A super-toxic type of rodenticide, or rat poison, has flooded the market in recent decades. It’s a concoction more toxic than traditional rat poisons and more persistent in the environment. The brand names include Havoc, Talon, Contrac, Maki, Ratimus and d-CON Mouse Pruf II.

Because it isn’t just rats that come into contact with rodenticides, these very potent chemicals have serious consequences for children, pets and for wildlife. These super potent variants have a longer half-life before they break down, which means they can stay in the environment longer and work their way up the food chain.

Amazingly, between 12,000 and 15,000 children under age six are exposed to dangerous levels of rat poison every year, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers. From 1999 to 2003, 25,549 children under age six had symptoms of poisoning after exposure to nine rodenticides.

EPA says that rat poisons are the leading cause of pesticide-related visits to health care providers for children under age six. Low-income minority children are disproportionately at risk, one New York study found.

Children Uniquely at Risk

Children are uniquely vulnerable to pesticides. In terms of their biology and health, they are not just miniature adults. Their internal organs are developing and their enzymatic, metabolic and immune systems may provide less protection than those of adults.

Young children are at risk also because they may innocently handle the products, play on the floor and put objects in their mouths. EPA’s website says, “Adverse effects of pesticide exposure range from mild symptoms of dizziness and nausea to serious, long-term neurological, developmental and reproductive disorders.”

Under EPA Administrator Carol Browner, EPA announced a policy stating that regulatory standards would take into account children’s susceptibility or explain why that was not necessary and President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order in 1997 making this a government-wide policy, both good starts.

Wildlife Harmed and Killed

An American Bald Eagle perched on a tree in Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Photo courtesy of US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Because they are persistent, the products can stay in an animal’s body for six months or longer and work their way up the food chain. They are anti-coagulants and once in an animal’s system, they prevent blood from clotting. Rats that have eaten the poison might hemorrhage and bleed to death. They can stagger around dazed for days, making them easy prey for predators.

EPA biologist Bill Ericks in 2006 wrote that hundreds of wildlife poisoning deaths had occurred and that the pesticides had been found in hundreds of animals. “We’re finding this stuff all over the place,” said John Elliott, an Environment Canada scientist who co-authored an owl study published last year. “There’s a lot more rodenticides in the food chain than we would have ever thought. We’re surprised that there’s that much of the stuff kicking around.”

What Is EPA Doing?

In 2011 EPA issued new rules, but they did not go as far as some wildlife advocates would want.

Reporting for Investigate West, Robert McClure wrote in December 2010 that the Clinton EPA required reformulation of the products to taste bitter, making them unpalatable when eaten and required the addition of a bright dye to better determine if children had put the substances in their mouths. But then the Bush EPA, after meetings with the industry, “reversed course,” according to McClure.

Manufacturers are still fighting, balking at responsible action.

What You Can Do

While it’s been years without systemic government action, and it could be years longer, there are some steps you can take to protect yourself, loved ones and wildlife. Keep in mind the biggest risk comes from using these indoors, where kids are most apt to find them. But outdoor contact can happen too.

• If you see multiple cases dead wildlife, alert local animal control authorities.
• Teach your kids not to play with dead animals and to recognize rat poison.
• Educate yourself about the products. Visit the National Pesticide Information Center, 800-858-7378 or http://npic.orst.edu/.
• Use non-chemical methods of rodent control such as rat traps. We discourage glue boards since they can be inhumane.
• Practice prevention. Don’t attract rodents with trash, pet food and bird seed. Seal openings to your home.
• Use safer products. Visit http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/rodenticides/rodent-bait-station.html to find a list of products.
• Make sure pest control companies that you hire are licensed and do not use unsafe products.
• Never dispose of a pesticide in the toilet, storm drains, sewer systems or waterways.
• Check out these resources about protecting children: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/Publications/catalog/subpage3.htm#children

Acknowledgement:  Thanks to NWF senior scientist Doug Inkley for editing this post.

Why the State Department? State Department won’t have the final word of course, that’s ultimately going to be up to newly re-elected President Barack Obama. But State’s decision could offer clues about where the President is heading on energy policy over the next four years, and his final decision on the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL is his prime opportunity to signal he is serious about addressing high carbon fuels like tar sands that are speeding climate disruption.

State’s decision will come in the form of a “supplemental environmental impact statement” (SEIS) for the pipeline segment that crosses over Canada and runs to Steele City, Nebraska.

State, rather than the Environmental Protection Agency or the Energy Department, is charged with running the environmental assessment because the mega-pipeline crosses an international boundary with Canada.  President Obama must decide if this pipeline is in the national interest.

Why Keystone is a big big deal. The administration’s Keystone XL decision represents a pivotal moment in the direction of energy policy for the nation because approving the pipeline for one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet will do nothing to move the nation to a cleaner, less-polluting, less carbon-intensive future.  Quite the opposite, Keystone XL’s dirty tar sands could ‘crowd out’ rapidly growing markets for renewable energy like wind and solar power. It will lock in more dependence on imported oil and metastasize the destruction of natural resources already well underway in Canada’s boreal forests.

Energy giant TransCanada originally proposed the Keystone XL pipeline to transport 800,000  barrels daily of tar sands oil through five states from Alberta, Canada, 1,700 miles to Gulf of Mexico refineries in Texas. Tar sands oil is a type of heavily-polluting, crude oil or bitumen that must be diluted before it can be pumped through pipelines.  Bitumen is more corrosive on pipelines and it is more toxic and more difficult to clean up than conventional oil.

How did we get here? Last December, Congress sent President Obama a bill requiring a final decision on the Keystone permit. The President was lauded by conservationists when in mid-January this year, he rejected the application saying Keystone hadn’t been adequately studied.  He also invited TransCanada to resubmit a new application.

After the administration gave the go-ahead for a southern segment of Keystone XL that will run to the Gulf Coast, State suggested that TransCanada reroute the northern segment of the pipeline to avoid sensitive areas in the Great Plains, especially the Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer which makes Midwest agriculture possible and supplies drinking water to millions.  On May 4, 2012, TransCanada filed a new application with the U.S. Department of State revising and shortening the previously proposed route.

Currently, the state of Nebraska is putting the finishing touches on an evaluation of the new proposal and the State Department is preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) on the May application.

The State Department’s website says, “We will consider this new application on its merits . . . this involves consideration of many factors, including energy security, health, environmental, cultural, economic, and foreign policy concerns.”  Let’s hope they mean it, but many conservationists remain concerned State’s focus will fall in line with TransCanada’s wishes: namely to have a very narrow review that only looks at the rerouted portion of the pipeline and little else.

Kalamazoo River polluted with raw tar sands crude

• An examination of all environmental impacts, including  air, water and climate and refinery emissions;
• An analysis of impacts on wildlife, facts ignored in the first EIS, including threatened and endangered species, especially the Whooping Crane and Sandhill Crane whose migratory flight would cross Keystone at numerous points.
• An honest of accounting of the drawbacks including: pipeline spill risks, jobs that could be lost in renewable energy here in the U.S., and state-by-state impacts on energy prices for states likely to see price hikes from Keystone.
• A respectful consultation with impacted communities and tribal interests who will suffer in the event of a catastrophic spill.

Years from now, we will likely look back on the Keystone XL pipeline decision and see it as a turning point in national energy policy. Our first glimpse of that future may depend on whether State is naughty or nice this holiday season.

With protests this weekend against Keystone XL in the nation’s capital, the poll shows that the President has a mandate to fight climate disruption. Keystone XL takes the fight to slow climate change in the wrong direction.

Here’s the two key Zogby findings:

Support for dirty fuel from Keystone XL is dwarfed by support for clean energy. Last year, thousands protested at the White House to urge the Administration to abandon Keystone XL. Another action is set for this weekend in Washington, DC.

• Asked to pick the highest priority to help solve America’s energy challenges, twice as many voters select renewable energy like wind and solar power (38 percent) than any other choice. Independents favor wind and solar over fossil fuels by a 4-to-1 margin – 48 percent pick renewable energy while just 12 percent select the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and only 11 percent prioritize more oil and gas drilling on America’s public lands.
• Voters also expressed frustration with polluter influence peddling. Two thirds of voters (67 percent) say they’re very or somewhat concerned that political donations by oil, gas and coal industries are influencing politicians in Washington to approve policies that benefit their corporations.

That’s right folks, Keystone XL barely gets out of single digits, while support for clean renewable energy is two to four times higher.

The Keystone XL carbon bomb has been said to be the pollution equivalent of putting six  million additional cars on the road. The pipeline is designed to carry tar sands, a dirty heavy oil that is far more polluting. At a time when President Obama says need to be reducing carbon pollution, Keystone XL takes us exactly in the wrong direction.

The poll of 1,016 actual voters was conducted on November 7 and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percent.

Superstorm Sandy a Wake Up Call

Hurricane Sandy couldn’t have made it clearer that society will continue to pay a high price for gorging on carbon. After a summer’s worth of unprecedented devastating heat and weather related events that will costs billions, Sandy’s the latest high priced  wake up call from Mother Nature, estimated to cost us tens of billions.  Economically, we cannot afford to further accelerate the already alarming pace of debilitating weather events.  Morally, we cannot leave our children an inhospitable world.

You cannot build Keystone XL and be serious about addressing climate change.  The math doesn’t add up. EPA says the lifetime carbon pollution emissions would be over 1 billion tons, and another estimate says it’s the equivalent of putting six million additional cars on the road.

The Keystone XL pipeline presents a choice. Get serious about climate, or double down on high carbon tars sands for decades.  A final denial of the project would send a clear signal that we are turning away from climate calamity and towards a clean energy future.  Allowing it would further ignite the climate bomb.  The American public is demanding climate action and rejecting the fossil fuel industry’s well financed plea for business as usual.  It is time for the Obama Administration to say no to Keystone XL and yes to a clean energy future for our children.

This is par for the course. So far this election season, fossil fuel groups have spent more than $153 million — to  get pro-fossil fuel policies in place. In 2011, 90 percent of campaign contributions went to the GOP, and 10 percent to Democrats. The biggest spenders were Shell ($25.7 million), Exxon ($25.4 million), and ConocoPhillips ($22.9 million). The five companies’ oil PACs have donated over $2.16 million this election cycle. Koch Industries also spends big money to pressure Congress, with $16.2 million on lobbying and more than $1.3 million from its PAC (the top oil and gas spender).

*** You can help fight the influence of polluters in our political system.  Click here to find out how. ***

The undue influence was the subject of a recent NWF Campus Ecology report that concludes polluters are determined to get their anti-conservation agenda passed into law, and roll back critical regulatory protections.

Not only is this money fueling political campaigns, it is behind many of the shadowy attack ads and television spots that rail against environmental protections, undermine clean energy and promote more coal, gas and oil, ads sponsored by entities with innocuous-sounding names like Patriotic Americans for Clean Energy.

image courtesy ph2dot1.com

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s trade group (no, not an “institute”), is the biggest dirty energy spender at $37 million so far with its “I’m an energy voter” ads, complaining about efforts this year (that NWF supports) to repeal wastefuloil industry subsidies.

The True Cost of Dirty Energy

The oil, gas and coal industries are among the most profitable of all businesses. They are peddling fuels that spew carbon pollution that has created a virtual blanket around the planet causing global warming and leading to more severe weather more often, protracted heat waves and drought, more intense hurricanes and floods, sea level rise, crop failures, water shortages and massive wildfires.

Big Influence

The student-aimed NWF guide unmasks the multiple ways that oil, gas and coal companies worm their way into molding public decision-making to pad their pockets. It pinpoints how dirty energy – coal, gas and oil — companies bankroll the campaigns of incumbent Congressional leaders and other candidates by financing political action committees (PACs), super PACs, so-called nonprofit “social welfare groups” and other entities, some without public disclosure. Since 1999, the oil, gas, and coal companies have greased the campaigns of members of Congress to the tune of almost $1 billion dollars.

NWF also fingers 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations that may be more powerful than super PACs because they can accept unlimited amounts of money and hide their donors. These groups can escape the disclosure requirements that apply to candidates, parties and PACs. These shadow groups have outspent super PACs by a three-to-one margin.

This onslaught of dirty energy money has results. NWF points to 109 votes in the House of Representatives since the start of 2011 for policies that enrich the oil and gas industry, including 45 votes to weaken environmental, public health, and safety requirements applicable to oil companies; 38 votes to block or slow deployment of clean energy alternatives and 12 votes to short-circuit environmental review of the dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Reality Check

Money can’t buy you happiness, the old saying goes, but in this year, Big Oil, Big Gas and Big Coal are buying their happiness, at the expense of the people, by outspending, outgunning the rest of us. It’s high stakes for them, but ultimately the stakes are even higher for us, the people who will be stuck breathing dirty air and drinking dirty water if they continue to call the shots.

*** You can help fight the influence of polluters in our political system.  Click here to find out how. ***

People of the Granite State are not immune from the impacts. They barely got out a snow shovel last winter. The extent of snow cover across the Northern Hemisphere has decreased by approximately three to nine percent since 1978, says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), trends that are likely to continue. And NOAA scientists project that by the end of the century, parts of the Northeast will lose as many as half of their snow-covered days each year.

The warming climate is taking its toll in New Hampshire:

• The Northeast Regional Climate Center at Cornell University reported in August that in the Northeast, January through July 2012 was the warmest seven-month period since 1895, the year systematic record keeping began.
• For the first time in recorded history, Great Bay, a large tidal inlet between New Hampshire and Maine popular with winter smelt anglers, did not freeze over.
• Researchers studying moose mortality in NH say that it used to be typical for a moose to carry some 30,000 ticks, but the population of ticks has been magnified by climate change and warmer winter temperatures. Researchers have found that as many as 150,000 of the parasites can plague a moose at once. The blood-feeding winter tick causes 41 percent of all moose deaths in New Hampshire. With the populations of moose in decline, the associated reduction in annual hunting permits, and climate change impacts such as increased ticks, are threatening both a species and a cherished pastime for many hunters in New Hampshire.
• Climate change-induced sea level rise will inundate coastal marshes that serve as nurseries for fish, including the striped bass that live in the ocean and migrate up coastal rivers to spawn in the spring.
• As lakes heat up, some fish cannot thrive in the warmer waters.

A few weeks ago, support for action came from America’s hunters and anglers when a poll of that community, people of every political persuasion, found that a majority (59 percent) agrees that global warming is happening now and is causing extreme weather such as America’s hottest July on record. And they expect elected officials to act.

While candidates across the country debate issues like the future of Medicare, Afghanistan and the federal deficit, there’s rarely mention of our warming planet, much less a solution offered. Stemming climate change will take courageous steps. The presidential debates were not exactly a profile in climate change courage, so it falls to voters to demand more.

NWF’s report, written by Jeff Alexander and co-authored by our own Beth Wallace, says the company’s plans for the aging line put at risk the drinking water supply for millions of Americans, while also putting at risk wildlife and the vital tourism economy supported by the Great Lakes.

Submerged in the waters where Lakes Michigan and Huron meet, the pipeline in question, known as Line 5, moves more than 20 million gallons of crude oil and natural gas fluids pumped every day. The 60 year old pipe is run by the Canadian pipeline giant that caused the worst inland tar sands oil disaster in U.S. history.   (It’s competitor is TransCanada, which is proposing to build the dangerous and controversial Keystone XL pipeline.)

Beth makes a strong case for protecting the Great Lakes from another tar sands threat.  Watch for yourself. The video is HERE.

You can support NWF in protecting wildlife from the threat of tar sands oil, the dirtiest on the planet.  Take action now!

Conservation groups and now the Canadian government are expressing concern that TransCanada lacks a safety culture. The same lapses resulted in numerous incidents by their competitor Enbridge, including the deadly explosion pictured above.

Joe Mendelson, National Wildlife Federation climate and energy policy director responded to the news saying,

The reason TransCanada needs to keep shutting down Keystone is because pipelines are inherently dangerous. When a pipeline carries heavy tar sands, the risks multiply. Canadian tar sands are not inherently better or safer, quite the opposite, they require the construction of massive and unstable infrastructure that will eventually fail.  The best approach to our energy challenges isn’t building more pipelines, it’s embracing clean energy solutions that don’t spill or explode.

The news comes just days after the Canadian government said it was launching a probe of TransCanada for lapses in its safety culture.

Imperial and Suncor are among the largest developers of Canadian tar sands oil. This convoluted corporate maze of oil behemoths is in bed with Enbridge, the company behind the Kalamazoo River oil spill, the most costly onshore spill in U.S. history. Now, it apparently wants to pump tar sands oil from Alberta through Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine to the port of Portland for overseas markets. Tar sands oil is a heavy, corrosive, diluted bitumen and is known as one of the dirtiest, most-polluting, hardest-to-clean-up fuels on the planet. The tar sands business is booming in Canada and the corporate hawks are positioning to pounce on the profits they see in this dirty product by using New England communities as conduits to export markets.

It’s no wonder ExxonMobil doesn’t want to come clean. The company’s not clean. It was ExxonMobil that caused the infamous 1989 Valdez spill, a disaster that spewed 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s pristine waters. In July 2011, the company’s Silvertip Pipeline dumped 42,000 gallons of oil into Montana’s Yellowstone River.

840,000 of tar sands crude spilled into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River last year

Ms. Fairchild was trying to stop destruction of her property from heavy equipment being used to clear the way for the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline.  With her was a group of protesters representing the “Tar Sands Blockade” and actress Daryl Hannah.

The scene of the arrest. Ms. Fairchild felt bullied and pushed around by TransCanada, the company building the Keystone XL pipeline.

In a video NWF shot 18 months ago when Ms. Fairchild visited Washington, DC to meet with members of the Texas Congressional delegation, she explained she was simply asking TransCanada replant grass and trees on her land that they would damage.  The company flatly told her “they don’t do that.”

It’s a sad day for America when foreign companies can push around an elderly woman who wants to live in peace on her own ranch.  Score one for Keystone and the cops today. Here’s the March 2011 video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here’s the thing, saying you are a good neighbor to landowners, and repeating it over and over in TV ads does not make it so. 

So when the Washington Post had a TransCanada official shamelessly repeating his company’s slogan, I was pretty ticked.  In referring to TransCanada’s consultations with Native Americans he said, “There is no legal obligation to work with the tribes. We do it because we have a policy. We believe it’s a good, neighborly thing to do.”

Actually they do have a legal obligation, but that’s another blog post.

It worries me the lies are sticking, bringing to mind the words of an infamous propagandist who once said, “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.“

So as a little reminder, here’s a timeline of recent TransCanada Transgressions I put together with some colleagues.  Go ahead and refill your coffee before you get started reading.  It’s a long list.

Timeline of TransCanada’s Transgressions 

September 17, 2009

According to TransCanada’s own analysis, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be a boon for corporate profits, but a burden for American consumers. 

TransCanada, in testimony to the Canadian National Energy Board, “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally [the US Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the [US Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest market] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude.”

December 31, 2009

TransCanada admits Keystone XL would raise gas prices.

TransCanada submits its first permit application.  In the appendix to its application to the Canadian National Energy Board, the company writes, “A Canadian heavy crude producer is expected to realize an increase in the heavy crude price of approximately $3.00 per barrel by avoiding a discount at the [United States Gulf Coast].”

June 2010

Without explaining its 180 degree turn, TransCanada now touts a new study that claims Keystone XL would lower gas prices.

From a study published on TransCanada’s website, “supplies from reliable sources leads to lower costs, thereby putting downward pressure on prices.”

July 21, 2011

TransCanada begins bullying landowners and threatening eminent domain authority.

TransCanada in a letter to Nebraska landowner R. Joe Moller, “This letter is Keystone’s final offer, and it will remain open for one month after the date of this letter or until you reject it.  While we hope to acquire this property through negotiation, if we are unable to do so, we will be forced to invoke the power of eminent domain and will initiate condemnation proceedings against this property promptly after the expiration of this one month period.”

September 9, 2011

Despite its documented bullying, TransCanada now claims that negotiations with landowners have been voluntary and takes credit for successfully appropriating huge chunks of American land.

TransCanada in a press release, “To date, through direct discussions with affected land owners, Keystone XL has negotiated voluntary easement agreements with over 90 percent of Nebraskan landowners and 95 per cent of those landowners in the Sand Hills.”

September 26, 2011

Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s President of Energy and Oil Pipelines, says the route has been “exhaustively analyzed” and claims it would be “next to impossible” to now change it.

Alex Pourbaix in an interview with Postmedia News, “I reminded the governor that this route has been exhaustively analyzed…It would be next to impossible to go back and suggest that any of those inferior routes [be taken].”

According to the Financial Post, “TransCanada contends it would be unacceptable for Nebraska lawmakers to pass ‘after the fact’ legislation to force changes to Keystone XL’s route if it is approved at the federal level.”

Said Alex Pourbaix, “I think the likelihood of that occurring is very slim…What possible new information would be gained by having a state-level siting review?”

October 7, 2011

Asst. Secretary of State Dr. Kerri-Ann Jones tells Gov. Heineman the State Department has no authority to site oil pipeline routes.

Gov. Heineman in his response letter to Jones, “You confirmed at our meeting that individual states could enact laws establishing primary siting authority of oil pipelines, and that the federal government does not possess any siting authority for oil pipelines.”

October 11, 2011

Pourbaix meets with Nebraska State Senators and once again claims that moving the route would “jeopardize the project.”

Alex Pourbaix at a meeting with Nebraska State Senators, “We understand that the best solution from your perspective is to move the route. We don’t believe that is an option for us…the Sandhills are a challenge, but pipelines are built where there is surface water all the time.”

With regards to passing a pipeline siting law: “To do it now seriously jeopardizes the project.”

October 18, 2011

Pourbaix, again, deems moving the route “impossible.”

Alex Pourbaix in a letter to Nebraska State Senators Dubas, Langemeier, and Sullivan, “As we discussed in the meeting, at this late date in the federal Presidential Permit process, it is impossible for us to move the route to avoid the Sandhills.”

November 14, 2011

But, wait…TransCanada now announces that they will change the route and that Nebraskans will “play an important role in determining the final route.”   

Alex Pourbaix in a TransCanada press release, “I can confirm the route will be changed and Nebraskans will play an important role in determining the final route.”

November 29, 2011

TransCanada CEO, Russ Girling, admits that re-routing the pipeline is easy.

As told to Bloomberg, “TransCanada Corp. may be able to win approval of its Keystone XL pipeline in six to nine months as the company negotiates with Nebraska and U.S. officials over a new route, Chief Executive Officer Russ Girling said.”

Said Girling, “We can re-route this pipeline quite easily.”

December 2, 2011

Pourbaix can’t promise that the pipeline won’t be for foreign export.  

Alex Pourbaix in testimony before  the House Energy and Commerce Committee when pressed by Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) to guarantee that the Keystone pipeline would not be for foreign export, December 2, 2011, “In many ways, I can’t do that because I am merely the shipper of this oil and that is a question…” When asked to make it a condition of their agreement with their shipping companies, Pourbaix replied, “No, I can’t do that.  We’ve already agreed to our shipping arrangements.”

February 2, 2012

TransCanada confirms that they will not be using any steel from India to help build the pipeline.

TransCanada’s government relations staff in an email to Energy and Commerce Committee staff said, “We have not sourced any steel from India.”

February 17, 2012

Just days later, TransCanada issues a press release, which shows that 10% of the steel will come from Welspun, India.

According to the press release, 10% of the steel will come from Welspun, India and 16% from Italy.

September 14, 2012

Despite the fact that the State Department made clear that routing authority belonged to the states, TransCanada accuses State of forcing them to modify the route.

As reported in TransCanada’s interview with the Nebraska Radio Network, “Some critics have suggested TransCanada should have proposed building Keystone XL along the original Keystone pipeline path, now operating in eastern Nebraska. Pourbaix said the State Department would not have agreed to that proposal, because it would have had to cover more ground.”