President Bush Conference and Q&A

Transcript via Fox

WASHINGTON — A transcript of the televised address given by President Bush on Thursday, April 28, 2005, followed by his question-and-answer session with the media:

Good evening. Tonight I will discuss two vital priorities for the American people, and then I'd be glad to answer some of your questions.

Millions of American families and small businesses are hurting because of higher gasoline prices. My administration is doing everything we can to make gasoline more affordable.

In the near term, we will continue to encourage oil-producing nations to maximize their production.

Here at home, we'll protect consumers. There will be no price gouging at gas pumps in America.

We must address the root causes that are driving up gas prices.

In the past decade, America's energy consumption has been growing about 40 times faster than our energy production. That means we're relying more on energy produced abroad.

To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we must take four key steps.

First, we must better use technology to become better conservers of energy.

And secondly, we must find innovative and environmentally sensitive ways to make the most of our existing energy resources, including oil, natural gas, coal and safe, clean nuclear power.

Third, we must develop promising new sources of energy, such as hydrogen, ethanol or bio-diesel.

Fourth, we must help growing energy consumers overseas, like China and India, apply new technologies to use energy more efficiently and reduce global demand of fossil fuels.

I applaud the House for passing a good energy bill. Now the Senate needs to act on this urgent priority.

American consumers have waited long enough. To help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, Congress needs to get an energy bill to my desk by this summer, so I can sign it into law.

Congress also needs to address the challenges facing Social Security.

I've traveled the country to talk with the American people. They understand that Social Security is headed for serious financial trouble and they expect their leaders in Washington to address the problem.

Social Security worked fine during the last century, but the math has changed. A generation of baby boomers is getting ready to retire.

I happen to be one of them.

Today, there are about 40 million retirees receiving benefits. By the time all the baby boomers have retired, there will be more than 72 million retirees drawing Social Security benefits.

Baby boomers will be living longer and collecting benefits over longer retirements than previous generations. And Congress has assured that their benefits will rise faster than the rate of inflation.

In other words, there's a lot of us getting ready to retire who will be living longer and receiving greater benefits than the previous generation.

And to compound the problem, there are fewer people paying into the system. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every beneficiary; today there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary. Soon there will be two workers for every beneficiary.

These changes have put Social Security on the path to bankruptcy.

When the baby boomers start retiring in three years, Social Security will start heading toward the red.

In 2017, the system will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Every year after that, the shortfall will get worse, and by 2041 Social Security will be bankrupt.

Franklin Roosevelt did a wonderful thing when he created Social Security. The system has meant a lot for a lot of people. Social Security has provided a safety net that has provided dignity and peace of mind for millions of Americans in their retirement.

Yet there's a hole in the safety net, because Congresses have made promises it cannot keep for a younger generation.

As we fix Social Security, some things won't change. Seniors and people with disabilities will get their checks. All Americans born before 1950 will receive the full benefits.

Our duty to save Social Security begins with making the system permanently solvent, but our duty does not end there.

We also have a responsibility to improve Social Security by directing extra help to those most in need and by making it a better deal for younger workers.

Now as Congress begins work on legislation, we must be guided by three goals.

First, millions of Americans depend on Social Security checks as a primary source of retirement income, so we must keep this promise to future retirees as well. As a matter of fairness, I propose that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get.

Secondly, I believe a reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most. So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off.

By providing more generous benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make this commitment: If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty.

This reform would solve most of the funding challenges facing Social Security.

A variety of options are available to solve the rest of the problem, and I will work with Congress on any good-faith proposal that does not raise the payroll tax rate or harm our economy.

I know we can find a solution to the financial problems of Social Security that is sensible, permanent and fair.

Third, any reform of Social Security must replace the empty promises being made to younger workers with real assets, real money.

I believe the best way to achieve this goal is to give younger workers the option — the opportunity — if they so choose, of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account.

Because this money is saved and invested, younger workers would have the opportunity to receive a higher rate of return on their money than the current Social Security system can provide.

The money from a voluntary personal retirement account would supplement the check one receives from Social Security.

In a reformed Social System, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand.

I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment that will allow an American to build a nest egg that he or she can pass on to whomever he or she chooses.

Americans who would choose not to save in a personal account will still be able to count on a Social Security check equal to or higher than the benefits of today's seniors.

In the coming days and weeks I'll work with both the House and the Senate as they take the next steps in the legislative process. I'm willing to listen to any good idea from either party.

Too often the temptation in Washington is to look at a major issue only in terms of whether it gives one political party an advantage over the other. Social Security is too important for politics as usual.

We have a shared responsibility to fix Social Security and make the system better, to keep seniors out of poverty and expand ownership for people of every background.

And when we do, Republicans and Democrats will be able to stand together and take credit for what is right for our children and our grandchildren.

And now I'll be glad to answer some questions.

QUESTION: Mr. President, a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of Social Security, rising gas prices and the economy. Are you frustrated by that and by the fact that you are having trouble getting attraction on your agenda in a Republican-controlled Congress?

BUSH: We're asking people to do things that haven't been done for 20 years. We haven't addressed the Social Security problem since 1983. We haven't had an energy strategy in our country for decades. So I'm not surprised that some are balking at doing hard work.

But I have a duty as the president to define problems facing our nation and to call upon people to act.

And we're just really getting started in the process.

You asked about Social Security. For the past 60 days I've traveled our country making it clear to people we have a problem. That's the first step of any legislative process is to explain to the people the nature of the problem. And the American people understand we have a problem.

I've also spent time assuring seniors they'll get their check. That's a very important part of making sure we end up with a Social Security reform. I think if seniors feel like they're not going to get their check, obviously nothing's going to happen. And we're making progress there, too, as well.

See, once the American people realize there's a problem, then they're going to start asking members of Congress from both parties, "Why aren't you doing something to fix it?"

And I am more than willing to sit down with people of both parties to listen to their ideas.

Today, I advanced some ideas. I'm moving the process along.

The legislative process is just getting started, and I'm optimistic we'll get something done.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Polls? You know, if a president tries to govern based on polls, you're kind of like a dog chasing your tail.

I don't think you can make good, sound decisions based upon polls. And I don't think the American people want a president who relies upon polls and focus groups to make decisions for the American people.

Social Security is a big issue, and it's an issue that we must address now.

You see, the longer we wait, the more expensive the solution's going to be for a younger generation of Americans. The Social Security trustees have estimated that every year we wait to solve the problem, to fix the hole in the safety net for younger Americans, costs about $600 billion.

So my message to Congress is: Let's do our duty. Let's come together to get this issue solved.

QUESTION: Your top military officer, General Richard Myers, says the Iraqi insurgency is as strong now as it was a year ago. Why is that the case? And why haven't you been more successful in limiting the violence?

BUSH: I think he went on to say we're winning, if I recall.

But, nevertheless, there are still some in Iraq who aren't happy with democracy. They want to go back to the old days of tyranny and darkness and torture chambers and mass graves.

I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society. They saw a government form today.

The Iraqi military is being trained by our military, and they're performing much better than the past.

The more secure Iraq becomes, as a result of the hard work of Iraqi security forces, the more confidence the people will have in the process and the more isolated the terrorists will become.

But Iraq is — they've got people there that are willing to kill, and they're hard-nosed killers.

And we will work with the Iraqis to secure their future.

A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is an important part of spreading peace. It's a region of the world where a lot of folks in the past never thought democracy could take hold.

Democracy is taking hold. And as democracy takes hold peace will be more likely to be the norm.

And in order to defeat the terrorists, in order to defeat their ideology of hate, in the long run we must spread freedom and hope.

Today, I talked to the prime minister of Iraq; had a great conversation with him. I told him I was proud of the fact that he's willing to stand up and lead. I told him I appreciate his courage and the courage of those who are willing to serve the Iraqi people in government.

I told him, I said, "When America makes a commitment, we'll stand by you."

I said, "I hope you get your constitution written on time." And he agreed. He recognizes it's very important for the transitional national assembly to get the constitution written so it can be submitted to the people on time. He understands the need for a timely write of the constitution.

And I also encouraged him to continue reaching out to disaffected groups in Iraq. And he agreed.

Really happy to talk to him.

I invited him to come to America. I hope he comes soon.

There are a lot of courageous people in Iraq that are making a big difference in the lives of that country.

I also want to caution you all that it's not easy to go from a tyranny to a democracy. We didn't pass sovereignty but about 10 months ago.

And since that time a lot of progress has been made. And we'll continue to make progress for the good of the region and for the good of our country.

QUESTION: Mr. President, recently the head of the Family Research Council said that judicial filibusters are an attack against people of faith. And I wonder whether you believe that, in fact, that is what is nominating Democrats who oppose your judicial choices. And I wonder what you think, generally, about the role that faith is playing, how it's being used in our political debates right now.

BUSH: I think people are opposing my nominees because they don't like the judicial philosophy of the people I've nominated. And some would like to see judges legislate from the bench. That's not my view of the proper role of a judge.

Speaking about judges, I certainly hope my nominees get an up-or- down vote on the floor of the Senate. They deserve an up-or-down vote.

I think, for the sake of fairness, these good people I've nominated should get a vote. And I'm hoping that will be the case as time goes on.

Role of religion in our society? I view religion as a personal matter. I think a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his life or lives her life.

And that's how I've tried to live my life: through example.

Faith plays an important part in my life individually. But I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith.

QUESTION: Do you think that's an inappropriate statement? And what I ask is...

BUSH: No, I just don't agree with it.

QUESTION: You don't agree with it?

BUSH: No. I think people oppose my nominees because of judicial philosophy.

QUESTION: Sir, I asked you about what you think of...

BUSH: No, I know what you asked me.

QUESTION: ... the way faith is being used in our political debates, not just in society generally.

Well, I can only speak to myself. And I am mindful that people in political office should say to somebody, "You're not equally American if you don't happen to agree with my view of religion."

As I said, I think faith is a personal issue. And I take great strength from my faith. But I don't condemn somebody in the political process because they may not agree with me on religion.

The great thing about America is that you should be allowed to worship any way you want. And if you chose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship. And if you choose to worship, you're equally American if you're a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim.

And that's the wonderful thing about our country and that's the way it should be.

QUESTION: Several times we've asked you or your aides what you could do about the high price of gasoline. And very often the answer has come back: "Congress needs to pass the energy bill."

Can you explain for us how, if it were passed soon after it were introduced, the energy bill would have an effect on the current record price of oil that we're seeing out there?

BUSH: Actually, I said in my opening statement that the best way to affect the current price of gasoline is to encourage producing nations to put more crude oil on the market.

That's the most effective way, because the price of crude oil determines in large measure the price of gasoline. The feed stock for gasoline is crude oil, and when crude oil goes up, the price of gasoline goes up.

There are other factors, by the way, that cause the price of gasoline to go up, but the main factor is the price of crude oil. And if we can get nations that have got some excess capacity to put crude on the market, the increased supply, hopefully, will meet increased demand and therefore take the pressure off price.

But, listen, the energy bill is certainly no quick fix. You can't wave a magic wand. I wish I could.

It's like that soldier at Fort Hood that said, "How come you're not lowering the price of gasoline?" I was having lunch with the fellow, and he said, "Go lower the price of gasoline, President."

I said, "I wish I could." It just doesn't work that way.

This is a problem that's been a long time in coming. We haven't had an energy policy in this country. And it's going to take us awhile to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

What I've laid out for the Congress to consider is a comprehensive energy strategy that recognizes we need to be better conservers of energy, that recognizes that we can find more energy at home in environmentally friendly ways.

And obviously a contentious issue in front of the Congress is the issue over the ANWR, which is a part of Alaska. ANWR is 19 million acres of land. Technology now enables us to use just 2,000 of that 19 million to be able to explore for oil and gas, so we can have oil and gas produced here domestically.

One of the great sources of energy for the future is liquefied natural gas. There's a lot of gas reserves around the world. Gas can only be transported by ship, though, when you liquefy it, when you put it in solid form.

We've only got five terminals that are able to receive liquefied natural gas so it can get into our markets. We need more terminals to receive liquefied natural gas around the world.

We should have an active nuclear energy policy in America. We've got abundant resources of coal and we're spending money for clean coal technology.

So these are longer-term projects, all aimed at making us become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

QUESTION: Do I read you correctly that the energy bill would not have had an affect on today's high gasoline and oil prices?

BUSH: It would have 10 years ago. That's exactly what I've been saying to the American people. Ten years ago, if we'd have had an energy strategy, we would be able to diversify away from foreign dependence.

But we haven't done that. And now we find ourselves in the fix we're in. It's taken us a while to get there, it's going to take us a while to get out.

Hopefully, additional crude oil on the market from countries with some spare capacity will help relieve the price for the American consumers.

QUESTION: Mr. President, your State Department has reported that terrorist attacks around the world are at an all-time high. If we're winning the war on terrorism, as you say, how do you explain that more people are dying in terrorist attacks on your watch than ever before?

BUSH: Well, we've made the decision to defeat the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here at home. And when you engage the terrorists abroad, it causes activity and action.

And we're relentless — we, America and our coalition partners. We understand the stakes. And they're very high, because there are people still out there that would like to do harm to the American people.

But our strategy is stay on the offense, is to keep the pressure on these people, is to cut off their money and to share intelligence and to find them where they hide.

And we are making good progress. The Al Qaida network that attacked the United States has been severely diminished. We are slowly but surely dismantling that organization.

In the long run, like I said earlier, the way to defeat terror, though, is to spread freedom and democracy. It's really the only way in the long term.

In the short term we'll use our troops and assets and agents to find these people and to protect American. But in the long term, we must defeat the hopelessness that allows them to recruit by spreading freedom and democracy.

But we're making progress.

QUESTION: So in the near term you think there will be more attacks and more people dying?

BUSH: I can't predict that.

In the near term I can only tell you one thing: We will stay on the offense. We'll be relentless, we'll be smart about how we go after the terrorists, we'll use our friends and allies to go after the terrorists, we will find them where they hid and bring them to justice.

Let me finish with the TV people first.

You're not a TV person, Ed. I know you'd like to be.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: You'd be surprised.

BUSH: Yes. It's a tough industry to get into.

QUESTION: Mr. President, it was four years ago when you first met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. You said you looked into his eyes and you saw his soul. You'll also be meeting with the Russian leader in about a week or so.

What do you think of Putin now that he has expressed a willingness to supply weapons to outlaw regimes, specifically his recent comments that he said he would provide short-range missiles to Syria and nuclear components to Iran?

BUSH: Yes. First, just on a broader — kind of in a broader sense, I had a long talk with Vladimir there in Slovakia about democracy and about the importance of democracy.

And as you remember at the press conference, or, if you weren't there, somebody will remember, he stood up and said he strongly supports democracy. I take him for his word.

And we'll continue to work. Condi Rice, our secretary of state, just came back and she briefed me that she had a very good discussion with Vladimir about the merits of democracy, about the need to listen to the people and have a government that's responsive.

Now, we're working closely with the Russians on the issue of vehicle-mounted weaponry to Syria. We didn't appreciate that, but we made ourselves clear.

As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly enriched uranium to a nuclear civilian power plant and then collect that uranium after it's used for electricity, power purposes. That's what they've decided to do.

And I appreciate that gesture.

See, what they recognize is that what America recognizes and what Great Britain, France and Germany recognize, is that we can't trust the Iranians when it comes to enriching uranium; that they should not be allowed to enrich uranium.

And what the Iranians have said is, "Don't we deserve to have a nuclear power industry just like you do?"

I'm, kind of, wondering why they need one, since they've got all the oil. But nevertheless, others in the world say, "Well, maybe that's their right to have their own civilian nuclear power industry."

And what Russia said: "Fine, we'll provide you the uranium. We'll enrich it for you and provide it to you and then we'll collect it."

And I appreciate that gesture. So I think Vladimir was trying to help there. I know Vladimir Putin understands the dangers of an Iran with a nuclear weapon. And most of the world understands that as well.

QUESTION: Mr. President, have you asked your ambassador to the U.N., Ambassador John Bolton, about allegations that he acted improperly to subordinates? Do you feel that these allegations warrant your personal intervention?

And if they're true, do you feel that they should disqualify him from holding the post, sir?

BUSH: Well, John Bolton has been asked the questions about how he handles his business by members of the United States Senate. He's been asked a lot of questions, and he's given very good answers.

John Bolton is a seasoned diplomat. He has been serving our country for, I think, 20 years.

He has been confirmed by the United States Senate four times. In other words, he's been up before the Senate before. And they've analyzed his talents and his capabilities. And they've confirmed him.

John Bolton is a blunt guy. Sometimes people say I'm little too blunt. John Bolton can get the job done at the United Nations.

It seemed like to me it made sense to put somebody who's capable, smart, served our country for 20 years, been confirmed by the United States Senate four times and who isn't afraid to speak his mind in the post of the ambassador to the U.N.

See, the U.N. needs reform. If you're interested in reforming the U.N. like I'm interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who's skilled and who's not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations.

Now, I asked John during the interview process in the Oval Office — I said, "Before I send you up there to the Senate, let me ask you something: Do you think the United Nations is important?"

See, I didn't want to send somebody up there who said, "Well, that's not worth a darn. I don't think I need to go."

He said, "No, it's important, but it needs to be reformed."

And I think the United Nations is important.

As a matter of fact, I'll give you an example: Today I met with the United Nations representative to Syria, Mr. Larsen. He's an impressive fellow.

Now, he's delivered — to Lebanon, excuse me. He's delivered a very strong message to the Syrian leader, though, that the world expects President Assad to withdraw not only his military forces, but his intelligence services, completely from Lebanon.

And now he is in charge of following up to make sure it happens.

I think that's a very important and useful role for the United Nations to play.

We have played a role. France has played a role. A lot of nations have played roles. But the United Nations has done a very good job in Syria — with Syria in Lebanon of making it sure that the world expects the Lebanese elections to be free in May, without Syrian influence.

He's an impressive fellow. I applaud him for his hard work. But there's an example of why I think the United Nations is an important body.

On the other hand, the United Nations has had some problems that we've all seen.

RFID in U.S. Passports: Bad Idea

Boing Boing reports that the U.S. State Department has bought itself at least one clue, and won't put RFID beacons in American passports. As one site noted:

"Americans have enough things to worry about when traveling overseas: having an electronic bulls-eye on our backs shouldn't be one of them."

They obviously didn't read Winds of Change.NET's RFID briefing before hatching that idea. The bad news? State continues to pursue other forms of RFID for passports, though the alternatives don't make a lot of sense either as far as I can see (one idea: giving passports the equivalent of tinfoil hats...). There's a better way.

President Bush to Propose Building Oil Refineries at Closed Military Bases

USA Today, reports that President Bush will propose new initiatives to increase domestic energy production, including building oil refineries on abandoned military bases.

From California Yankee.

San Diego's Mayor Murphy Resigns

Los Angeles Times reports that San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy announced he will resign July 15, just seven months into his second term.

From California Yankee.

Voinovich Surprised By Reaction

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that Ohio Republican Senator George Voinovich is surprised by the reaction to his surprise announcement that he wasn't prepared to vote to confirm John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.

From California Yankee.

Powell Undermining Bolton Nomination

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell is undermining the nomination of John R. Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations.

The Washington Post reports that Powell told at least two key Republican Senators that Bolton is a "very problematic government official:"

Powell spoke in recent days with Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.), two of three GOP senators on the Foreign Relations Committee who have raised concerns about Bolton's confirmation, the sources said. Powell did not advise the senators to oppose Bolton, but offered a frank assessment of the nominee as a man who was challenging to work with on personnel and policy matters, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

The New York Times also reports on Powell's involvement.

From California Yankee.

Connecticut Legislature Approves Same-Sex Civil Unions

Connecticut's state Senate has given final legislative approval to a bill that would make Connecticut the first state to recognize same-sex civil unions without court pressure.

Governor Jodi Rell has said she will sign it into law.

From California Yankee.

Senate Rejects Amnesty For Illegal Aliens

The Senate yesterday turned back a proposed amnesty for up to 1 million illegal alien agricultural workers and their families.

According to the Washington Times, the Senate fell seven votes shy of the 60 required for the amendment, which would have offered the illegal aliens a three-step path to citizenship.

The defeated amnesty was part of Idaho Republican Larry Craig's "Ag-jobs" legislation:

Ag-jobs would have created a three-step path to citizenship for agricultural workers who were in the country illegally at the beginning of the year and had worked 100 days out of 12 months in the agriculture sector.

Under the proposal, the workers would earn temporary legal status, leading eventually to a green card denoting legal permanent residence, and then the chance to apply for citizenship.

"I don't call that amnesty; I call that hard-earned labor paid for to get the ability to stay and work," Mr. Craig said.

From California Yankee.

Jeffords Won't Seek Re-Election

The Associated Press is reporting that Vermont Senator James Jeffords won't seek re-election.

Jeffords was elected as a Republican to the U.S. House in 1974 and to the U.S. Senate in 1988. Jeffords abandonment of the Republicans in 2001 gave Democrats control of the Senate.

According to the Associated Press, Jeffords will make the announcement Wednesday afternoon in Burlington, three sources close to the senator said.

From California Yankee.

Delay Is Sought In Bolton Vote

The New York Times reports that the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, will ask the panel's Republican majority to delay today's vote on the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.

According to the Times, Biden will urge the panel to allow more time to review allegations that Mr. Bolton has acted abusively toward subordinates and others.

From California Yankee.

Online Freedom of Speech Act

Redstate.org reports that Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) has introduced a companion piece of legislation to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's bill (S.678) to exclude the Internet from the definition of "public communication" in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. This would free the blogosphere from FEC restrictions regarding linkage to political campaigns, as reported last month. This is a cause that is bringing out both conservative and liberal bloggers (see Daily Kos).

[ via Slashdot ]

Republicans Air Concern Over DeLay

Private GOP tensions over Tom DeLay's ethics controversy spilled into public Sunday, as a Senate leader called on DeLay to explain his actions and one House Republican demanded the majority leader's resignation.

"Tom's conduct is hurting the Republican Party, is hurting this Republican majority and it is hurting any Republican who is up for re-election," Rep. Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, told The Associated Press in an interview, calling for DeLay to step down as majority leader.

DeLay, a Texas Republican who was admonished by the House ethics committee last year, has been dogged in recent months by new reports about his overseas travel funded by special interests, campaign payments to family members and connections to a lobbyist who is under criminal investigation.

Read more...

Interesting, related article at Salon.

Blair Sets May 5 as Election Date

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, eager to lead his Labor Party to an unprecedented third straight term in power, ended weeks of speculation Tuesday and called a general election for May 5.

Blair traveled to Buckingham Palace where he asked Queen Elizabeth II for permission to dissolve parliament -- a formality that marked the start of the official election campaign.

Upon returning to his Downing Street residence about 20 minutes later, he declared: "There will be a general election in Britain on May 5."

The date -- exactly one month away -- had been widely anticipated for a number of weeks, although it was announced 24 hours later than expected in the aftermath of Saturday's death of Pope John Paul II.

Labor is expected to be returned to power, but a fresh crop of opinion polls on Tuesday indicated that it was losing its lead on the main opposition Conservatives, with the Liberal Democrats well back in third place.

Read more...