Time to buy Tips before price of protection goes up

Time to buy Tips before price of protection goes up
By John Dizard
Published: May 30 2006 03:00 | Last updated: May 30 2006 03:00. Copyright by The Financial Times

The Treasury department's inflation-linked securities, or Tips, are probably the least efficient part of the Treasury market, which may now be creating a relative value opportunity for risk-averse investors, of whom there are more and more these days.

The potential opportunity has been created by a problem with the core inflation measure, which is the principal signal for investors seeking to estimate inflation risks. That is not good news. It is rather like tapping on a fuel gauge while flying over the Andes, and finding it has been accidentally stuck at the safe level.

Tips are indexed to the so-called "headline" consumer price index, which much of the public believesis understated, and much of the economic profession believes is overstated. "Core" inflation, followed by market analysts and policymakers, excludes food and energy costs. Those more volatile components are supposed to bounce around too much to provide a useful indication of the underlying trend. Monetary policy doves cite relatively benign core inflation numbers as a justification for moderating the pace of rate increases by the Federal Reserve.

But it is now becoming apparent that the core numbers have been massaged and adjusted in a way that led to complacency about inflation pressures. Each adjustment made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics made sense when it was done, in the context of the economy of the time. You would think the market would have sniffed out the problem, without necessarily understanding why, and already adjusted bond prices. But that has not happened, or at least not yet.

That is why it makes better sense now to buy Tips rather than their "nominal" counterparts.

The US inflation panic this month, which created the fear that the Fed would increase rates for the indefinite future, was the result of the April rise in what is known as "owner's equivalent rent". The OER was invented in 1982 as a substitute for a homeownership cost measure that was thought to be too much of an asset price measurement, rather than a cost of living measurement. The Fed, more than other central banks, has been opposed to targeting asset prices.

OER is measured by taking samples of rent levels in a set of representative neighbourhoods, and then assuming that the homeowners in those neighbourhoods would pay those rents if they did not own houses. It seems reasonable but there are odd quirks that result from trying to create artificial comparables.

The fuel price adjustment is a quirk that has created some of the biggest distortions recently. Remember that core consumer price index is supposed to exclude fuel costs, the variations in which are assumed to be noise rather than trend. In the case of OER, that means the fuel costs embedded in rent are stripped out of the data so that rent is only measuring the cost of housing. Fuel costs are added in to the headline CPI number, so they don't go away.

However, in a period of rapidly rising fuel costs that means OER is actually reported by the government to be falling, since rents do not rise as quickly as what the landlord, or statistically assumed landlord, is paying for that fuel. According to Barclays Capital, which has dominated dealer Tips research and market making in recent years, "the downward pressure on OER from fuel costs has been substantial over the past year . . . We estimate (the fuel cost adjustment) subtracted 0.86 percentage points (from OER) in April." Since the OER accounts for about 30 per cent of the core CPI measurement, the effect is substantial. Again, this does not affect the CPI adjustment to the value of Tips but it does affect the pricing of Tips' value in the future, by reducing estimates of trend inflation. As Mike Pond, a fixed- income and inflation linked strategist at Barclays Capital says: "Longer inflation breakevens are driven more by core CPI rather than headline."

That is the market inefficiency that has developed in Tips. Simply put, inflation expectations are too low.So on a net basis, you should sell nominal bonds and buy TIPS at the same maturity.

But there are those who are even more suspicious of housing cost estimates. Bridgewater Associates, an investment group that provides a gold mine of information for data junkies, reconstructed the old homeownership data series using current information. Its estimate includes an asset inflation component, by definition, but it would presumably argue that those asset prices are part of the cost of living. Bridgewater's Greg Jensen and Jason Rotenberg wrote in the middle of May: "Recently, the cost of home-ownership would be (increasing) at almost 12 per cent. Using those numbers, Bridgewater believes that headline inflation is about 5.9 per cent, while core CPI is 5.4 per cent . . ."

That probably over estimates the impact of house price increases; most people's month-to-month costs are not tied to speculative frenzies in high turnover markets such as Santa Monica or Palm Beach. But Bridgewater has a point that asset price inflation increases cost of living.

John Brynjolfsson, portfolio manager with Pimco's real return group, says: "We have seen our real return (inflation-indexed) franchise go from zero to $60bn, mostly in the past five years." The market's implied assumptions about future inflation have been lagging increases in recorded CPI, but he thinks that will change. "We like Tips relative to the nominal bond. We think the market should price in a higher forward break-even rate. [The break-even rate is the inflation rate at which Tips yields equal yields in the uninflation-adjusted bonds.] We look for another 20 basis points or so. There is another shoe to drop, when people's inflation risk-premium rises."

You might think a housing bust would lead to a fall in OER. You would be wrong. As Mr Brynjolfsson says: "When there is an abundance of home buying and home construction going on, that eases pressure on the rental market. With housing turning, people who might otherwise have been buying are turning to the rental markets."

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman, has a lot to prove. It is likely investors will be willing to pay more for inflation protection. So for your dollar bond portfolio, buy Tips before the price of protection goes up and the yields go down.

Kabul riot targets aid agencies

Kabul riot targets aid agencies
By Rachel Morarjee in Kabul
Published: May 29 2006 12:07 | Last updated: May 29 2006 18:33. Copyright by The Financial Times

About 1,000 demonstrators rampaged through the Afghan capital on Monday, setting alight the offices of foreign aid agencies and looting businesses in a wave of violence that killed at least 16 people and injured another 142.

The unrest was the worst to sweep through Kabul since 2001 and reflects growing resentment towards the foreign military presence in the country and the slow pace of reconstruction. The US has 23,000 troops and Nato a force of about 9,000 in Afghanistan.

The protest was triggered by a collision between a US military convoy and a cargo truck that caused a 12-car pile-up, the US military said in a statement.

A crowd quickly swelled around the accident in the northern Shomali district of Kabul and turned hostile, surrounding the US vehicles.

Shots were then fired either by the US military or by Afghan police who had arrived on the scene.

“There are indications that at least one coalition military vehicle fired warning shots over the crowd,” Colonel Thomas Collins, US military spokesman, said, adding that an investigation had begun.
Five people were killed during the accident and the shooting which followed, said a statement from the Afghan presidency.

A survey of Kabul’s hospitals found that at least 11 more people were killed during the day’s rioting. Protesters left a trail of destruction, burning down almost every police guard post they came across. Demonstrators set the offices of CARE and other foreign aid agencies ablaze, and also set civilian businesses on fire.

A group of European Union diplomats was escorted to safety by British Royal Marines after they had requested evacuation from their compound in central Kabul.

The main protest, composed mostly of young men, spawned smaller riots at other locations across the capital. “There is a large reservoir of discontent and people are now just looking for a reason to vent their rage,” said one western diplomat.

The road accident followed an air strike by the US during a battle with the Taliban in southern Afghanistan last week, in which about 30 civilians were killed.

Opinion remains divided over whether the disturbance was orchestrated by Islamic militants or was a spontaneous eruption.

“The riots were organised,” said a western security source working with Afghan police. “They have been waiting for a catalyst from the coalition forces and biding their time.”

He added that he had seen demonstrators carrying maps with a route drawn out. “They are after martyrdom. They are calling the people who got killed in the accident martyrs,” he said.

However, diplomats and eyewitnesses said the demonstrations had been used by criminals as an opportunity for looting and theft.

“They were thieves. They were waiting for a small opportunity to steal and loot from the houses,” said Jan Ali, a 50-year-old shopkeeper in downtown Kabul.

As the streets of Kabul grew calmer, police started to resume control and were harassing groups of men standing in the open.

An Afghan reporter said: “Soldiers are picking up groups of people in the street, punching people with no explanation and shoving them in cars.”

Turmoil is test for investors’ staying power

Turmoil is test for investors’ staying power
By Jennifer Hughes in New York
Published: May 30 2006 05:01 | Last updated: May 30 2006 05:01. Copyright by The Financial Times

Is it over yet? That is what investors in developing markets are asking as they emerge from the storms of the past fortnight that have left many bruised and battered.

The MSCI emerging markets equities index has fallen 13 per cent in two weeks while currencies have swung wildly and bonds tumbled.

Investors searching for higher profits have poured funds into developing economies in recent years. What observers are now debating is if investors will stay and weather the latest turbulence or turn tail and head for the safety of their home markets, leaving emerging economies reeling.

The trigger for the recent rollercoaster was concern about overheated commodity markets following a spectacular run-up – similar to that seen in many emerging economies. It then widened as markets worried that rising inflation would push global interest rates higher than previously expected, draining even more liquidity from the financial system.

”When you’re talking about tightening liquidity, emerging markets do tend to suffer,” said Brad Durham, a managing director at Emerging Portfolio Fund Research, a fund tracking consultancy. In the week to May 24, it recorded the biggest net outflows from emerging market funds seen in two years.

“There was some panic and profit-taking simultaneously but that’s natural – the stronger the profits, the more incentive there is to take them,” added Mr Durham.
But most observers are still sanguine.

“I don’t believe the last two weeks are a sign of major risks; it’s a correction,” said Mansoor Dailami, lead author of a World Bank report on global development finance to be released on Tuesday, which shows record private inflows into developing markets.

The run-up in many emerging markets this year alone has been strong enough for the events of the past two weeks not to have undone all the gains. The MSCI EM index is still up 9 per cent this year and 74 per cent since the beginning of 2004.

The recent volatility, however, is still a test of many advocates’ claims that things are different this time for this traditionally volatile asset class.

“The risks are not of the nature of the past; this is not about inflation, it’s not about current account deficits,” said Mr Dailami. Many emerging markets have in fact built up current account surpluses and far more are receiving credit upgrades than downgrades.

Kingsmill Bond, emerging markets strategist at Deutsche Bank, agrees. “Even if foreign money is removed, emerging markets are unlikely in most instances to suffer the impact seen in previous crises.”

The flood of money that has poured into emerging markets in recent years has also changed the nature of the investors, many of whom are now specialists with more understanding, claims Gunter Heiland, an emerging markets bond fund manager at JP Morgan Fleming Asset Management.

“It’s healthy once in a while to have a bit of a pullback,” he said. “This market has changed over the last five years; it’s a very different investor base, a lot is dedicated money and they’re less likely to suddenly sell off.”

Trading in emerging market debt hit a record in the first quarter this year, up 15 per cent from a year ago, according to the Emerging Markets Trade Association.

The World Bank report also highlights the improvements in local markets, the diversification of investment – with a growing percentage coming from other developing markets – and the use of new instruments such as credit default swaps. All have helped to transfer and spread risk and, to some degree, avoid the traditional concentration with a limited number of investors and a handful of very tradeable instruments.

But the report also warns that these are still very young markets that could yet be derailed.

“It’s not evident that they can absorb very large external financial shocks,” said Hans Timmer, head of the bank’s Prospects group.

A key concern for the bank is the risk of a sharp dollar sell-off and widespread market turmoil should concerns grow about the US current account deficit and the resulting global imbalances.

“The biggest risk is from financial markets,” said Mr Dailami. “Part of the anxiety is people have different views of how to deal with global imbalances. That’s an unresolved problem in itself, that we have different views.”

Emerging markets hit at ‘critical’ time

Emerging markets hit at ‘critical’ time
By Jennifer Hughes in New York
Published: May 30 2006 05:01 | Last updated: May 30 2006 05:01. Copyright by The Financial Times

Volatility in emerging markets and fears of a flight of foreign capital have come at a ‘critical’ time for developing countries’ financial markets, World Bank economists have warned.

Record amounts of money flowed into developing economies last year, the World Bank says in a report to be released on Tuesday. But recent sharp market falls, in particular last week, have intensified investor nervousness about the fragility of these markets.

Mansoor Dailami, the lead author of the report on global development finance, said: “This moment is so critical to give these countries the time to develop their markets. Many developing economies are half in, half out of the global financial system – they’re half open, half closed right now.”

A record surge in private capital for a third straight year to $491bn drove the overall rise in net inflows into emerging markets, which reached $472bn as official flows actually declined, the report says.

Many overseas investors have been putting money into local currency assets, which tend to offer higher returns. The money has allowed many developing economies to improve their financial position by paying down old dollar-denominated debt and instead issuing local currency bonds, which in turn has helped them develop and strengthen their local markets.

The biggest emerging market inflows last year went to Europe and central Asia, which recorded a 20 per cent jump to $192bn, led by a rush of money to Russia and Turkey. Inflows into Latin America and the Caribbean rose by 60 per cent to $94bn, while Asia received $138bn, up 10 per cent.

But volatile markets last week, triggered the biggest weekly outflow from emerging market funds in two years, according to Emerging Portfolio Fund Research, a consultancy.

Low interest rates in the developed world have allowed investors to leverage, borrowing cheaply to pick up the higher returns on offer elsewhere. It is those investors who are likely to have unwound trades over the past fortnight, weakening stocks and local bonds.

“If these foreigners withdraw, then local market rates go up and that’s an area we’re worried about,” said Mr Dailami.

The report also warns of the risks posed by the surge in capital flows, not least the risk of asset price bubbles. Global inflows into emerging market investment funds had already set an annual record by March this year, but there are concerns that the money flowing into local stock markets could be concentrated in a few better-known companies.

“You can have thousands of companies that are potentially good investments, but you have a few that get all the money,” said Mr Dailami.

“[This] may expose institutional and macroeconomic weaknesses that cannot be anticipated at this juncture,” the report said. “The impact of individual risks could be magnified if several [weaknesses] were to occur simultaneously.”

Last week, emerging stock markets endured their worst losing streak since Russia defaulted in 1998, a run that plunged world markets into turmoil.

Why is the US viewed as a Christian nation when its citizens have little sense of charity?

Why is the US viewed as a Christian nation when its citizens have little sense of charity?
By Gerard van Hamel Platerink
Published: May 30 2006 03:00 | Last updated: May 30 2006 03:00. Copyright by The Financial Times

From Mr Gerard van Hamel Platerink.

Sir, It is notable that we continue to view the US as a Christian nation when actions, which speak louder than words, indicate otherwise.

Some 44 per cent of Americans claim to attend church each week (versus fewer than 10 per cent in western Europe) and are thus regularly exposed to Jesus' teachings on giving to the poor, clothing the naked and feeding the hungry.

Data on aid and charitable giving, however, indicates that the US performs poorly on measures such as donations per capita, where it trails nations such as Denmark (where only 3 per cent of its people regularly attend church) by a factor of more than four to one. Indeed, on most income-adjusted measures of charitable giving, the US usually features in the bottom quartile.

Let's view religion and churches in the US for what they really are today - an environment where people who have lost their sense of community come together to belong and feel good for a few precious minutes each week.

These are worthy pursuits, though whether it makes any of us truly Christian and thus eligible for a nod from St Peter is another matter.

Gerard van Hamel Platerink,

Atlanta, GA 30327, US

Fight against Aids is at turning point

Fight against Aids is at turning point
By Andrew Jack
Published: May 30 2006 19:35 | Last updated: May 30 2006 19:35. Copyright by The Financial Times

As leaders of nations corroded by Aids gather at the United Nations in New York on Wednesday to discuss the disease, another group will be noticeably absent: leaders of the world’s richest nations who pledged them significant help five years ago.

The continued ambivalence – even as public health experts are heralding the first tentative signs of a slowdown in the growth of Aids since it was identified in 1981 – reflects both the enormity of the task ahead and the political and ethical sensitivities that underpin it.

To consign Aids to history will require not only a big injection of cash over the long term. It will also demand a consensus on how best to distribute resources between prevention, diag nosis and treatment – and a new boldness in tackling the issues that debate will throw up.

Peter Piot, head of UNAids, the United Nations’ co-ordinating body, reflects the mood of cautious optimism that has taken hold among experts in recent months. “There has been more progress in the last two years than in the previous 22,” he says. “In 1996, even working on Aids was stigmatising, let alone having it; 2005 was the least bad year yet.”

On the positive side, science has made considerable progress in treating Aids through the development of antiretroviral medicines, and politicians have mobilised strong support to secure additional funding. Last July, the leaders of the G8 leading industrialised nations pledged at Gleneagles to achieve “as close as possible” to universal treatment for those who needed it by 2010.

Spurred on by the previous UN General Assembly on Aids in 2001, the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria was created. It has since become the biggest channel for multilateral support.

Richard Feachem, its head, says: “It’s quite remarkable. Since our creation in 2002, we have committed $10bn to projects in 130 countries and the impact is now starting to be seen.”

Total support has risen substantially to more than $8bn a year, swollen further by the World Bank, bilateral programmes led by US President George W. Bush’s Pepfar and redoubled efforts by individual countries.

There has also been a sharp drop in the price of drugs, through a mixture of discounts and donation programmes by pharmaceutical companies, price competition from copycat generic manufacturers and political leverage from groups such as the Clinton Foundation.

Mr Piot can point to findings in the latest UNAids report published on Tuesday showing more than 1.3m HIV- positive people in low- and middle-income countries are now on treatment, up from 240,000 five years ago.

But it is far too soon to claim victory. Aids remains one of the world’s greatest health threats, responsible for 25m deaths since 1981. It has attacked teachers, doctors and all parts of the workforce, while creating hundreds of thousands of orphans, undermining economic development and even threatening global security.

While 700,000 people are on treatment in the developed world – a high proportion of those who need it – the 1.3m in the developing nations represents only one-fifth of those with advanced HIV who should be on drugs. Nearly 3m people died from Aids last year, including hundreds of thousands of children unable to gain access to little-researched paediatric drugs.

More worrying still, the number of new HIV cases was at its highest level ever in 2005 at 4m, while the life- prolonging effect of drugs means that a record 40m people are now living with the infection.

Against such a background, there is no doubt that more money is required. “The world is on a trajectory that will fall significantly short of the inter nationally endorsed universal access goal for 2010, leaving millions without life-saving care,” warns the International Treatment Preparedness Coalition, one advocacy group.

The failure of the World Health Organisation’s goal of “3 by 5” – or 3m on treatment by the end of 2005 – highlighted the challenges. Meeting the goal of universal treatment would mean placing and keeping up to 10m people on treatment by 2010. UNAids estimates that that will cost $23bn a year for at least a generation, or three times current spending levels.

“We are at a real turning point in the balance between optimism and despair,” says the Global Fund’s Mr Feachem. “Without full funding, the G8 pledge is just pie in the sky.”

He is forced to seek fresh support from donor countries every few months, with the latest “sixth round” recently launched with support from the UK, which is keen to see follow-through from the Gleneagles’ G8 summit it hosted last summer. Other countries were more hesitant and little of the money has been raised so far.

“Up till now, it has been about haphazard crisis management,” says Mr Piot. “Now we are starting to have a critical mass, we need a more sustainable, strategic, long-term response. The reality of dealing with Aids is it is not something we can run year by year. We need to count in decades.”

Business could do much more. For Jim Kim, the former head of the WHO’s 3-by-5 programme, that includes drug manufacturers. He believes they should sub-contract antiretroviral production to low-cost producers.

“We’ve got to get serious about establishing a humanitarian corridor,” he says. “There is no way discount programmes will meet the target of 8-10m people on treatment by 2010.”

Richard Holbrooke, president of the 215-strong Global Business Coalition on HIV/Aids, called this month for support from many more companies. They can help not only through donations, but by enhancing their own activities in offering education, testing, counselling, treatment and a pledge of non-discrimination to employees and their families.

Beyond new money, however, a second issue in the fight against Aids is how the funds should be spent. The G8 leaders, the WHO and the UN assemblies have focused primarily on accelerated treatment. They have been far less vocal about prevention and HIV-testing programmes, which lack the dramatic appeal of “saving lives now”.

Yet both drugs, and the infrastructure required to ensure people receive them consistently, mean that treatment is costly and risks diluting other health initiatives in poor countries. Prevention and testing may prove cheaper, less disruptive and more effective in tackling the causes of the epidemic.

“An increased emphasis on prevention is something that is sorely needed,” says John Tedstrom, president of Transatlantic Partners Against Aids, a charity working in the countries of the former Soviet Union to raise the profile of the issue at this year’s G8 summit in St Petersburg.

While there are some indications from UNAids that infection rates may have begun to fall in parts of Africa where they had reached saturation point, he stresses that in other regions of the world – notably Russia, China and India – the situation remains parlous. The prospect of treatment may have induced complacency that has in turn led to new infections in the US and western Europe.

Treatment on its own in any case does little to address the longer-term problem of stemming the rate of infection. The more survive thanks to antiretroviral drugs, the larger the pool of HIV-positive people. That, in turn, risks further spread of HIV – including a drug-resistant form of the virus – to others.

“If you have treatment but it’s in effective and generating resistance, you are building up a problem for the future that is going to be almost insoluble,” warns Richard Coker, reader in health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “Personally, I would be more cautious than the international community in advising that ‘antiretrovirals for all’ is feasible and will achieve the claimed benefits. If this doesn’t work, we won’t get another opportunity to revisit it with the same sense of urgency and support.”

Most health officials are reluctant to argue for a reallocation of scarce resources. “The great lesson of the last couple of years is that there are no choices,” says Mr Feachem. “We need prevention, testing and treatment: all three, all big, all together. They feed off each other.”

Experience in the field certainly suggests that the best way to ensure people are tested for HIV is to offer them the incentive of treatment. Testing also provides an opportunity to reinforce prevention messages.

Yet if prevention and testing have been underplayed, even more neglected has been research into what works. Information on the extent and spread of drug-resistant HIV virus in the developing world is scant, for instance. The Global Fund is only now scrambling to commission a five-year evaluation of its own work and cannot even detail how its money has been split between prevention, treatment and testing.

“We don’t have the evidence of the effects on the rest of the public health system of HIV treatment, and for every prevention programme, the evidence is pretty muddled,” says Christopher Murray, professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health.

However, studies conducted in recent years point to a third barrier to enhanced Aids support. Many of the most effective methods clash with the values of countries struggling to fight the epidemic and with important funders and influences, such as the White House and the Vatican.

Research suggests the role of condom distribution in cutting infection far outweighs any resulting rise in promiscuity and that free needle-exchange and substitution programmes for hard drug users reduce transmission without creating new addicts. But the US administration emphasises abstinence and loyalty over condom use. Grant recipients must condemn sex workers and refrain from offering abortion advice. Critics say such policies risk undermining organisations best placed to tackle the epidemic, while handing funds to inexperienced religious groups.

Other challenges lie ahead: curbing violence against women, encouraging circumcision and fighting prejudice against high-risk groups such as homosexuals, prostitutes, drug addicts and prisoners.

If they are serious about turning their Aids rhetoric into reality, political leaders will need not only the financial resources to make a difference abroad but also the moral courage to defend controversial policies at home.

Scientists tested to the limit in pursuit of a fiendish target

The world was introduced to the scourge of Aids on June 5 1981, when the Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta issued a short report on a cluster of five unusual pneumonia cases among young homosexual men in Los Angeles, writes Clive Cookson. Within weeks it became clear that many gay men in the US were succumbing to opportunistic infections as their immune defences collapsed.

The cause of this frightening new epidemic – initially dubbed Grid (gay-related immune deficiency) but renamed Aids (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) when it became clear that homosexual men were not the only victims – remained a mystery until French and US scientists identified the virus now known as HIV. Margaret Heckler, the US health secretary, held a dramatic press conference in April 1984 to announce the discovery, adding that a vaccine against HIV would be available for testing in two years.

Today, an effective HIV vaccine remains a distant dream, although the scientific effort to develop one has been greater than any other vaccine research programme in history. The story on antiviral treatments for Aids is somewhat happier: combinations of anti-HIV drugs available since 1996 are estimated to prolong the life of the average patient by 13 years. But most people infected outside the industrialised world do not have access to these expensive medicines.

HIV turned out to be a fiendishly difficult target for vaccine and drug development. It is a “retrovirus”, which uses RNA rather than the usual DNA to encode its genes. This enables HIV to replicate so quickly, with so many genetic variations, that protecting against all the myriad subtypes is a formidable challenge.

The fact that the immune system is HIV’s main target makes fighting it all the harder. The virus employs several biochemical defences against immune attack, such as hiding its surface proteins from antibodies with a cloak of sugar molecules. Once HIV has taken hold in a patient, it inserts itself into the genome of human cells – making it impossible for antiviral drugs to eradicate infection completely, even though they do a good job of keeping symptoms at bay.

According to the United Nations Aids programme, funding for the development of vaccines to prevent HIV infection reached $630m (£339m, €494m) last year – up from $330m in 2000. Much of this comes from public and charitable sources and is channelled through the New York-based International Aids Vaccine Initiative. Seth Berkley, its president, argues that more money is needed to meet “perhaps the toughest public health test of our time”.

When the world is spending $20bn-$30bn a year on Aids, an HIV vaccine would be so cost-effective that expenditure of $1bn a year is justified to develop one, he says: “The problem is that, from the start, Aids has been seen as an emergency – which has given too much short-term and not enough long-term emphasis to Aids research and development.”

There are good scientific reasons to believe that an effective Aids vaccine will eventually emerge. “One is that vaccines can protect monkeys against infection with SIV [the simian version of HIV]. Another is that a few people who are repeatedly exposed to HIV do not become infected, while others manage to hold the infection down with their own immune system without developing Aids,” says Dr Berkley.

There have been more than 70 clinical trials of candidate Aids vaccines and about 30 are still in progress. But almost all are on a small scale. “It is shocking that only one Aids vaccine has gone through a full-scale Phase III clinical trial,” says Dr Berkley. That one, from VaxGen of the US, failed to demonstrate efficacy.

Among the large vaccine manufacturers, Merck of the US and Aventis Pasteur of France are most active in Aids research. Dr Berkley says a Merck vaccine in early-stage trials in the US is “one to watch”.

The human immune system has two arms, one working through antibodies and the other through cells. Almost all the vaccines in clinical trials today are based on cellular immunity. If a dual approach, involving both cellular and antibody-based vaccines, is required to give adequate protection, then another 10 years of development work will probably be needed.

In contrast, the first antiviral drug for Aids, AZT, was approved in 1987. AZT had serious side-effects, the pills had to be taken every four hours and HIV soon evolved resistance to it. But its availability did wonders for patients’ morale. Under pressure from Aids activist groups, drawn originally from the gay community, the pharmaceutical industry accelerated the development of other drugs that worked in different ways to AZT and could be used in combination with it.

“Aids activists in the late 1980s and early 1990s led the way for patient groups in other areas to become involved in clinical trials,” says Nick Partridge, long-serving chief executive of the Terrence Higgins Trust, the leading UK Aids charity. “The activists fought with the drug companies for a while but they soon developed a more collaborative relationship with the industry.”

Since 1996 the benchmark for Aids treatment has been “highly active anti-retroviral therapy” or Haart. This cocktail of three or four medicines is needed because the virus becomes resistant to combinations far more slowly than to individual drugs. “The biggest advance over the past five years has been to lighten the patient’s ‘pill burden’ by combining different drugs in single capsules and developing long-acting versions of them,” says Mr Partridge. “In 1997 it was not uncommon to have to remember to take 20 or 25 pills a day; now the dose might be two pills a day.”

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved 27 HIV products, including new combinations of existing drugs. Most stop the virus replicating by blocking an essential enzyme, though the newest approach is the “entry inhibitor” represented by Roche’s Fuzeon, which stops HIV getting into human cells.

Datamonitor, the business information company, estimates that the total HIV drug market will rise from $6.6bn in 2004 – a figure based on IMS Health sales data – to $12bn in 2015. Morris Paterson, senior Datamonitor healthcare analyst, says only one or two entirely new drugs are likely to enter the market before 2009, though new treatments will be launched at a faster rate after 2010. Products available today will still represent 62 per cent of the HIV market in 2015.

GlaxoSmithKline, which launched the first HIV drug, AZT, still has 38 per cent of the market, with Bristol-Myers Squibb second (22 per cent) and Abbott third (14 per cent). Datamonitor expects all three to have their share cut substantially over the next 10 years, as newcomers and generics enter the market.

According to Dr Paterson, the most promising newcomer is Tibotec, a Belgian pharmaceutical development company bought by Johnson & Johnson of the US in 2002, which has three HIV products in clinical trials. Pfizer could do well with Maraviroc, first of a new category of anti-HIV drugs called CCR5 inhibitors.

Although there is no prospect of a permanent cure for Aids in the foreseeable future, Mr Partridge of the Terrence Higgins Trust believes the drugs industry has done a good job with its HIV research and development. “People who said that Aids activists would drive pharmaceutical R&D away from this field were wrong,” he says. “The reality is that combination therapy is still highly effective for the vast majority of people with HIV.”

THE AGE OF AIDS: FROM OBSCURITY TO EPIDEMIC

■1930/40s: Aids starts in Cameroon, passed from chimpanzees to people. The disease slowly propagates in central Africa, unknown to medical science.

■1959:The earliest known case of HIV infection, identified retrospectively (in 1998) in a long-stored blood sample from the Congo.

■1981: Centres for Disease Control, Atlanta, recognise an unusual cluster of pneumonia cases in gay men.

■1983: Luc Montagnier and colleagues in France discover the virus that causes Aids. This is later identified independently by Robert Gallo in the US and becomes known as HIV.

■1987: Wellcome (now part of GlaxoSmithKline) launches the first anti-HIV drug, AZT.

■1996: New drug combinations, known as highly active anti-retroviral therapy, keep HIV infection under control without unacceptable side-effects.

■2001: First United Nations General Assembly session on Aids produces a big funding commitment from rich countries.

■2005:G8 meeting pledges universal access to Aids drugs in Africa by 2010.

US right questions wisdom of Bush's democracy policy

US right questions wisdom of Bush's democracy policy
By Guy Dinmore
Published: May 30 2006 03:00 | Last updated: May 30 2006 03:00. Copyright by The Financial Times

President George W. Bush has likened the "war on terrorism" to the cold war against communism.

Addressing military cadets graduating from West Point, Mr Bush reaffirmed at the weekend that the US "will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people in every nation".

But as the US struggles to assert itself on the international stage, the president's most radical supporters now dismiss this as mere rhetoric, and traditional conservatives are questioning the wisdom of a democratisation strategy that has brought unpleasant consequences in the Middle East.

Administration officials speak privately of a sense of fatigue over the worsening crisis in Iraq that has drained energy from other important policy issues. Senior officials are leaving - not so unusual in a second term, but still giving the sense of a sinking ship run in some quarters by relatively inexperienced crew.

Neo-conservative commentators at the American Enterprise Institute wrote last week what amounted to an obituary of the Bush freedom doctrine.

"Bush killed his own doctrine," they said, describing the final blow as the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya. This betrayal of Libyan democracy activists, they said, came after the US watched Egypt abrogate elections, ignored the collapse of the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon, abandoned imprisoned Chinese dissidents and started considering a peace treaty with Stalinist North Korea.

The neo-conservatives offered no explanation for desertion of the doctrine, other than a desire to make quick but transitory short-term gains. "The president continues to believe his own preaching, but his administration has become incapable of making the hard choices those beliefs require," they wrote.

But the ranks of the neo-conservatives are also being depleted. In his new book, America at the Crossroads, Francis Fukuyama, perhaps the movement's most outstanding intellectual force, confirms his defection from the brand concepts of "pre-emption, regime change, unilateralism and benevolent hegemony as put into practice by the Bush administration".

"It seems to me better to abandon the label and articulate an altogether distinct foreign policy position," he writes.

Advisers to the White House say it would be premature, however, to write off the doctrine of pre-emption, which was restated in the National Security Strategy released in March. But on Iran, for example, they believe the Bush administration is moving towards a cold war-style strategy of containment and deterrence with as broad an international coalition as possible.

Graham Fuller, former diplomat and intelligence officer, suggests the US is suffering from "strategic fatigue" brought on by "imperial over-reach".

"The administration's bark is minimised, and much of the bite seems gone," he writes in the Nixon Center's National Interest journal. "Has superpower fatigue set in? Clearly so, to judge by the administration's own dwindling energy and its sober acknowledgment that changing the face of the world is a lot tougher than it had hoped."

Short-term economic costs of the empire have been bearable, says Mr Fuller, but long-term indicators show it is not sustainable - massive domestic debt, growing trade imbalances, an extraordinary gap in wealth between rich and poor Americans, the growing outsourcing of jobs.

More immediately, the unprecedented unilateral character of the US exercise of global power has proved its undoing.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has tried to redress this in Mr Bush's second term, but key allies - Britain's Tony Blair, for example - are also suffering from weakened credibility.

In contrast, Russia, which Mr Bush saw as a declining power when he came to office in 2001, is asserting itself on the international stage. So is China.

Neither wants to declare itself explicitly at odds with the US, but they share a common agenda and ability to stymie Washington's will. This is seen in their policies towards Iran, North Korea, Syria, the new Palestinian government led by Hamas, and Venezuela.

"In the last few years, diverse countries have deployed a multiplicity of strategies and tactics designed to weaken, divert, complicate, limit, delay or block the Bush agenda through a death by a thousand cuts," says Mr Fuller.

Even some traditional Republicans are challenging the concept that the global "war on terror" is the paramount issue for generations to come.

Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate's powerful foreign relations committee, suggested that "there are a good many who would feel that the possibilities for devastation of countries, including our own, may come much more from our myopia in terms of energy policy than our ability to track down the last of the al-Qaeda cells".

Robert Jervis, professor of international politics at Columbia University, argues in the Washington Quarterly that the US system does not have the commitment to sustain the prolonged efforts required by Mr Bush's "transformationalist" agenda.

President George W. Bush has likened the “war on terrorism” to the cold war against communism.

Addressing military cadets graduating from West Point, Mr Bush reaffirmed at the weekend that the US “will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people in every nation”.

But as the US struggles to assert itself on the international stage, the president’s most radical supporters now dismiss this as mere rhetoric, and traditional conservatives are questioning the wisdom of a democratisation strategy that has brought unpleasant consequences in the Middle East.

Administration officials speak privately of a sense of fatigue over the worsening crisis in Iraq that has drained energy from other important policy issues. Senior officials are leaving – not so unusual in a second term, but still giving the sense of a sinking ship run in some quarters by relatively inexperienced crew.

Neo-conservative commentators at the American Enterprise Institute wrote last week what amounted to an obituary of the Bush freedom doctrine.

“Bush killed his own doctrine,” they said, describing the final blow as the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya. This betrayal of Libyan democracy activists, they said, came after the US watched Egypt abrogate elections, ignored the collapse of the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon, abandoned imprisoned Chinese dissidents and started considering a peace treaty with Stalinist North Korea.

The neo-conservatives offered no explanation for desertion of the doctrine, other than a desire to make quick but transitory short-term gains. “The president continues to believe his own preaching, but his administration has become incapable of making the hard choices those beliefs require,” they wrote.

But the ranks of the neo-conservatives are also being depleted. In his new book, America at the Crossroads, Francis Fukuyama, perhaps the movement’s most outstanding intellectual force, confirms his defection from the brand concepts of “pre-emption, regime change, unilateralism and benevolent hegemony as put into practice by the Bush administration”.

“It seems to me better to abandon the label and articulate an altogether distinct foreign policy position,” he writes.

Advisers to the White House say it would be premature, however, to write off the doctrine of pre-emption, which was restated in the National Security Strategy released in March. But on Iran, for example, they believe the Bush administration is moving towards a cold war-style strategy of containment and deterrence with as broad an international coalition as possible.

Graham Fuller, former diplomat and intelligence officer, suggests the US is suffering from “strategic fatigue” brought on by “imperial over-reach”.

“The administration’s bark is minimised, and much of the bite seems gone,” he writes in the Nixon Center’s National Interest journal. “Has superpower fatigue set in? Clearly so, to judge by the administration’s own dwindling energy and its sober acknowledgment that changing the face of the world is a lot tougher than it had hoped.”

Short-term economic costs of the empire have been bearable, says Mr Fuller, but long-term indicators show it is not sustainable – massive domestic debt, growing trade imbalances, an extraordinary gap in wealth between rich and poor Americans, the growing outsourcing of jobs.

More immediately, the unprecedented unilateral character of the US exercise of global power has proved its undoing.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has tried to redress this in Mr Bush’s second term, but key allies – Britain’s Tony Blair, for example – are also suffering from weakened credibility.

In contrast, Russia, which Mr Bush saw as a declining power when he came to office in 2001, is asserting itself on the international stage. So is China.

Neither wants to declare itself explicitly at odds with the US, but they share a common agenda and ability to stymie Washington’s will. This is seen in their policies towards Iran, North Korea, Syria, the new Palestinian government led by Hamas, and Venezuela.

“In the last few years, diverse countries have deployed a multiplicity of strategies and tactics designed to weaken, divert, complicate, limit, delay or block the Bush agenda through a death by a thousand cuts,” says Mr Fuller.

Even some traditional Republicans are challenging the concept that the global “war on terror” is the paramount issue for generations to come.

Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate’s powerful foreign relations committee, suggested that “there are a good many who would feel that the possibilities for devastation of countries, including our own, may come much more from our myopia in terms of energy policy than our ability to track down the last of the al-Qaeda cells”.

Robert Jervis, professor of international politics at Columbia University, argues in the Washington Quarterly that the US system does not have the commitment to sustain the prolonged efforts required by Mr Bush’s “transformationalist” agenda.

Chicago Sun Times Editorial - Raid on congressman's office defies tradition, not Constitution

Chicago Sun Times Editorial - Raid on congressman's office defies tradition, not Constitution
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
May 30, 2006

The FBI's raid on the congressional offices of Rep. William Jefferson spawned an unusual bipartisan rebellion last week, making it appear the search was a clear violation of the constitutional separation of powers. But we're not so sure the U.S. Constitution endows each lawmaker with a little sanctum, forever walled off from law enforcement -- especially when a congressman ignores a subpoena and the FBI has a warrant and what appear to be pretty solid motives.

Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat who represents New Orleans, is being investigated for allegedly taking bribes to promote business ventures in Africa. Two people have already pleaded guilty to bribing him, and the FBI says it has a tape of him taking $100,000 in bribes last summer. It says an earlier raid on his house yielded $90,000 of that cash stashed in his freezer, wrapped in foil and stuffed into plastic containers. Jefferson says "There are two sides to this story," but he hasn't told his yet, other than to deny wrongdoing.

Critics of the raid said it violated the Constitution's "speech and debate" protections. The relevant section says that lawmakers "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall be questioned in any other place."

There is no explicit ban on searching congressional offices -- it's more a matter of tradition. Tradition shouldn't give lawmakers immunity from criminal investigations.

The FBI said the raid was necessary because Jefferson ignored subpoenas for the information it sought. It's hard to see what the feds could have or should have done differently. If they had strong reasons for getting the documents and a proper search warrant, should they have refrained just because the tradition is that, in more than 200 years, the executive branch had never raided a congressional office before? And why should Jefferson's office be sacrosanct, but not his house?

A good chunk of the criticism -- much of it, no doubt, from Democrats -- is due to the fact that President Bush has been testing the boundaries of presidential authority, most controversially with his warrantless eavesdropping program. Many simply don't trust him and view the raid as another step toward a police state. But House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Yorkville, is among the raid's harshest critics. He was instrumental in getting Bush to agree to seal the seized documents for 45 days while lawyers work out a resolution. That likely will include guidelines for future searches of congressional offices.

There is, of course, one way to make this whole debate moot. If there wasn't corruption in Washington, then the FBI wouldn't have much to investigate.

Senate Approves Sweeping But Flawed Immigration Reform Bil

Senate Approves Sweeping But Flawed Immigration Reform Bill
May 29, 2006

On Thursday, May 25th, the Senate voted 62 to 36 to approve a massive immigration reform bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (CIRA), S.2611. S.2611 is one of the most sweeping and comprehensive immigration reform proposals ever to be passed by either branch of Congress.

As debate over the bill proceeded on the Senate floor and among the public at large, attention focused on one issue more than any other: should undocumented immigrants who live and work in this country be granted a path to citizenship? On Thursday, to its credit, the Senate answered this particular question in the affirmative. But the bill that was finally approved after two weeks of debate and numerous amendments is a multi-headed monster, composed of a myriad of complex and poorly integrated provisions. While some of these measures would enact desperately needed reforms, others would substantially undermine the goals of those reforms or run contrary to core American values.

Features of S. 2611 as passed by the Senate

The main features of S.2611 include:

Path to legal status: Provide various paths to legal status with differing requirements for an uncertain number of the estimated 11-12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and pay taxes in the U.S.

Each legalization mechanism would provide temporary status or temporary worker status for a substantial number of years, followed by permanent residence for those who qualify. The mechanisms would include: (1) "Earned Adjustment" for those who have lived and worked here since April 5, 2001; (2) "Deferred Mandatory Departure" (DMD) for those who entered between April 5, 2001 and January 7, 2004 (who must leave the U.S. within 3 years but could return under the new guestworker program, with the possibility of ultimately obtaining permanent status); (3) AgJOBS, for those who have worked in agriculture for at least 2 years; and (4) the DREAM Act, for individuals brought to the U.S. at the age of 15 or younger at least 5 years before the date of enactment of S.2611.

Unfortunately, it is certain that many currently undocumented immigrants would not be able legalize under these provisions--even if they meet the residence and work requirements--because of the complications and barriers that are discussed below.

Backlog reduction: Greatly reduce the immigration backlogs that currently cause family separation and business frustration. Among the changes: (1) Immediate relatives (spouses, children and parents) of U.S. citizens would no longer be counted against the worldwide limit of available visas, and those visas would be made available for other family categories; (2) The number of employment-based visas would be more than doubled; and (3) The children and spouse of a U.S. citizen who have applied for an immigrant visa would be allowed to continue with their application if the citizen dies before the visa is issued.

An amendment added on the Senate floor would restrict future immigration by persons from certain countries by reducing the number of "diversity visas" to 18,333 from the current level of 55,000, and replacing these with a like number of new visas for persons with advanced degrees. Diversity visas, also known as lottery visas, are made available to individuals from countries with historically low levels of immigration to the U.S. In recent years, a high proportion of these visas have gone to people from Africa.

More guestworkers: Expand and reform the existing H-2A guestworker program for agricultural workers (part of AgJOBS), and create a new H-2C program granting up to 200,000 annual visas for low-skilled workers and others whose job-types are not covered by current guestworker provisions. H-2C visas would be valid for three years and could be renewed once for a total of 6 years. Workers would be able to switch from one approved employer to another, and would be able to adjust to lawful permanent residence status at any time via an employment petition by the employer or, after four years, via a self-petition that would require a Department of Labor certification that there are not sufficient United States workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to fill their job.

Employment verification: Expand the problematic "basic pilot" electronic employment verification system-currently being used on a voluntary basis by a few thousand employers-to a mandatory program that must be applied to all 50 million annual new hires in the U.S. The expansion would be phased in over an 18-month period. An amendment added during floor debate would make the system somewhat more workable and would provide protections against erroneous disapprovals, privacy lapses, discrimination, and other abuses. Despite the improvement, the new program would not address the core flaws inherent in any such system. It would bring us closer to implementation of a National ID, and unless the underlying problems are addressed it would push large numbers of employers and workers alike into the burgeoning cash economy, devoid of regulations.

"Border enforcement": Numerous provisions of S. 2611 are intended to reduce illegal border crossings. But experience suggests that these provisions will further militarize the border without providing the protections needed to hold the government accountable for civil and human rights violations and without reducing the undocumented population. These measures include:

Construction of 370 miles of triple-barrier fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers; Increasing the border patrol from 11,300 currently to more than 25,000 by 2011; Authorizing use of the National Guard to patrol the border with Mexico until 2009. Making expedited removal (removal without a chance to have an immigration judge hear the case) mandatory for individuals (except for Mexicans and Cubans) detained within 100 miles of the border and within two weeks after entry;
Requiring mandatory detention of individuals (except for Mexicans and Cubans) caught at a port of entry or land or international land or maritime borders.

"Interior enforcement": Increase penalties and reduce due process protections for those charged with immigration violations, while increasing state and local enforcement of immigration laws. For example, S.2611 would: Overrule Supreme Court decisions on indefinite detention by allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain immigrants indefinitely, even when they have not committed a criminal offense and there is no reasonable chance of removal to their home country;
Make detention more likely by increasing detention space; Limit courts' ability to halt (enjoin) government violation of immigrants' constitutional and statutory rights; Bar persons from adjusting status if they admit (conviction not required) a document fraud offense; even a person who has US citizen or lawful permanent resident family members will be inadmissible, if she admits completing an I-9 form with a false Social Security Number to get a job; Greatly expand the definition of passport, visa and immigration fraud crimes including the criminalization of omission of information (rather than provision of false information) on immigration-related documents; Unreasonably expand the definition of aggravated felony, which will make even more immigrants deportable and permanently ineligible for legal status; Broaden the definition of "smuggling," and include in the definition actions taken outside the U.S., and expand the "smuggling" forfeiture provision to apply to any property; a person who invited an undocumented relative to her house might lose her house Expand state and local enforcement of immigration laws by: (1) Authorizing state and local police to enforce federal criminal immigration laws; (2) Authorizing reimbursement for training, transportation, and other expenses; (3) Mandating that DHS reach out to states to enter into a memorandum of understanding to enforce federal immigration law (but without requiring states to enter into those agreements); (4) Authorizing the entry of a wide range of civil immigration records into the federal National Criminal Information Center criminal database; and (5) Changing the definition of the crime of entry without inspection (committed by 60-75 percent of undocumented immigrants) to a "continuing offense" which would have the effect of authorizing state and local police to enforce this immigration offense; Impose immigration penalties on US citizens and lawful permanent residents by limiting their rights to petition for their relatives, if the citizens or lawful permanent residents have committed certain crimes; Increase the penalties for failing to file notice of change of address; Make voluntary departure rules harsher.

English as the National Language: S.2611 would declare English to be the "national language" of the United States, and would provide that unless otherwise provided by law, individuals do not have a legal entitlement to services or materials in any other language. It also would provide that if there is a discrepancy between a form provided in English and in another language, only the English version governs. Finally, it would provide new guidelines that could make the naturalization English and civics tests more difficult to pass.

Barriers to legalization

The actual number who would be able to legalize under the various provisions listed above is difficult to determine because of complications and barriers that would prevent many from qualifying. For example, among the approximately two million undocumented immigrants who have entered the U.S. since January 7, 2004, only the children or spouses of others who legalize will be able to adjust their status. Other barriers include

Cost: For most immigrants, the minimum cost of legalizing under the earned adjustment program, in fines and fees, would likely exceed $4,000. For many, this expense would be compounded by a tax increase that would solely apply to legalizing immigrants. Provisions added during Senate floor debate would substantially increase the tax liability of legalizing immigrants for past tax years by: (1) extending the number of years for which back taxes are required; (2) tacking on interest and penalties; (3) prohibiting immigrants from calculating their taxes using the credits available to all other taxpayers; and even (4) precluding refunds of overpayments in those years. These tax provisions, described during the Senate debate as vengeful and unfair, appear to apply even to immigrants who have already paid their taxes in full. They would substantially increase the cost of legalizing, and therefore the ability to do so for many individuals. Requiring so large an expenditure from such a predominantly low-income population would border on extortion.

English ability: As passed by the Senate, S.2611 requires all applicants for earned adjustment to pass the naturalization test for English and civics, although there are age and disability exceptions to this requirement. The same floor amendment that would make English the national language of the U.S. also eliminated the option to meet the English and civics requirements by satisfactorily pursuing a course of study of English of civics.

Minor past crimes: Provisions of S.2611 would preclude individuals who have committed minor crimes years ago from obtaining legal status

Uncertainty and confusion: The overlapping paths to legal status, each with its own set of requirements and exclusions, would likely confuse immigrants, social services agencies, and government employees alike, resulting in missed deadlines and opportunities. Of particular concern is the process for deferred mandatory departure available to those who entered between April 5, 2001 and January 7, 2004. These individuals would be required to sign away all rights to judicial review of future decisions by the immigration authorities, and then they would be required to leave the U.S. within 3 years and return under one of the existing immigrant or nonimmigrant categories. The assumption is that almost all would return under the new guestworker classification, but it is doubtful that this process would work as intended.

Next steps

Immigration reform now will be taken up by a House-Senate Conference Committee that will attempt to bridge the wide divide between S.2611 and H.R.4437, popularly known as the Sensenbrenner bill, which was passed by the House in December. Unlike the Senate bill, H.R. 4437 would not provide a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants. It would not address family backlogs or make any other helpful changes to our broken legal immigration system. The House bill also contains many harsh provisions not included in the Senate version, such as a drastic reduction in immigrants' access to federal courts.

The conference committee will negotiate over each detail of difference between the House and Senate versions in an effort to synthesize a single compromise bill. A majority of the House conferees and a majority of the Senate conferees must agree to the compromise version before it will be reported back to the floor of each chamber for a final vote. The Senate Republican and Democratic leadership agreed in advance on the composition of the Senate conferees for the immigration bill, which will include a majority of Senators who have consistently supported a comprehensive solution to our immigration problems, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. .

In contrast, the House conferees will be appointed by Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and their decisions will be controlled entirely by the House leadership which has pledged not to permit a conference report to emerge unless supported by a majority of Republican House members. This erects a very high bar for any proposal that includes positive features, given that nearly half of those representatives are members of Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-CO) "Immigration Reform Caucus."

Because of the healthy Senate vote in favor of a comprehensive (though flawed) approach, the Senate conferees will have a strong mandate to retain the core concept of a path to citizenship in S. 2611 and to fight against provisions in the House bill that would make the punitive aspects of the bill even harsher. Despite expressions of optimism by some Senators in the past week or so, it will be very difficult for them to find common ground with the House conferees, who are likely to be intransigent. There is speculation that Speaker Hastert may decide not to appoint any conferees as a way of preventing uncontrolled negotiations on the bill.

In any case, it is unlikely that a resolution will be forthcoming soon. It is even possible that the conference committee will not come to agreement until after the election, when Congress is expected to meet in a "lame-duck" session to complete work on the budget.

Conclusion

It is a shame that the complex and ambitious Senate bill fails to live up to the noble aspirations of its authors. But in the current anti-immigrant environment, passage by the full Senate of legislation that at least aspires to provide a path to legal status for most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. and to address family and employment legal immigration backlogs is a remarkable accomplishment, one that is best explained by the emergence of a burgeoning national immigrant rights movement from sea to sea, border to border, and nearly all points in between.

Our goal at NILC is eventually to achieve enactment of legislation that significantly improves on the current version of S.2611. We recognize that this is unlikely to happen in conference, but at a minimum it is critically important that the Senate conferees remain resolute rather than give in to House demands for a bill that would more closely resemble the one they passed in December. Our job as advocates is to press the conferees to retain the positive provisions of the Senate bill and to improve those that are problematic. If immigrant communities remain active and involved, if the movement for real reform grows, then our supporters in Congress may well come back after the election with the wind at their backs, and with a mandate for the kind of change that will be good for immigrants, and good for the nation as a whole.





——————————

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT
Josh Bernstein, Director of Federal Policy | bernstein@nilc-dc.org | 202.216.0261

New York Times Editorial - The interest must be paid

New York Times Editorial - The interest must be paid
The New York Times
MONDAY, MAY 29, 2006

Recent stock market turmoil has been a plus for U.S. Treasury securities. Over the last couple of weeks, investor demand for safety has generally pushed up the price of the benchmark 10-year Treasury bond, making it cheaper for the government to borrow. But there is still plenty of reason to worry about the United States' borrowing binge.

By definition, federal borrowing eventually results in a transfer of income from U.S. taxpayers, whose taxes go to pay the interest on the debt, to the investors who hold the Treasury bonds. As long as the bonds are owned by Americans, the transfer is simply from one group of citizens to another. Bond holders may get richer, while taxpayers who don't own bonds get poorer, which could add to troubling disparities in personal wealth. But shuffling the income between the two groups doesn't reduce America's overall wealth.

Today, however, 43 percent of the United States' publicly held debt of $4.8 trillion is held abroad, mainly by central banks in Japan, China and Britain and by offshore hedge funds. That's up from a 30 percent share in 2001, an extraordinary increase. Indeed, during the Bush years, 73 percent of new government borrowing has been from abroad.

Paying the interest on the foreign- owned portion of the debt will be a burden on future Americans, draining their wallets and siphoning off America's wealth.

Reliance on foreign lenders poses current dangers, as well. A shift in investor sentiment, away from dollar-based investments and into other countries' assets, could be very destabilizing, forcing a drop in the dollar, higher interest rates and higher prices. Such shifts can be sudden, as in the Asian financial crisis in 1998.

America is living beyond its means, and foreigners are increasingly supporting the excess - in exchange for a government guarantee that a chunk of America's future collective income will benefit them, not the Americans who earn it.

New York Times Editorial - An immigration victory

New York Times Editorial - An immigration victory
Copyright by The New York Time
MONDAY, MAY 29, 2006

Americans should be proud of what the U.S. Senate did last week. It passed an ambitious bill that could lead to the most far-reaching overhaul of immigration laws in America's history. It did so after months of thoughtful debate and through a bipartisan compromise, a creature that many thought had vanished from Capitol Hill. The bill has many flaws, but its framework is realistic and humane.

The Senate has given the cause of immigration reform a lot of momentum, which it will need since it is now heading for a brick wall: the House of Representatives. The House Judiciary Committee chairman, James Sensenbrenner, in the role of head brick, called the Senate bill "a nonstarter" the morning after it passed.

The House's immigration bill is tough on security. But so is the Senate's. The House wants 700 miles of new fencing on the Mexican border; the Senate wants 370, with another 500 miles of vehicle barriers. That looks like mere miles apart to us.
But when you add the real crux of the debate - the future flow of temporary workers and a path to citizenship for America's shadow population of 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants - things do get tricky.

Many polls show that the American public has moved decisively toward favoring a comprehensive immigration solution: tightening security and giving illegal immigrants a chance to seek the burdens and benefits of citizenship. But those in the Sensenbrenner camp are clinging to a fantasy that only a clenched fist will set America's immigrant problems right. They have refused to treat illegal immigrants as anything but outlaws, and oppose the Senate bill's citizenship path.

There is a huge gap between the House and the Senate, but it can be bridged, and President George W. Bush should bridge it. The coalition that passed the Senate bill has handed Bush an opportunity to lead the United States to a better place. He should spend every last shred of his political capital and skill to take it.

Radical fundamentalists a threat to all Americans

Letters to the Editor
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
Radical fundamentalists a threat to all Americans
May 28, 2006

Your article in last Sunday's Controversy section by Michelle Goldberg ["The rise of Christian nationalism"] should be required reading for all Americans. Backed up by the reviews of books by Madeleine Albright and Jon Meacham, it provides a huge alarm bell to a very real and obvious threat to all Americans. Radical religious fundamentalists, Christian and Muslim, are trying their best to destroy America. They are corrupting our children's schools, they have infiltrated our government at the highest levels, and they murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11.

People like Roy Moore, former Alabama Supreme Court justice, and Osama bin Laden think they're better than everyone else. They think that everyone who is different from them is evil and deserves punishment and destruction. They present themselves as true believers, as people who have real religious faith, values and morality in a world of atheists and sinners. But that is a lie. Deeply held religious faith doesn't stop people like that from being child molesters, wife beaters and suicide bombers. And their deeply held belief that their god is better than my God certainly does not give these radical extremists the right to tell anyone else what to do.

They have hijacked the words "faith," "values" and "morality" for their own twisted and selfish agendas. Real values and morality are about treating others as you would have them treat you. Real values are about charity, compassion and understanding. But as far as I can tell, for people like Roy Moore and Osama bin Laden, values are about setting yourself up as a dictator and telling everyone else how to live their lives.

Sam Lipkin,
Lockport

New York Times Editorial - For want of a nurse

New York Times Editorial - For want of a nurse
Copyright by The New York Times
SUNDAY, MAY 28, 2006

The United States spent most of its history enjoying the fruits of the theory that the only professions suitable for respectable women were nursing and teaching. As a result, the schools and hospitals were filled with highly qualified people working for extremely low wages. Then women's liberation arrived, and with it, a drastic shortage of teachers and nurses.

The medical needs of an aging population make the nursing situation seem particularly stark. With the coming retirement of the last generation of women who chose nursing simply because they didn't want to teach, things are likely to get worse. The average age of registered nurses is estimated at 47 and climbing.

As The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune reported last week, American hospitals are looking overseas to solve some of the current nursing shortage, eliciting concern from African and Asian countries that worry about losing their own desperately needed medical professionals. In the Philippines, most government doctors have enrolled in nursing training in hopes of being permitted to come to the United States to work.

The idea of the richest country in the world skimming the scant cream off the health care staffs of poor countries is disturbing. No one wants to close the gates to a skilled population of people. Unskilled illegal immigrants should be given a path to potential citizenship, so nurses from the Philippines should not receive less favored treatment. But it is incumbent on the United States to start trying to solve this problem on its own.

One of the first and most obvious fixes is increased government spending on nursing education - particularly the training of professors of nursing. The Nurse Education Loan Repayment Program, which provides financial aid to students who agree to work after graduation in places that have a critical shortage of nurses, was able to pay for fewer than 20 percent of the applicants in 2005. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing reported that more than 30,000 qualified students were not admitted last year because of a lack of space and faculty.

Although salaries have been rising, nursing groups say that one of the chief complaints of their members is low pay. But like doctors and other medical practitioners, they also report dropping job satisfaction because of the pressures of modern cost-driven medical care. Their dissatisfactions mirror those of today's patients: too few medical workers serving too many very sick people. And none of those things are going to be solved on the cheap.

Back in the 19th century, the reformer and physician William Alcott envisioned an early version of a national health system. He proposed that as many women as possible should be trained as nurses so all Americans could benefit from free medical care. The idea that the nurses would want to be paid did not seem to occur to Alcott. Even today, America does not seem to have quite adjusted to the idea.

New York Times Editorial - The reality of Iraq starts to dawn on Bush

New York Times Editorial - The reality of Iraq starts to dawn on Bush
Copyright by The New York Times
SUNDAY, MAY 28, 2006

When President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain talked about progress in Iraq at a joint news conference last week, one thing was evident. The two world leaders who plotted the original invasion have, at least, come a long way in realizing how many things have gone wrong. Bush and Blair, who have always been the cheerleaders for the Iraq initiative, seemed downbeat, even as they insisted that democratization would make everything right in the end.

Iraq now does have a constitutional government, elected by the Iraqis themselves. But that will make no difference at all unless that government can provide all its citizens with basic order and security.

Right now armed gangs of thugs, many of them wearing government uniforms, are spreading terror throughout Iraq. Some were trained by U.S. forces to work for the Interior Ministry, but actually do the bidding of Shiite political and religious leaders. They harass, kidnap and murder people who follow different religious practices or support competing politicians, often with the help of weapons and equipment provided by a U.S. government that had very different objectives in mind. The New York Times reported last week that Sunni forces working for the Ministry of Defense who were supposed to be guarding Iraq's oil pipeline were instead freelancing as death squads, assassinating people who cooperated with the same government that paid the gunmen's salaries.

Of all of Bush's many arguments for the invasion, the only one that has survived exposure to reality is that Iraqis deserve something better than a brutal dictatorship. But right now Iraq appears on the way to a civil war among the armed groups competing to impose order on their own terms. To avoid repeating a very bad history, Iraq's security forces must be brought under control by people who have both the will and the capacity to truly unite the nation.

The fact that the current government avoided naming any officials to the posts that control the military and internal security forces when it announced its first cabinet was a clear sign of how difficult that task would be. And coming up with acceptable nominees is just the first and easiest step. The current military and civilian police forces must be purged of their brutal and lawless elements, and the numerous private militias must be made to stand down and disarm.

U.S. forces can never be a substitute for Iraqi soldiers and police officers who take seriously their duty to protect all the people, regardless of religion or ethnicity. Bush's premise that U.S. troops should simply stay on the ground until Iraq gets things right and defeats all insurgent forces and terrorist groups, however long it takes, is flat wrong. The U.S. presence is dangerous - to the soldiers themselves, to American standing in the world, and most tellingly to large numbers of innocent Iraqis.

The emerging story about what happened in November in Haditha, where at least two dozen Iraqi men, women and children were apparently shot by a small group of U.S. marines, is only the latest indication of what terrible things can happen when soldiers are required to occupy hostile civilian territory in the midst of an armed insurrection and looming civil war. A military investigation is deciding whether any of the marines should be charged with murder, and whether a cover-up took place. All these questions have awful resonance for those who remember Vietnam, and what that prolonged and ultimately pointless war did to both the Vietnamese and the American social fabric.

It was somewhat reassuring that Bush and Blair have stopped trying to pretend that everything has gone just fine in Iraq, since most of the rest of the world already knows otherwise. But it was very disturbing to hear them follow their expressions of regret with the same old "stay the course" fantasy. It's time for Bush either to chart a course that can actually be followed, or admit that there is none.

MÊLÉE IN MOSCOW - Moscow pride ends with violence, injuries, arrests

MÊLÉE IN MOSCOW - Moscow pride ends with violence, injuries, arrests
by Rex Wockner. Copyright by Rex Wockner

An attempt to stage Moscow's first-ever gay-pride march ended with violence, injuries and mass arrests May 27.

Activists took to the streets even though Mayor Yuri Luzhkov had banned the march and was backed up by the Tverskoi District Court.

Among those arrested were co-organizers Nikolai Alekseev and Eugenia Debryanskaya.

The injured included German Member of Parliament Volker Beck, Homosexual Initiative Vienna Secretary-General Kurt Krickler and Merlin Holland, who is Oscar Wilde's grandson.

The first of two main confrontations occurred when gay activists approached the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier near the Kremlin, intending to lay wreaths.

They were halted by riot police, neo-fascists and hymn-singing Christian militants.

"We were immediately set upon by about 100 fascist thugs and religious fanatics who began pushing, punching and kicking us," said British gay leader Peter Tatchell. "Some individual protesters were surrounded, abused and attacked by gangs of fascists."

The counterprotesters, some wearing masks, also tossed flares. Riot police eventually separated the two groups and arrested some members of both groups.

"This is a great victory, an absolute victory -- look at what's happening," Alekseev said as he was dragged away by police.

A second large-scale confrontation occurred across from City Hall.

"Soon after [our] reassembling ... another line of riot police came and drove us out of the square, straight into an oncoming posse of fascists," said Tatchell.

In all, at least 120 people were arrested. Most were later released, but police said they would "draw up ... administrative protocols" against the organizers of the gay march.

Police said the gay marchers and their supporters numbered around 200. About 1,000 police officers, a quarter of Moscow's force, were assigned to prevent the march from happening.

German MP Beck was injured while giving a TV interview.

"At first I was hit by a rock and then a young neo-Nazi hit me in the face," he told the Deutsche Presse Agentur news agency. "The security forces did not protect us but instead prevented us from retreating. We were left without any protection," he said in a second interview, with German television.

Wire service photos showed Beck with blood streaming down his face.

Austrian Krickler was attacked during the City Hall mêlée.

"I myself was attacked by four youth, kicking me with their feet and beating me with their fists," Krickler said. "I got a blow on my eye and could escape, and the aggressors ran away. I had a bad bruise at the eye, and a friend took me to a clinic where the doctor ordered an X-ray as he suspected the sinus could be damaged, too. Fortunately, no severe injury, besides a huge hematoma on the eye."

Krickler said a fellow protester was hurt more seriously.

"Pierre [Serne] from France suffered so severe injuries in an attack of skinheads that he had to be hospitalized," he said.

According to the European branch of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, Serne "has hematomas almost everywhere, his face is bruised and one of his legs badly hurt."

Holland, Wilde's grandson, was kicked by "a gang of extremists" while walking up Tverskaya Street, ILGA-Europe said.

England's Tatchell said Mayor Luzhkov's "homophobia created the atmosphere which gave a green light to the fascists to attack the Moscow pride participants."

Luzhkov had repeatedly denounced the parade and insisted he would never allow it to proceed.

The day before the march, he told Russkoye Radio: "We will not even consider this matter. ... At least as long as I am mayor, we will not permit such parades. Our church, mosque and synagogue -- that is to say, all the three major confessions in Moscow -- have spoken strongly against such parades.

"The situation as such can be acceptable for some Western countries advanced in this respect," Luzhkov continued, "but it is absolutely unacceptable for Moscow and for Russia. Morality works here. If anyone has any deviations from normal principles in organizing one's sexual life, those deviations should not be exhibited for all to see, and those who may turn out unsteady should not be invited to do so. ... I thank the citizens of Moscow as 99.9 percent of them in recent days also believe it is unacceptable to hold such parades."

Activists also put blame for the violence on Talgat Tadzhuddin, chief mufti of the Russian Muslim Central Directorate. In February, he said: "Under no circumstances should something like this [parade] be permitted. And if they come out into the streets anyway, they should only be beaten up. Any normal person would do that -- Muslims and Orthodox Christians alike."

Moscow Deputy Mayor Lyudmila Shevtsova also was denounced by activists for saying: "In our country, homosexuality and lesbianism have always been considered sexual perversions, and were even prosecuted in the past. Currently, the stated actions are not prohibited by law, but their agitation, including gay festivals and a parade of sexual minorities, is in fact propaganda of immorality, which may be prohibited by law."

May 27 was the 13th anniversary of Russia's decriminalization of homosexuality.

In Paris, openly gay Mayor Bertrand Delanoë said "the grave attacks on respect for human rights and individual identity [were] contrary to the basic principles of a democratic nation."

In the days before the ill-fated march, activists gathered in Moscow for an antihomophobia conference and other events.

On May 25, Russian nationalist protesters violently disrupted a lecture by Holland at the State Library of Foreign Literature.

About 20 demonstrators shouted "Russia free of faggots!", threw eggs and shot off mace canisters. Police evacuated the hall and the lecture resumed in a different room.

HIV's Ancestry Traced to Wild Chimps

HIV's Ancestry Traced to Wild Chimps
By LAURAN NEERGAARD
Copyright by The Associated Press
Thursday, May 25, 2006; 8:56 PM

WASHINGTON -- Twenty-five years after the first AIDS cases emerged, scientists have confirmed that the HIV virus plaguing humans really did originate in wild chimpanzees, in a corner of Cameroon.

Solving the mystery of HIV's ancestry was dirty work. Scientists employed trackers to plunge through dense jungle and collect the fresh feces of wild apes _ more than 1,300 samples in all.

Before that, it took seven years of research just to develop the testing methods to genetically trace the primate version of the virus in living wild chimps without hurting the endangered species.

Until now, "no one was able to look. No one had the tools," said Dr. Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. She led the team of international researchers that reported the success in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

"We're 25 years into this pandemic," Hahn said. "We don't have a cure. We don't have a vaccine. But we know where it came from. At least we can make a check mark on one of those."

Scientists long have known that nonhuman primates carry their own version of the AIDS virus, called SIV or simian immunodeficiency virus. But with one exception, it had been found only in captive chimpanzees, particularly a subspecies that in the wild populates mostly West Africa.

It was not known how prevalent the virus was in chimps in the wild, or how genetically or geographically diverse it was, complicating efforts to pin down the jump from animal to man.

Hahn's team tested chimp feces for SIV antibodies, finding them in a subspecies called Pan troglodytes troglodytes in southern Cameroon.

Chimps tend to form geographically distinct communities. By genetically analyzing the feces, researchers could trace individual infected chimps. The team found some chimp communities with infection rates as high as 35 percent, while others had no infection at all.

Every single infected chimp had a common base genetic pattern that indicated a common ancestor, Hahn said.

There are three types of HIV-1, the strain of the human virus responsible for most of the worldwide epidemic. Genetic analysis let Hahn identify chimp communities near Cameroon's Sanaga River whose viral strains are most closely related to the most common of those HIV-1 subtypes.

"The genetic similarity was striking," Hahn said.

The first human known to be infected with HIV was a man from Kinshasa in the nearby country of Congo who had his blood stored in 1959 as part of a medical study, decades before scientists knew the AIDS virus existed.

Presumably, someone in rural Cameroon was bitten by a chimp or was cut while butchering one and became infected with the ape virus. That person passed it to someone else.

The Sanaga River long has been a commercial waterway, for transporting hardwood, ivory and other items to more urban areas. Eventually, someone infected made it to Kinshasa.

"How many different transmission events occurred between that initial hunter and this virus making it to Kinshasa, I don't know. It could have been one, it could have been 10, it could have been 100," Hahn said. "Eventually, it ended up in an urban area, and that's where it really got going."

Somewhere in all that spread, the virus became more deadly to people than it is to chimps, who seldom are bothered much by SIV.

The research seems to settle any question of HIV's origin, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institutes of Health's AIDS chief.

When tracing a virus' evolution, "it's important to get as close to the source as you can," he said. "It's of historic interest."

Chicago Sun Times Editorial - Stroger's health can't be kept secret for months

Chicago Sun Times Editorial - Stroger's health can't be kept secret for months
Copyright by The Chicago Sun times
May 28, 2006

Mayor Daley was angered by Cook County Commissioner Tony Peraica's demand for proof that County Board President John Stroger is "alive and well enough to function" -- and possibly will be well enough to run against Peraica, the Republican candidate, in the November election. As difficult or distasteful as it may be to ask for a photo or tape of the ailing Stroger, is it not more objectionable for his family and supporters to cloak in secrecy the physical and psychological condition of the man who runs the 19th largest government in the United States?

In the days and even weeks after the 77-year-old Stroger suffered a debilitating stroke -- which didn't keep him from winning the March Democratic primary -- he and his family were entitled to their privacy as they dealt with his illness and doctors treated him and arrived at a prognosis. Personal needs came first. But now, more than two months after he was stricken and nine days after he was released from the Rehabilitation Institute, the people of Cook County are justified in demanding answers from the Stroger camp relating to their own well-being in the weeks and months ahead.

The most pressing questions pertain to the running of the county during the five-plus months before the election. If Stroger is unable to resume his responsibilities in due course, as seems likely, the procedure to choose someone else to take charge should be carried out. As Peraica said, reasonably, "With the county budget looming on the horizon, with over 40 union contracts to be negotiated, numerous executive appointments to be made, we can't wait until the end of October when Clerk David Orr has set the deadline to decide whether or not [Stroger's] going to be the candidate."

In raising the issue, Peraica was raising his own political profile. It's safe to say a lot more people know he's the Republican candidate for County Board president now than did before Mayor Daley ripped him for his remarks. But that doesn't diminish the validity of those remarks. And it's not as though Democrats haven't been busy positioning themselves to run in Stroger's stead. His son, Ald. Todd Stroger (8th), has declared himself the man for the job when not suggesting his father might recover and seek a fourth term. U.S. Rep. Danny Davis and County Commissioner Bobbie Steele have tossed their hats into the ring to oppose Todd Stroger. Now, Ald. William Beavers (7th) is being promoted as a compromise candidate.

But there's a long way to go until November. What about the pressing challenges facing Cook County now? Some will argue that politicians are allowed to keep private health information private. In fact, U.S. presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, have hidden their health problems from the public. But those were different eras, and the fact that they got away with it doesn't make it right. Todd Stroger says his father likely will make a decision on whether or not he will run in July. But until then, what?

Unconstitutional raid? `Absurd'

Unconstitutional raid? `Absurd'
By Steve Chapman
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
Published May 28, 2006

The Bush administration has a habit of misreading the Constitution, pushing its powers as far as possible and expecting Congress to meekly go along. But now the House of Representatives has decided to fight back--not by asserting its rightful prerogatives, but by misreading the Constitution, pushing its powers as far as possible and expecting the president to meekly go along.

Its sudden attack of institutional pride comes in an exceptionally bad situation. The Justice Department is investigating Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) for allegedly accepting bribes. The FBI, which says it has a videotape of him taking $100,000 in cash, found $90,000 stashed in his freezer when it raided his home.

But the agency also did something unusual: It set foot in his Washington office in search of additional evidence, and left with calendars, datebooks and the hard drive of his computer.

The decision prompted a rare show of bipartisan unity. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California reacted like cats whose tails got caught in a door. They issued a joint statement insisting that the Justice Department return the material it took and revise its "protocols and procedures" for those cases where members of Congress may be guilty of crimes.

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio demanded to know if "the people at the Justice Department have looked at the Constitution." Democrats, not to be outdone, had their second-in-command, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, express shock at this invasion of privacy: "We all have in our offices information, letters, correspondences, speeches, etc., that we have written," and some of it "is confidential information, just as the White House has confidential information."

President Bush, who has often upheld dubious assertions of executive power, was less eager to defend this perfectly legitimate one. He tried to appease Hastert and company by sealing the materials for 45 days, at the expense of delaying justice.

Apparently it comes as news to federal lawmakers that they are subject to the same laws as everyone else. Corporate executives or labor organizers suspected of taking bribes would not expect their workplaces to be off-limits to police. Yet they, too, may have in their files "confidential information" they would prefer to keep private.

House members think they are so special that their secrets should trump any need to stamp out corruption. Fortunately, there is nothing in the Constitution to support that inflated view of their prerogatives. One passage says members "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place." Its chief purpose, though, is to prevent members from being punished for doing their jobs--not to create a special zone where they can hide evidence of felonies.

Northwestern University law professor Ronald Allen, in line with the consensus among legal experts, says the idea that the raid violated the Constitution is "absurd." When I called the speaker's office in search of evidence to the contrary, my call went unreturned.

Connoisseurs of Washington etiquette complain that this is the first time a Capitol Hill House office has been violated in this way. But this history is due more to the executive branch's fear of retaliation than to any constitutional barrier.

It's not as though the executive branch claims carte blanche to ransack congressional offices. To gain admittance to Rep. Jefferson's sanctum, the FBI had to get a search warrant, which judges may not grant without information showing "probable cause." Nor can it seize anything and everything it finds--only items specified in the warrant and other obvious evidence it may come across.

These, as it happens, are the same protections that apply to ordinary people when their conduct raises suspicion. They are also the same protections available to presidents. Richard Nixon thought his tapes should be kept away from investigators, and Bill Clinton was no doubt distressed when he had to turn over records concerning Monica Lewinsky's nocturnal visits to the West Wing.

Courts in those cases had the same response as in this one: tough luck. The general rule says if you value your privacy, you shouldn't run afoul of the law. If that's good enough for the rest of us, it should be good enough for Congress.

----------

E-mail: schapman@tribune.com