile to achieve a greater range, he said. “It’s just not that hard to build a small hydrogen bomb, if you’ve got modern desktop computers. Then we’re able to get the thing [Pike’s estimate of the North Korean missile’s range] out to 10,000 kilometers without being embarrassed,” he said. “All that is required is the ingredients [for building a bomb], which these boys have, the idea which is public knowledge, and computing power that Michael Dell will sell you for less than $1,000,” he said. “I think they’ve got light-weight H-bombs.” Pike allowed, though, that North Korea might have constructed a larger gantry to deceive the United States into thinking it was developing an ICBM. “Yes, of course,” he said, adding that North Korea has been suspected of displaying mock-ups of fictitious missiles in the past for U.S. satellites “I would be willing to assert that this whole Taepodong 2 thing is part of an elaborate North Korean strategic deception effort,” he said, suggesting Pyongyang could more effectively launch a shorter-range missile at the United States from an inconspicuous offshore cargo ship. He added, though, that just because there is no available evidence of a system does not mean it does not exist. Missile Defense Rationale Challenged Cordesman challenged one the major rationales the Bush administration has cited for deploying Ground-based Midcourse Defense system in Alaska and California — that North Korea could soon field an ICBM capable of striking the United States with weapons of mass destruction. “The data available … strongly indicate that North Korea is still focusing on getting missiles that can attack targets anywhere North Korea needs to hit in Asia (with the possible exception of Guam) and not the U.S. The limited technical data available on the Nodong [missile] series to date do not indicate that it can hit any meaningful target in the U.S. with a nuclear weapon or any other meaningful payload,” he wrote. Boosters for the missile North Korea has displayed in the past seemed unlikely suited for use on an ICBM, he wrote. “It would probably take a larger diameter booster than North Korea ever displayed before July 4 to play such a role.” At most, available data suggests that North Korea is “beginning early testing” of a missile only capable of throwing the equivalent of a rock at Alaska, Cordesman wrote. While North Korea might secretly be working on a potentially more powerful missile, he wrote, there is “no reason to overreact or panic, particularly since applying worst case wild-assed-guesses to two conspicuous design failures is not simply ridiculous, it is childish.” Back to top       Missile Activity Continues in North Korea South Korean officials said intelligence has indicated continuing activity at North Korean missile sites, though a launch does not appear imminent, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, July 6). Japanese officials also said another long-range Taepodong 2 test does not seem to be in the works. Nevertheless, Seoul has ordered two civilian airlines to avoid flight paths that would take aircraft near possible North Korean missile trajectories, said Civil Aviation Safety Authority official Choi Seung-hyun (Joseph Coleman, Associated Press I/Yahoo!News, July 7). Following the international outcry in response to North Korea’s test of seven ballistic missiles this week, Pyongyang said the tests were defensive in nature, Agence France-Presse reported today. Choe Myong Nam, councilor at North Korea’s U.N. mission in Geneva, said North Korea planned to continue missile tests to counter the perceived threat from Japan and the United States. “This is not intended to attack anyone. Our position is that we can continue with missile launches. We will continue with missile launches unless the United States and Japan abandon their policy of stifling us,” Choe said. “The United States had tried to attack us in the past but it gave up in the end because of our power. So it is important to build up power,” he said (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, July 7). Meanwhile, Song Il Ho, the North’s envoy to talks on normalization of relations with Japan, warned Tokyo to drop sanctions it imposed this week, AFP reported today. “We said that we would take stronger physical actions, should criticism against (North Korea) become even stronger. That comment was made with Japan in mind,” Song said. “We will continue test-firing of missiles as part of our normal military training.” Tokyo protested Song’s statement. “It was extremely regrettable and we feel resentment,” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe (Agence France-Presse II, July 7). U.S. President George W. Bush spoke by telephone yesterday with his Russian and Chinese counterparts, while the U.N. Security Council met for a second day on the issue, the Los Angeles Times reported. The White House indicated that talks could take some time. Officials are not conducting “diplomacy with an egg timer,” said spokesman Tony Snow. While Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the tests, he also said they “should not lead to such emotions that would drown out common sense.” “We have to create an atmosphere that will lead to compromise,” Putin said (Gerstenzang/Farley, Los Angeles Times, July 7). Chinese President Hu Jintao told Bush that a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula should be pursued by resuming stalled six-party talks, AP reported.  Hu said China is “committed to maintaining peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula and opposed to any actions that might intensify the situation,” the Foreign Ministry said. Russia and China yesterday refused to back a Japanese draft U.N. resolution to impose sanctions on North Korea, while France, the United States and the United Kingdom supported the text, AP reported. Russian Deputy U.N. Ambassador Konstantin Dolgov said Moscow favors a presidential statement, which is not legally binding. “We don’t think that sanctions is the instrument, the leverage which is to be employed right now,” he told AP. “Strong reaction, strong message, clear message, yes.” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said 13 of the Security Council’s members favor a binding resolution over a presidential statement. Bolton said a firm response is necessary due to “the potential marriage of a nuclear-weapons capability that North Korea claims it has, and it is certainly seeking, with effective long-range ballistic missile” (Edith Lederer, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, July 7). Bush said yesterday that the fledgling U.S. missile defense system would have been used if the missiles had approached U.S. territory, the Times reported (see related GSN story, today). “We had a plan in place to respond if he were to fire these things,” Bush said. “If it headed to the United States, we’ve got a missile defense system that will defend our country” (Gerstenzang/Farley, Los Angeles Times). The United States has few military options in North Korea due to the risk of retaliation against U.S. troops and allies in the region, the Christian Science Monitor reported today. “North Korea has the capability to inflict significant harm on immediately neighboring states,” said Jonathan Pollack, an East Asia expert at the Naval War College. “That’s what constrains any thought being given to any pre-emptive kind of force.” “How will North Korea perceive an attack on any given day?” said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The options tend to be ones of provoking general war.” While the North Korea maintains a massive standing army, many experts do not believe it is a major threat. “As long as the war was conventional, I don’t think North Korea would do much better than Iraq did,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. The fear is that Pyongyang might place nuclear weapons on rockets, or distribute materials to nations such as Iran and Syria (Mark Sappenfield, Christian Science Monitor, July 7). Back to top

Canada Still Not Ready for Missile Defense With U.S. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday that he is concerned by this week’s North Korean missile tests — but not enough to reopen talks on joining the U.S. missile defense system, the Canadian Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 27). “I think this should concern us immensely,” Harper said during a press conference with U.S. President George W. Bush. “Missiles that are fired in the direction of the United States constitute a threat to Canada.” The federal government in Canada, however, “is not prepared to open a missile defense issue at this time,” Harper said, noting that he recognizes the United States’ desire for a ballistic missile shield. “I will say that I think it should be obvious, when we look at this kind of threat, why the United States and others would want to have a modern and flexible defense system,” he said. Bush brought up the possibility of a stray North Korean missile striking Canada, but did not ask Harper to reconsider Ottawa’s decision to remain outside the program. “I didn’t bring it up, because I figured if he was interested, he would tell me,” Bush said. “Maybe he was going to bring it up over lunch” (Beth Gorham, Canadian Press/CNews.com, July 7). Back to top       NATO Shows Interest in European Missile Defenses NATO headquarters appears to be leaning toward supporting a missile defense system that would cover Europe from attacks by nations such as Iran and North Korea, the Financial Times reported yesterday (see GSN, June 16). NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer hopes that member nations will study a recent 10,000-page report that backs the feasibility of such a system, according to the Times. “We need to have an active debate within the alliance on missile defense to ensure that we have a common view and a common way forward,” Scheffer’s spokesman said. The 26 NATO ambassadors met this week to denounce North Korea’s missile tests and could soon address the report commissioned during a NATO summit in 2002 (see GSN, July 5). Washington has been negotiating with Poland, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom and other NATO member states regarding involvement in the U.S. missile shield. A number of European governments anticipate receiving protection from missile strikes by housing U.S. missile interceptors within their borders, the Times reported. NATO officials, however, have concerns about two different missile defense systems operating in Europe. In an effort to protect deployed troops, NATO has begun to develop an antimissile system, and the project should be ready by 2010 and could become its “largest cooperative project ever,” the alliance said (Dombey/Sevastopulo, Financial Times, July 6).   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.