NucNews - January 7, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain Protesters angry at Italy’s BNFL ‘nuke dumping’ plan Published on 07/01/2005 By Andrea Thompson, UK News and Star http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=168339 ANTI-NUCLEAR campaigners have hit out at proposals to dump hundreds of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from Italy at Sellafield, to be stored for up to 20 years. Members of CORE (Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment) are reacting to news that Italian operator Sogin is seeking bids for the reprocessing of 235 metric tonnes of spent nuclear fuel. It intends to put the work out to tender to BNFL and to Cogema in France in the next two months. Sogin’s Ugo Spezia said the company would seek to have the reprocessor keep the final waste products in storage until the availability of a final repository in Italy, or for up to 20 years. It would also ask to receive only vitrified high-level waste (HLW) back from reprocessing, with the reprocessor keeping other waste categories. BNFL is aware of the plan but has not yet received an official approach from Italy about reprocessing. Sogin expects that bids for the work would be evaluated and contracts concluded between April and June 2005. Martin Forwood, campaign co-ordinator for CORE, said: “The whole point of reprocessing is that the materials are repatriated for re-use as new fuel by the customer. “Impotent Italy can’t do this and we view the plan as a blatant Italian attempt at dumping via the back door. We will fight it all the way and believe any investigation by UK authorities will reveal the plan to be an outright scam.” Sogin says uranium and plutonium from past reprocessing of Italian spent fuel is in storage at Sellafield. It should be returned to Italy under the utility’s contracts with BNFL, and future reprocessing contracts would theoretically follow the same principle. But there is no facility in Italy yet that could use the nuclear fuel materials, so the company says it is trying to leave all fresh nuclear material from reprocessing at BNFL. A BNFL spokesman confirmed they were keeping “a close eye” on developments, and added: “As with all reprocessing contracts signed since 1976, any potential future contract would include return of waste obligations in accordance with UK government policy.” -------- europe Russian reactors favoured for Bulgarian nuke plant Fri Jan 7, 2005 10:38 AM ET By Tsvetelia Ilieva (Reuters) http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh96298_2005-01-07_15-38-22_l07633328_newsml SOFIA, Jan 7 - Bulgaria should build a new 2,000 megawatt nuclear power plant with Russian-designed reactors and consolidate all its nuclear assets in one company, the government's adviser on the project said on Friday. The Balkan country is building the plant to maintain its position as the leading power exporter in southeast Europe as it shuts down two ageing Soviet-made nuclear reactors before joining the EU in 2007. "Our analysis is based on the capital cost of different options ... and it shows that two options are superior to others," said Djurica Tankosic, a vice president of UK-based consultants Parsons, during a public discussion of the project. He said Bulgaria should either build two new 1,000-megawatt VVR-B466 reactors, or build one new one and modernise a 1,000-megawatt VVR-B320 unit that it bought during a previous attempt to build the plant that stalled last decade. All of the proposed reactors are Russian designed, giving an advantage to two of three groups vying to build the plant that have experience with that type of equipment. In one of them, France's Framatome has teamed up with Russia's Atomstroiexport and Germany's Siemens. The second comprises Czech engineering firm Skoda Praha, which is working with Citibank, Italy's Unicredito and Czech Komercni Banka. The third consortium is led by Canada's Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. and also groups Italy's Ansaldo Nuclear (ANSD.UL: Quote, Profile, Research) , U.S. Bechtel, and Japan's Hitachi Corp. Atomic Energy Canada has complained that Bulgaria is biased against their offering of CANDU-type reactors, which the adviser has deemed less suitable. The consortium has said it may pull out of the contest. Tankosic said the two preferred options -- priced at 2.68 billion and 2.73 billion euros, respectively -- showed an insignificant cost difference, while the financial advisor on the project, Deloitte & Touche, said if either option was chosen, the deal's total price tag would be around 3.5 billion euros. Bulgaria has already sunk $1.0 billion into the site -- located some 250 kilometres northeast of Sofia at the Danube River town of Belene -- for infrastructure and the uninstalled VVR-B320 unit, but the project bogged down due to financial problems in 1990. Belene is expected to come on line in around 2011. CONSOLIDATION Former king Simeon Saxe-Coburg's centrist government is now expected to launch tenders and choose an option and builders for the plant by June. The advisers also suggested Bulgaria consolidate its nuclear assets to be able to provide more solid collateral and secure better financial conditions for the deal. Energy Minister Milko Kovachev has said the two 1,000 megawatt units at Bulgaria's existing nuclear power plant at Kozloduy will be transferred to a new company that also will build and operate the Belene plant. He has said the state will seek investors to take part in financing the project, but will still keep at least a 51 percent stake in the generator. -------- iran Iran going beyond its nuclear pledge? January 07, 2005 By Modher Amin UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050106-043355-6845r.htm Tehran, Iran, Jan. 6 (UPI) -- Following reports that Iran has agreed to allow the U.N. watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to carry out inspections at a weapons facility near Tehran, an Iranian delegation is to meet with the agency's officials in Vienna on Friday to discuss the details of the inspection visit. On Wednesday, the IAEA's director, Mohammad ElBaradei, announced that the Islamic republic had finally given the green light for his inspectors to probe the Parchin military site located some 18 miles southeast of the Iranian capital. The site drew international attention when, in September, a U.S. nuclear monitor -- the Institute for Science and International Security -- published images which showed buildings within and an annex to the complex that could be used to test nuclear bomb components. The base, with a history of some 70 years, is a site for a variety of defense projects, including work on chemical explosives. It is run by Iran's Defense Industries Organization. The release came when the IAEA was involved in debates over Iran's nuclear dossier, with the U.S. diplomats persuading their European partners to take a tough stance toward the Islamic republic. Iran, however, played down the case at the time, dismissing the charges of using the military base for nuclear-related activities. It also said that it was ready to open up the base to international inspections to prove that the U.S. rhetoric was only "a new lie." But a commentary to the images suggested that the Parchin conventional weapons complex could also be used for nuclear weapons work. "This site is a logical candidate for a nuclear weapons-related site, particularly one involved in researching and developing high explosive components for an impulsion-type nuclear weapon," wrote weapons experts David Albright and Corey Hinderstein. The experts, in particular, point to what they see as a high explosive testing bunker that could be used for development of nuclear weapons. "The concern is that this bunker could be where Iran would test a full-scale mock-up of a nuclear explosive using natural or depleted uranium as a surrogate of a highly enriched uranium core," they further wrote. ElBaradei, on the other hand, indicated he had a different view. "We do not have any indication that this site has nuclear-related activities." he said at the time, despite reports that the agency had been seeking access to Parchin since July last year. In what was seen as a sign of content on Thursday, the IAEA's spokeswoman Melissa Fleming welcomed Iran's decision to allow the probe, terming the "voluntary" and "confidence building" move as "positive and vital," according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. In an interview with IRNA, she talked of "coming days" before the inspectors would arrive in Tehran. According to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, conventional military sites do not lie within the IAEA's inspection work unless sufficient proof and evidence justify the act. This may have constituted the same reasoning by some hardline officials in Iran who put the probe of Parchin as an example of a so-called "transparency visit," where the IAEA is going beyond its mandate. Iran has been under investigation for the last two years for allegedly pursuing a program of developing nuclear arms. But it has constantly denied the claim, saying its nuclear activities are aimed at solely generating electricity. The United States, however, has remained skeptical, accusing the clerical regime of using a civilian nuclear program as a cover to build an atomic bomb. Washington maintains that it holds enough evidences but which are hard to verify. It also pushes for Iran's dossier to be referred to the Security Council for possible sanctions. But, the European states -- led by Britain, France and Germany -- have resorted to diplomacy to convince the Islamic republic to cooperate with the IAEA. After a series of intensive talks with the E3 in November, Iran agreed to suspend almost all its uranium enrichment activities in a bid to allay international concerns over its nuclear plans. Europe, in return, pledged to assist Iran with peaceful nuclear technology and economic incentives. ---- US fears Iran has `covert' nukes MIXED SIGNALS: Iran claims its nuclear energy is only for peaceful means and accuses the US of `spying,' but the UN's atomic watchdog is being sent to investigate AFP, VIENNA, AUSTRIA Friday, Jan 07, 2005 Taipei Times, Page 6 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/01/07/2003218384 Ending a lengthy standoff, UN inspectors are to visit an Iranian facility where the US claims Tehran is simulating testing of atomic weapons, UN atomic energy chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Wednesday. "We expect to visit Parchin within the next days or a few weeks," ElBaradei told AFP, referring to the huge complex 30km southeast of Tehran. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headed by ElBaradei has been seeking access to Parchin since July. Tehran has strongly denied carrying out any nuclear-related work at the site. A senior US official told AFP that the Iranians may be working on testing "high-explosive shaped charges with an inert core of depleted uranium" at Parchin as a sort of dry test for how a bomb with fissile material would work. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is strictly civilian and peaceful and that it is not developing atomic weapons. But the US wants the IAEA to take Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions for what Washington says is a covert nuclear weapons program. ElBaradei says the "jury is still out" on whether Tehran's program is peaceful or not. Parchin is an example of a so-called "transparency visit," where the IAEA is going beyond its mandate under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to check to see if nuclear materials have been diverted away from peaceful use. There could very well be no nuclear material at Parchin, since the concern there is of weapons simulation testing. The other problem is that Parchin is a military site, to which access is more difficult. Still, ElBaradei said that where there is suspicion of weapons work, there is also a suspicion of nuclear materials. "If you do not have nuclear materials, you do not have a nuclear weapon," he said. ElBaradei also said Iran is so far honoring its pledge to suspend uranium enrichment, and should finish processing the raw uranium it was allowed to do by February. Iran is making a uranium powder that is a key first step in the enrichment process that can make nuclear weapons but it is not in violation of a nuclear freeze agreed with the European Union. Iran and the EU embarked in December on negotiations towards a long-term agreement to give Tehran trade, technology and security aid and guarantees in return for it taking steps, such as suspending enrichment, to reassure the international community that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful. In other comments, ElBaradei warned the US against spying on the IAEA, saying it would be a blow to "multilateralism and the United Nations system as we know it." The Washington Post reported in December that US President George W. Bush's administration had listened in on phone calls between ElBaradei and Iranian diplomats, seeking ammunition to oust him as head of the IAEA. The US wants ElBaradei to be replaced at the Vienna-based agency believing he is not being tough enough on Iran, diplomats said. ElBaradei said he had only read the press reports and knew no more about the reported eavesdropping but "if you tamper with our independence, you really tamper with the whole fabric of multilateralism and the United Nations system as we know it." Questioned about reports that the IAEA is looking into exploratory moves by Egypt on making nuclear fuel that could be used for atomic bombs, ElBaradei said people should be careful to distinguish between what can be technical failures to comply with international safeguards and actual weapons programs. "Should we discover at any time that there is a proliferation concern or implications of a weapons program, we will obviously promptly report this to the board," he said, referring to the IAEA's board of governors while refusing to comment specifically on Egypt. -------- israel Video of Secret Israel Nuclear Site Shown Fri Jan 7, 3:51 PM ET By PETER ENAV, Associated Press Writer http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_nuclear_video_1 JERUSALEM - An Israeli television station broadcast a video of Israel's top secret nuclear facility in the southern town of Dimona on Friday, the first detailed video of the site ever shown to the public. The 14-minute video depicted a pastoral setting of well-manicured lawns and palm trees, swaying gently in a light desert breeze. The reactor dome loomed in the background, flanked by a three-story building. Previous footage of the site lasted only seconds and had been limited to long-distance shots showing only the outline of the reactor building. The Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona in the Negev desert is one of the most sensitive sites in Israel, and any photography is forbidden. Shiloh Debeer, head of news at Channel 10 television, which broadcast the video, would not say how it was obtained. However, Israel's normally cautious military censor approved its release, suggesting it was produced in cooperation with Israel's top secret nuclear agency. Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear program, neither confirming nor denying that it has nuclear weapons. It has said that the Dimona reactor is used only for peaceful purposes. In 1986 former technician Mordechai Vanunu gave information and pictures of the Dimona facility to London's Sunday Times. On the basis of his revelations, experts concluded that Israel has the world's sixth-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, consisting of hundreds of warheads. Vanunu was released last year after serving 18 years in prison for treason and espionage. The Channel 10 video offered no close-ups of the Dimona nuclear reactor or interviews with officials about the facility. It concentrated on wide-angle shots including buses bringing staff to the site, well-ordered lines waiting to use a cash machine and a leisurely soccer game nearby. Repeated glimpses of a brilliantly landscaped garden underscored the image of a laconic and pastoral setting. Israel has been criticized by Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries for failing to rid itself if its reported nuclear arsenal. In recent months it has stepped up a campaign to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, encouraging U.N. sanctions against the country. Iran acknowledges it has a nuclear program, but says it is peaceful, aimed at generating electricity. ---- Israeli TV airs footage of top-secret nuclear plant for first time JERUSALEM (AFP) Jan 08, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050108122510.h3bkyh4n.html An Israeli television channel has for the first time aired footage of Israel's controversial top-secret Dimona nuclear facility. Channel 10 showed the 15-minute video Friday as part of a documentary on the plant in the southern Negev desert, an installation which international inspectors have never been allowed to visit. The footage consists essentially of wide shots of the compound's neatly-groomed gardens and there are no close-ups of the dome-shaped reactor, which can only be seen in the background. Israel has never publicly acknowledged that it maintains a nuclear arsenal but foreign experts say it has used the reactor at Dimona to produce between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads. Channel 10 refused to say how it obtained the video but the footage was approved by the military censorship, in an apparent change in attitude on the part of the Israeli authorities. The first-ever still pictures of the reactor were released in 1986 by Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at the 40-year-old reactor. The whistle-blower was famously kidnapped in Rome and jailed by Israel for 18 years on treason charges. Satellite pictures of the plant have also been published since then. Late last year, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ruled out the possibility of foreign experts coming to carry out independent safety checks on the reactor which was built with French aid at the begining of the 1950s. There have been a number of calls for the closure of the plant with campaigners arguing that the life span of such reactors is 40 years. Israel is not a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treatyand, to the anger of its Arab neighbours, refuses to submit its nuclear facilities to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. -------- japan Pacifist Japan's defense chief wants ministerial rank Space War TOKYO (AFP) Jan 07, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050107110445.elwyrz5u.html The head of Japan's Defense Agency called for the body to be given full ministry status on Friday, a sensitive issue in a country that has been officially pacifist since its World War II defeat. "The mission of defense is devoted to the total security and safety of total Japan as a whole. So this is very important. This should not be an agency but should be a ministry," defense chief Yoshinori Ono said, saying the upgrade was one of his goals for 2005. Ono is director general of the Defense Agency which is under direct control of the Cabinet Office, unlike the powerful finance and foreign ministries which can propose bills on their own to the parliament, called the Diet. "We could not submit laws or anything to the Diet in the name of Mr Ono, in the name of the director-general of the defense agency," Ono said. The constitution imposed by the United States after World War II forbids Japan from having a military or using force in international affairs. In a historic breakthrough, Japan has deployed 550 troops -- officially called the Self-Defense Forces -- in Iraq to provide humanitarian assistance, the first time since 1945 that Japanese soldiers have been in a country at war. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said this week he was not opposed to turning the Defense Agency into a full-fledged government ministry and that his Liberal Democratic Party would unveil ideas later this year on amending the constitution. Before the defeat in World War II, Japan ran the army ministry, which included the air force, and the navy ministry, which were both on a par with the finance and foreign ministries. Given Japan's wartime aggression in Asia, upgrading the agency's status to the ministry level could raise concerns among Asian countries, notably China and the Koreas. -------- russia Cut in funds for securing nuclear materials rejected By Bryan Bender, Boston Globe Staff | January 7, 2005 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/07/cut_in_funds_for_securing_nuclear_materials_rejected/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News WASHINGTON -- In a rare disagreement over Pentagon spending priorities, the White House has overruled a proposal that would cut funding to secure the former Soviet Union's nuclear materials, according to budget documents and government officials. To free up money for the Iraq war, the Pentagon recommended late last month that funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, or CTR, be cut by $46 million next year, about a 10 percent reduction in the military's post-Cold War efforts to destroy excess Soviet weapons of mass destruction, lock up other deadly materials, and help find civilian work for weapons scientists. But President Bush campaigned for reelection on a pledge to make the safeguarding vulnerable stockpiles around the world his highest national security priority. And officials said yesterday that the White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, has assured backers of the program that it will maintain the Pentagon's annual level of spending at about $400 million. The proposed cut, approved by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz in a Dec. 23 memorandum, demonstrates the squeeze that the Iraq war has placed on Pentagon coffers. It also points to a continuing lack of support inside the bureaucracy for projects designed to help the Russians and other former Soviet republics reduce their stocks of weapons sought by terrorist groups. "It makes you wonder whether the Pentagon was watching the presidential debates," said William E. Hoehn III, Washington director of the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, a nonprofit organization. "President Bush said nuclear terrorism is the number-one national security threat." White House officials declined to comment on the proposed cuts yesterday, saying they do not publicly discuss internal budget deliberations until the full federal budget request is completed. But other officials said OMB already has told the Pentagon that the cut would not be tolerated. "It has been rejected by the White House," said a senior government official who asked not to be named. "We have been assured by a number of people that it is not going to happen." Still, Hoehn and others said the squabble between the White House and Defense Department underscores how the CTR program, which receives about $1 billion a year across the Defense, State, Energy, and other departments, remains a black sheep at the Pentagon, where some leaders have long been critical of international arms-control programs. "There is a general skepticism among the neo-conservatives of the value of these programs," Hoehn said. "Their emphasis is much more on killing terrorists than keeping weapons from the hands of terrorists." Additionally, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz think Russia should take more responsibility for the problem. The White House's rejection of the Pentagon cut "is a hopeful sign that the White House is taking charge and responsibility to ensure that nuclear weapons and materials do not get into the hands of terrorists," said Charles Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit organization. Bush was criticized by Democratic challenger Senator John F. Kerry last year for shortchanging programs to secure Russia's hundreds of tons of nuclear material, biological weapons, and chemical weapons stocks -- much of it stored in facilities that lack sufficient security safeguards. Only 6 percent of Russia's estimated 600 tons of potentially vulnerable nuclear materials has been secured, leaving enough to make thousands of nuclear bombs. And Russian officials have reported that some facilities have been cased by suspected terrorist groups. Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has said he received approval from a Saudi cleric to use nuclear weapons against the United States, and intelligence reports indicate that he has long sought to gain access to weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. According to the current schedule, the former Soviet Union's excess materials will not be secured or destroyed for 13 more years. John Wolfsthal, deputy director of the nonproliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said Pentagon skepticism of the program is growing stronger amid ominous signs that President Vladimir Putin of Russia is tightening his grip on government institutions and undercutting democratic progress in the country. Wolfsthal noted that top policy makers at the Pentagon worry that the program may be helping "a potential enemy." Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com . -------- u.n. UN Report Proposes Enlargement of Security Council VOA News Jan. 7, 2005 http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200501/200501070003.html The United Nations has released a report addressing some of the most pressing security issues facing the international community. The U.N. report says nuclear proliferation is one of the major challenges facing the world community today. The report paints a bleak picture, saying the international community is "approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation." The U.N. document says currently eight countries are known to have nuclear arsenals: the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel, although not all of them admit it. The report goes on to say almost 60 states currently operate or are constructing nuclear power or research reactors. And at least 40 possess the industrial and scientific infrastructure which would enable them, if they chose, to build nuclear weapons at relatively short notice. One of the authors of the report is former U.S. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. He says the focus of nuclear non-proliferation efforts has changed since the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into effect in 1970. "When that treaty was written, we thought that the most difficult part of making a nuclear weapon was the device itself and that was beyond the capacity of most countries. Well, you can learn how to do that on the Internet now and the controls, really, are on the production of the material that goes into the bomb - the fissile material - be it plutonium or enriched uranium. And so one has to stop proliferation by stopping the ability to enrich uranium or to reprocess spent fuel rods and obtain plutonium," he says. Mr. Scowcroft says the U.N. report recommends that the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, guarantee the supply of fissile material for peaceful nuclear purposes. He says some states don't want to be dependent on other countries for a supply of enriched uranium, so they will want to enrich their own. "So what we said is 'no; we'll let the IAEA guarantee the supply of uranium as long as you meet the IAEA's guidelines and the IAEA will contract with nuclear suppliers to provide that uranium, thus removing any reason for a state to say its has to enrich its own uranium,'" he says. Nuclear non-proliferation is one of several issues addressed in a report by a 16-member panel of diplomats and former world leaders appointed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The 99-page document also dealth with issues, such as collective security, terrorism and U.N. reform. On the last topic, the panel proposed enlarging the U.N. Security Council from its current 15 members to 24. Former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, a co-author of the report, says increasing the Security Council membership is essential. "The Security Council we have at the moment, in particular its permanent membership, the five countries that have been sitting there exercising the veto - the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia - they were the big powers of 1945; they are not the five biggest powers in the world in 2005," he says. "The world is different 60 years later and there are a lot of countries, not just Japan and Germany, but Brazil and India and others as well in Africa: South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt - all of whom are really major players in different ways on the world scene and certainly represent huge parts of the world, which are just not there as part of the entrenched structure of the Security Council at the moment. And clearly, if the Security Council is going to have credibility, if it is going to have representative legitimacy in the 21st century, that problem has to be addressed." The panel proposes two alternatives: the first would add six new permanent members and three new two-year non-permanent members. The second proposal would create no new permament seats. Instead, there would be a new category of eight four-year term members and one new two-year member. Mr. Evans says whatever alternative is accepted, it will make the Security Council far more relevant in addressing major international issues. "If you don't move to broaden the base of an organization like the Security Council, you have an inevitable decline in its authority over time, a decline in the willingness of the countries around the world to accept the authority of a body that they just don't feel that they're represented on," he says. "And this is particularly important with the Security Council being the only fully empowered executive international body that we have, which does, in fact, engage in life or death decision-making or non-war decision-making, very regularly; which is a body which legislates, in a sense - it might not be supposed to, but this is what it does - very often by laying down obligations on states in relation to terrorism or other things." The full report has been sent to all the U.N.'s member states. It is expected to be discussed next September in New York during celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of the world body. ---- UN atomic chief proposes global freeze on nuclear cycle Fri Jan 7, 6:23 AM ETt - AFP http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050107/wl_mideast_afp/iaeanuclearjapanirannkorea_050107112345 TOKYO (AFP) - UN atomic energy chief Mohamed ElBaradei has proposed that all countries lead by example by committing not to build facilities for uranium enrichment and nuclear reprocessing for five years. Iran has agreed to suspend uranium enrichment temporarily in a deal with the European Union (news - web sites), while North Korea (news - web sites) is refusing to return to talks over US allegations the communist state enriched uranium to build nuclear weapons. ElBaradei told Friday's edition of the Asahi Shimbun daily that a global freeze on construction for uranium enrichment and nuclear reprocessing would be discussed at a May conference in New York on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Such a moratorium would have value as it would place "some limitation on the right of every country to develop a full (nuclear) fuel cycle," he said. He said a global freeze could last for five years or "until we have completed our work on how we can have an international arrangement for the fuel cycle. "We have enough capacity in the world for enrichment or reprocessing," said ElBaradei who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "We should not forget the commitment by the weapons states to move toward nuclear disarmament," he said. ElBaradei said revisions to the world's nuclear framework had become more urgent after the admission last year by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the now disgraced father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, of transfers in nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The Asahi Shimbun said ElBaradei did not discuss how such a global freeze would affect Japan's controversial tests on depleted uranium which began last month in the northern town of Rokkasho-mura as part of efforts to re-use spent nuclear fuel. ---- Baradei Loses US Support The Egyptian administration has reacted sharply to claims that it is developing a military nuclear program. Friday, January 07 2005 Turks US http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20050107073745546 Egypt was accused of researching nuclear weapons during the 1980s and 1990s in particular and that the United Nations (UN) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found some data during its investigations held in Egypt last year. Rumors were spread in the West that the nuclear program was overlooked because IAEA Director General Mohamed Baradei was an Egyptian. The reports were reportedly designed to soften up Baradei. The US is not demanding the re-appointment of Baradei for a third term after many disagreements on issues such as Iran and Iraq. Egypt signed the Nuclear Disarmament Agreement as one of the most critics of Israel which did not sign. Many Arab countries question why Israel's nuclear program is not being investigated. Reportedly, Israel has the fifth greatest nuclear power of the world. Officials requesting that they remain anonymous say Egypt produced uranium and tetra florid both of which are used for nuclear warheads. More recent claims surfaced after IAEA officials investigating Egypt's nuclear program found plutonium fragments two months ago. The results of the environmentalist samples taken in Egypt by the IAEA are expected to be released in February or March. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- missouri Bond sets his legislative priorities BETSY TAYLOR Associated Press Fri, Jan. 07, 2005 http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/10593528.htm?1c ST. LOUIS - Sen. Kit Bond outlined his legislative priorities for the year on Friday, saying he wants to increase access to community health care centers, expand early childhood development programs and assist St. Louis-area workers exposed to radiation decades ago. The Missouri Republican, entering his fourth term in the Senate, spoke during a news conference in St. Louis. Bond said community health centers in the United States serve roughly 14 million people. He would like to double that figure, but said he would consider efforts a success if 25 million people are reached. Bond said he plans to work with President Bush on a new initiative this term to ensure that the poorest communities are served by a health center. Bond wants to expand Parents as Teachers, an early childhood development program he helped launch during his second term as Missouri governor 20 years ago. His legislation, the Education Begins at Home Act, would establish dedicated federal funding to support the expansion of Parents as Teachers or other programs allowing home visitation for families. Bond is seeking $500 million over three years, including $50 million to support families for whom English is a second language and $50 million for military families. The Parents as Teachers program currently has 12,000 parent educators and reaches about 350,000 families. "Investing in kids through the support and strengthening of their parents means this would be a very cost effective use of dollars," said Susan Stepleton, president and chief executive of Parents as Teachers, which is based in St. Louis. Bond said he will continue efforts on behalf of Cold War-era workers exposed to radiation. The federal government has said nuclear workers at former Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. plants in the St. Louis area were exposed to radiation up to 2,400 times greater than doses acceptable by modern standards. Bond filed legislation last year seeking to allow workers or their survivors to qualify for expedited compensation for illnesses resulting from that exposure. He said the legislation narrowly failed. "I think it's a matter of simple justice," he said. Under Bond's legislation, workers at the St. Louis, Weldon Spring and Hematite sites would have qualified for compensation of $150,000 by simply showing they worked at one of the sites and had one of 22 qualifying cancers. They would not have been required, as they are now, to be interviewed, complete lengthy forms, track down old medical records, and undergo the complex process of dose reconstruction to determine exposure levels. For some Mallinckrodt workers, not all of that proof is available. Company records were destroyed or, in some cases, not kept. From 1942 to 1948, no one monitored workers' health. Bond's plan would have given Missouri Mallinckrodt workers the benefit of the doubt through a designation already approved for workers in a handful of states who also processed plutonium and had their records lost or destroyed. "The men and women of Mallinckrodt helped this country win the Cold War. I think it's time for the country to help them," Bond said. Richard Miller, a policy analyst with the watchdog group called the Government Accountability Project, said Bond's support would remain crucial to efforts to help the workers receive compensation. The advisory board for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health plans to be in St. Louis early next month to make a recommendation regarding the downtown Mallinckrodt site, Bond said. -------- washington DOE audit finds delay in closing risky wells Friday, January 7th, 2005 By Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald staff writer http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/5989547p-5888736c.html Hundreds of unused wells at Hanford that can spread radioactive contamination to ground water are not being decommissioned promptly, according to a report released Thursday by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Energy. The report blames lack of a comprehensive decommissioning plan for delays. DOE management agreed Hanford has room for improvement, but said it met targets for decommissioning wells last year and is committed to decommissioning 520 wells by the end of fiscal year 2006. Thousands of wells were drilled at Hanford to monitor ground water for contaminants left from 50 years of production of plutonium at the site for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The majority were drilled before requirements to limit the possible migration of water down the well casing to the ground water. As old wells have been abandoned, they've become potential pathways for contaminants to be carried to the ground water and then to eventually reach the Columbia River. In one case, DOE discovered in 1985 that one high-risk well, and possibly multiple wells, had allowed uranium to migrate to the ground water. "Despite the passage of almost two decades, action was not taken to decommission these dangerous wells," according to the report. It estimated that as many as 3,500 of Hanford's approximately 7,000 wells are unused and need to be decommissioned as promptly as possible to prevent additional ground water contamination. DOE comments submitted to the Inspector General's Office disputed that number, putting the number of wells needing to be decommissioned at about 2,000. The actual number of wells that need to be left operable to monitor the nuclear reservation after cleanup is completed has yet to be determined. Hanford workers decommissioned 146 wells from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2004, according to the report. However, the site has the capability to decommission 104 to 150 wells a year, the report said. More than half of the decommissioning work completed was in the last fiscal year. But of the 133 wells that had been identified for decommissioning in fiscal year 2004, about 33 percent were not completed, according to the report. DOE reported slightly more wells completed. DOE said in documents provided to the Inspector General's Office it exceeded its baseline goal of decommissioning 90 wells. But when the budget was finalized, Hanford did not have the money to go much beyond the baseline, it said. The report disagreed, saying DOE had committed to go beyond the baseline and adopted an accelerated schedule of decommissioning 133 wells last year. Well decommissioning is being funded as a priority action through 2006, wrote Paul Golan, DOE's acting assistant secretary for environmental management, in a letter to the Inspector General's Office. He anticipates meeting commitments to decommission high-risk wells on schedule through 2006, he said. That will require better information, the report concluded. "Without accurate and up-to-date information regarding the condition of site wells, it is likely that the department will continue to experience delays and may be unable to improve its performance," according to the report. DOE's decommissioning plan does not outline the total inventory of unused wells, does not prioritize them by risk of contaminating ground water and does not include a cost estimate, according to the report. It found that data that had been passed down from contractor to contractor had not been verified and there was uncertainty about whether some wells listed in the database as "abandoned" had been decommissioned, according to the report. Work started during the audit to improve the database. The report recommends verifying the status of all wells and performing a risk assessment to make sure those most likely to contaminate ground water are given top priority. DOE will create a new well decommissioning plan, Golan wrote. Decommissioning activities through 2006 have already been planned and approved by regulators, but the new document will be used for the remaining wells, he said. ---- Audit: DOE's too slow to clean up Hanford wells By Staff, The Daily News (Longview, WA) Jan 07, 2005 - 08:11:22 am PST http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/01/07/area_news/news07.txt http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002143992_hanford07m.html YAKIMA -- The U.S. Department of Energy has been too slow to decommission abandoned and unused wells at south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear site, a new federal audit concludes. Thousands of wells have been drilled at Hanford to monitor the release of contaminants to groundwater during decades of plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. Many of the wells have been abandoned and could pose a threat to the environment as a potential travel source for contaminants to groundwater and the nearby Columbia River. State law requires unused and abandoned wells to be decommissioned -- filled with grout or a similar substance to prevent water or contaminants from passing. But the Energy Department has not decommissioned those wells at Hanford in a timely manner, leaving the agency open to potential enforcement actions by the state, the Energy Department's inspector general concluded in an audit released Thursday. The audit recommends that the Energy Department conduct a complete inventory, verify the status of all wells at Hanford, and perform a comprehensive risk assessment of them. The agency should then develop a plan to decommission wells and allocate money to implement that plan. The Energy Department agreed to take those steps in a Dec. 9 letter by Paul Golan, acting assistant secretary for environmental management, in response to a draft of the audit. Of the approximately 7,000 wells at Hanford, the report estimates that as many as 3,500 are unused and must be decommissioned as soon as possible. The Energy Department estimated the total number of wells to be decommissioned at the site as 2,150, based on a 2002 plan for accelerated cleanup at Hanford. Auditors, however, increased that number based on more recent data from 2003 and 2004, the report said. The agency had planned to decommission 520 wells by the end of 2006, but about 33 percent of the 133 wells identified for decommissioning in 2004 were not completed, according to the report. Energy Department officials also said a lack of money had limited their ability to speed the process. The audit did not dispute that assertion, but concluded that the lack of a risk-based schedule for the work likely contributed to reduced funding. The Energy Department has estimated that 80 square miles of Hanford's groundwater have been contaminated at levels exceeding state and federal drinking water standards. An estimated 442 billion gallons of radioactive and hazardous waste have been released into the ground at the site. Last year, the inspector general reported that the Energy Department had failed to make significant progress to clean Hanford's contaminated groundwater and that pump-and-treat systems installed for that purpose had been largely ineffective. Those systems call for workers to pump contaminated water out of the ground, run it through filters to remove radioactive contaminants and re-inject the water into the ground. For 40 years, the 586-square-mile Hanford site made plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal, beginning with the top-secret Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb. Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site. Cleanup costs are expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion, with the work to be finished by 2035. -------- space Space Watch: Bush 43 Vs Bush 41 In Space by Robert Zimmerman Washington DC (UPI) Jan 07, 2005 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05f.html January 14 will mark one year since President George W. Bush stood before a packed audience at NASA headquarters in Washington and announced, to great fanfare, a new American space initiative. What few have noticed or recognized since then is how the response to that proposal in the past year has illustrated a complete and fundamental change in the nature of the space exploration debate. According to Bush's proposal, once the shuttle fleet has returned to flight, it will be used to complete construction of the International Space Station and then be retired in 2010. To replace the shuttle, NASA will develop a new Crew Exploration Vehicle, with unmanned test flights flying in 2008 and manned missions in 2014. The CEV then will be used to establish a base on the moon - as early as 2015 and no later than 2020 - followed by later manned missions to Mars and beyond. Not surprising, many experts have raised questions about the initiative. For one thing, Bush's plan also did little to change the gist of the American space program. Rather than encourage the exploration of space by the private sector, the plan gave the job to NASA, a government agency whose track record for human spaceflight in the past few decades has been less than stellar. For another, Bush gave NASA an incredibly long time - 10 years - to build the CEV. Compare that pace to the 1960s, when it took less than a decade to design, build and fly the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules. This long planning schedule also leaves a four-year gap in the ability of the United States to put humans in orbit - from 2010 when the shuttle fleet is retired to 2014 when the CEV flies its first manned missions. During that time, the United States once again will be entirely beholden to Russia and its Soyuz and Progress freighters for resupplying its own space station, a situation NASA even now finds inadequate. Unlike the '60s space program, which began with a significant budget that only grew, Bush's proposal provides NASA with relatively little money, limiting the initial spending increase to only $1 billion spread over the first five years. Considering the cost of such an endeavor, in particular when attempted by a government agency, many wonder whether this amount will be sufficient to build anything except more government offices. Added to these questions are worries over the state of NASA's manned program. When Bush made his announcement, it already had been a year since shuttle Columbia broke apart during its re-entry. Since then, another year has passed and still the shuttle has not flown. During that time, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has done very little to rectify its more fundamental management failures. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board found NASA's internal "management culture" contributed to the shuttle loss, describing "flawed decision-making, self-deception, introversion and a diminished curiosity" as well as an "inadequate concern over deviations from expected performance." That lack of concern led to an inability of NASA managers to recognize problems and fix them. Changing this management culture suggested the need for a drastic shake-up, including a wholesale housecleaning. Unfortunately, that has not happened and so, two years after the Columbia accident, the same NASA agency with the same NASA management continues to run the American manned space program. Despite NASA's repeated and sincere insistence it is trying to reorganize itself, the management changes have been minor, leaving many experts questioning whether the bureaucratic failures described by the CAIB have been faced and dealt with effectively. How then, with all these doubts and criticisms, has the debate over the American space program changed? Put simply, it is what has not been argued that makes the discourse so fundamentally different. Consider, for example, the response in 1989 when Bush's father made an almost identical proposal, recommending the United States establish a base on the moon, send an expedition to Mars, and make "the permanent settlement of space" the nation's goal. Not only did the Bush Sr. proposal garner zero support in Congress, his announcement also was given less press coverage than the rescue of a cat from a suburban tree. Moreover, what little attention it did attract was almost routinely negative. The New York Times led the way, calling the plan "a giant step back in space," and "a failure of imagination and fresh thought." Columnist Flora Lewis added that "looking to the moon and Mars (for a grand purpose) is looking in the wrong direction. The time has come to find that vision on Earth." Among elected officials, Sen. Al Gore, D-Tenn., was typical, calling the proposal "a daydream about as splashy as a George Lucas movie, with about as much connection to reality." Very quickly, the Bush Sr. proposal disappeared into the black hole of Washington politics. By the end of that year it was practically forgotten. Nor was this situation unusual. Beginning shortly before the Apollo 11 landing on the moon in 1969 and continuing through the 1970s, '80s and '90s, the mantra by those who opposed spending government money on manned space exploration has been that it is inappropriate and wasteful. Better to spend the money solving human problems here on Earth. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote just one week before the lunar landing, "We have spent $33 billion on space so far. We should have spent it on cleaning up our filthy colonies here on Earth." Though this argument was never sufficient to shut down the American space program, it effectively stunted its growth. Over the next 30 years NASA was unable to do much more than go in circles around the Earth via the shuttle. In 2004, however, when George W. Bush made a similar but far more detailed proposal than his father, no one made this argument. The chant about solving our problems here on Earth hardly has been mentioned. Though many reports have raised specific questions about Bush's space vision, the press coverage has been extensive and generally exuberant. In fact, W's proposal got more positive exposure than any space plan since John F. Kennedy's moon initiative in the 1960s. Congress, in turn, responded by giving Bush all the funds he requested for NASA, leaving no doubt of their support for this ambitious space program. Even those Democrat politicians who opposed Bush's proposal were far less hostile than their counterparts in 1989. Consider, for example, Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., whose space platform during his recent presidential campaign was hardly as enthusiastic as Bush's for the human exploration of the solar system. Nevertheless, Kerry included it in his overall platform, suggesting the U.S. space program must balance human exploration with the need to do astronomical, planetary and aeronautical research. As stated by Lori Garver, a member of Kerry's Science and Technology advisory team, "We will support solar system exploration as an important goal for our human and robotic programs ... but only as one goal among several." Nor was Kerry's campaign position unusual. Though many people - from academics to politicians to aerospace experts - strongly disagreed with Bush's specific proposal, few adopted the position that space exploration is unnecessary, as many had in the past. Instead, they simply have argued the nation must do it differently. What this means for the American space program is profound. After more than 40 years of debate, the argument is over and the supporters of manned spaceflight have won. Whether or not Bush's space initiative is right, one year after he proposed it Americans have decided the nation has no choice but to go to the stars. Robert Zimmerman is an independent space historian. His most recent book, "Leaving Earth: Space Stations, Rival Superpowers, and the Quest for Interplanetary Travel," was awarded the Eugene M. Emme Award by the American Astronautical Society for the best popular space history in 2003. E-mail sciencemail@upi.com -------- us Wolfowitz expected to stay as Pentagon number two: spokesman Space War WASHINGTON (AFP) Jan 07, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050107221642.qnduprzv.html Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is expected to stay in his current position as the Pentagon's number two official, a spokesman said Friday. "I think Paul's intention is to stay," Lawrence DiRita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, told reporters. "He is serving in the job. I think it's a job that the secretary would be very happy if he did stay in. He has been performing magnificently," he said. Speculation that Wolfowitz was leaving the Pentagon surfaced Friday in a Washington Post column. Wolfowitz, a hawk who has been identified with the Republican party's neo-conservative wing, has been a prominent proponent of the view that the US-led invasion of Iraq was an opportunity to transform the Middle East by establishing democratic rule in Baghdad. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- torture Abu Ghraib scandal suspect was just "following orders" - lawyer Space War FORT HOOD, Texas (AFP) Jan 07, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050107201908.8ngmlm2q.html The lawyer for a soldier court-martialed for abusing detainees at Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison said Friday his client was just following orders, and that his superiors are those who should be tried. "Our defense is that Specialist (Charles) Graner was following orders," said Guy Womack, the military policeman's civilian attorney in the court martial proceedings that started at the Fort Hood army base in Texas Friday. "There were very specific orders about doing some things and there were implicit orders about other things," said Womack, a former US marine. "Most of those who gave the orders are invoking their right to remain silent," he told journalists outside the military courtroom. Asked about officers called to testify at the court martial, he said: "There are going to be some commanders who gave the orders who are going to lie about it, but I think we can show they're lying." Critics have pointed out that his defense bore similarities to that of Nazis tried at the Nueremberg war trials, many of whom claimed they were only following orders. But Womack dismissed the comparison. "In Nueremberg we were trying generals who were giving orders, we were not trying privates, specialists ... Here we know that there are officers all the way up to at least a colonel who were giving orders and none of them was charged at all." "If I were prosecuting this case, these people would be witnesses," he said in reference to Graner and other soldiers charged with prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib. "They would be going after the officers and the senior enlisted who gave the orders and the officers and senior enlisted who saw what was going on and turned the other way," he said. Arguments in Graner's trial are to start on Monday after a 10-man jury was selected on Friday. ---- Gonzales Grilled on Role in Torture at Confirmation Hearing Democracy Now Friday, January 7th, 2005 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/07/1621235 Alberto Gonzales' role in paving the legal groundwork that led to the torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay was the central focus of a Senate hearing yesterday, which is considering his nomination to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general. Gonzales delivered more than seven hours of testimony, most of it responding to questions from Committee members on his role in setting the stage for the abuse of detainees. We hear excerpts of the hearing and speak with journalist Mark Danner of the New Yorker and author of Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror. [includes rush transcript] Alberto Gonzales' role in paving the legal groundwork that led to the torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay was the central focus of a Senate hearing yesterday, which is considering his nomination to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general. In his opening statement, Gonzales - a longtime confidante of George W Bush who served as his White House counsel - said his friendship with the president would not affect his performance as attorney general. * Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General nominee testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, January 6, 2005. After Gonzales' opening statement, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee turned their focus to the administration's policies on torture. Much of the discussion focused on two memos. One, written by Gonzales in January 2002, asserted that the so-called war on terror "renders obsolete" the Geneva Convention's strict prohibitions against torture. The other is a August 2002 Justice Department memo sought by Gonzales that outlines how to avoid violating U.S. and international terror statutes while interrogating prisoners by setting a high threshold for the definition of torture. Speaking before a packed hearing room, Gonzales delivered more than seven hours of testimony, most of it responding to questions from the Judiciary Committee on his role in setting the stage for the abuse of detainees. * Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), questioning Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales. * Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), questioning Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales. * Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), questioning Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales. # Mark Danner, New Yorker staff writer and frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. He is also the author of the new book "Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror." RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more... JUAN GONZALEZ: In his opening statement, Gonzales, a long-time confidant of George W. Bush and White House Counsel during the president's first term said his friendship with the president would not affect his performance as Attorney General. ? ALBERTO GONZALES: With the consent of the senate, I will no longer represent only the White House. I will represent the United States of America, and its people. I understand the differences between the two roles. In the former, I have been privileged to advise the president and his staff. In the latter, I would have a far broader responsibility, to pursue justice for all of the people of our great nation, to see that the laws are enforced in a fair and impartial manner for all Americans. Wherever we pursue justice from the war on terror to corporate fraud, to civil rights. AMY GOODMAN: After Gonzales's opening statement, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee turned their focus to the administration's policies on torture. Much of the discussion focused on two memos. One written by Gonzales in January, 2002, asserted that the so-called war on terror "renders obsolete the Geneva convention's strict prohibitions against torture". The other in August, 2002, Justice Department memo sought by Gonzales that outlines how to avoid violating U.S. and international terror statutes while interrogating prisoners by setting a high threshold for the definition of torture. JUAN GONZALEZ: Speaking before a packed hearing room, Gonzales delivered more than seven hours of testimony, most of it responding to questions from the Judiciary Committee on his role in setting the stage for the abuse of detainees. This is Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: I'd like to ask you a few questions about the torture memo dated in August 1, 2002, signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bibey. He's now a federal appellate court judge. The memo is addressed to you. It was written at your request. This is actually the memo here. It's a fairly lengthy memo, but addressed memorandum for Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the president. It says, "for an act to violate the torture statute, it must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." in August, 2002, did you agree with that conclusion? ALBERTO GONZALES: Senator, in connection with that opinion, I did my job as Counsel to the president to ask the question. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: I just want to know, did you agree -- we can spend an hour with that answer, but frankly, it would be very simple. Did you agree with that interpretation of the torture statute back in August, 2002? ALBERTO GONZALES: If i may, sir, let me try to give you a quick answer, but I'd like to put a little bit of context. There obviously we were interpreting a statute that had never been reviewed in the courts, a statute drafted by Congress. We were trying to interppret the standard set by Congress. There was discussion between the White House and Department of Justice as well as other agencies about what does this statute mean? It was a very, very difficult -- I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the department. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the department to tell us what the law means, Senator. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: And do you agree today that for an act to violate the torture statute, it must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death? ALBERTO GONZALES: I do not, sir, that does not represent the position of the executive branch, as you know.. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: But -- ALBERTO GONZALES: Let me finish. SPEAKER: Let him finish the answer. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: But it wasn't your position in 2002. SPEAKER: Let him finish his answer. ALBERTO GONZALES: Sir, what you are asking the Counsel to do is interject himself and direct the Department of Justice, who is supposed to be free of any kind of political influence in reaching a legal interpretation of the law passed by Congress. I certainly give my views. There was, of course, conversation and a give and take discussion about what does the law mean, but ultimately, by statute, the Department of Justice is charged by congress to provide legal advice on behalf of the president. We asked the question. That memo represented the position of the executive branch at the time it was issued. AMY GOODMAN: Alberto Gonzales being questioned by Vermont Democratic Senator, Patrick Leahy at the confirmation hearings of Gonzales as Attorney General. We're joined by Mark Danner, author of Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror. Your response to this section of the questioning, Mark. MARK DANNER: Well, even seeing that again today, I must say it's rather appalling, even worse the second time through. It's very clear that this particular memo, the so-called torture memo, was going to be a key question -- the key question of the hearings. They anticipated it. They prepared his answer. His answer essentially was he can't remember how it was put together. He doesn't remember whether he agreed with it. It doesn't matter if he agreed with it because it's the policy of the government as set out by the Department of Justice, which of course he didn't have that much to do with it, because he's the counsel for the president. Though now he's going to head the Department of Justice. The critical question that he had to be asked about the redefinition of torture, he essentially ducked it. I must say, I was rather shocked by that, especially since in the last week, finally, the Justice Department very quietly replaced this memo, after two years with another memo essentially retracting that redefinition. And it's extraordinary to me that he just didn't come out and essentially say this was a mistake, since the entire government has recognized that it was a mistake. But it's part and parcel of the way the hearings went, which is essentially a characteristic Bush administration way of sticking to their guns, sticking to what they originally said, denying they had made a mistake in any way, denying that doctrining decisions like this one, of which think is the key, had anything to do with the abuses on the ground and finally the abuses themselves represented policy. Now, all of those things we know because of the reports that have been done, are not true. He sat in front of the committee and asserted things, frankly, that we know not to be true. He did it with great determination, and the odds are, he will be confirmed. JUAN GONZALEZ: And it seems to me also in listening to the hearings that on the one hand there was a certain doublespeak involved on the one hand saying I'm opposed to torture, but then he seemed to leave open when he was directly questioned, the possibility of whether the definition should be redefined, whether the Geneva Convention should be revisited by the United States. MARK DANNER: That's right. I think the Times in an editorial today said he was astonishingly equivocal on the question of whether or not americans could legally torture. That has been a central question now for a couple of years. He was essentially unwilling to say definitively there were no situations in which Americans could legally torture prisoners. So, I found his answers actually rather surprising, rather astonishing. Even more so watching them here. They remind me a little of Judge Clarence Thomas's performance in front of the same committee a decade or so ago when he essentially denied that he had ever thought about abortion, denied that he ever talked about abortion, denied that he had ever had a personal position about it, and so on, and you know, there's an assumption behind both of these performances that we have the votes. We're going to get through. I just have to give them nothing on which to hang some sort of a contrary argument. AMY GOODMAN: We have to go to break. When we come back, we'll play a clip of the Kennedy questioning of Gonzales, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, as well as South Carolina's Lindsey Graham. [break] AMY GOODMAN: It was Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts that asks these questions of the White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales. SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Now, the Post article states you chaired several meetings of which various interrogation techniques were discussed. These techniques included the threat of live burial and “water boarding,” whereby the detainee is strapped to a board, forcibly pushed under water wrapped in a wet towel and made to believe he might drown. The article states that you raised no objections. Now, without consulting military and state department experts, they were not consulted, they were not invited to important meetings, that might have been important to some, but we know of what Secretary Taft has said about his exclusion from these. Experts in laws of torture and war prove the resulting memos gave C.I.A. interrogators the legal blessings they sought. Now was it the C.I.A. That asked you? ALBERTO GONZALES: Sir, I don't have a specific recollection -- I read the same article. I don't know whether or not it was the C.I.A. What I can say is that after this war began, against this new kind of threat, this new kind of enemy, we realized that there was a premium on receiving information. In many ways this war on terror is a war about information. If we have information, we can defeat the enemy. We had captured some really bad people, who we were concerned had information that might prevent the loss of American lives in the future. It was important to receive that information, and people -- the agencies wanted to be sure that they would not do anything that would violate our legal obligations. So, they did the right thing. They asked questions: What is lawful conduct? Because we don't want to do anything that violates the law. Now – SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: So, the legal -- you asked at their request, as I understand it. If this is incorrect, then correct me. I'm not attempting -- or if there are provisions in that comment I meant here that are inaccurate, I want to be corrected. I want to be fair on this, but it's my understanding, certainly was in the report, that the C.I.A. came you to, asked for the clarification. You went to the O.L.C. I want to ask you, did you ever talk to any members of the O.L.C. while they were drafting the memoranda? Did you ever suggest to them that they ought to lean forward on this issue about supporting the extreme uses of torture. Did you ever, as reported in the newspaper? ALBERTO GONZALES: Sir, I don't recall ever using the term sort of “leaning forward”, in terms of stretching what the law is – SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Did you talk to the O.L.C. During the drafting? ALBERTO GONZALES: There is always discussions -- not always discussions -- but there is often discussions between the Department of Justice and O.L.C. and the Counsel's Office regarding legal issues. I think this is perfectly appropriate. This was an issue that the White House cared very much about to insure that the agencies were not engaged in conduct- SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: What were you urging them? What were you urging. They are, as I understand, charged to interpret the law. They -- we have the series of different -- six or seven of the laws on the conventions on torture and on the rest of that. They are charged to develop and say what the statute is. Now, what -- what did you believe your role was in talking with the O.L.C. And recommending – ALBERTO GONZALES: To understand their -- to understand their views about the interpretation. SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Weren't you going to get the document? Weren't you going to get their document? Why did you have to talk to them during the time of the drafting? It suggests in here that you were urging them to go as far as they possibly could. That's what the newspaper report -- your testimony is that you did talk to them, but you can't remember what you told them? ALBERTO GONZALES: Sir, I'm sure there was a discussion about the analysis about a very tough statute, a new statute, as I have said repeatedly that had never been interpreted by our courts. We wanted to make sure we got it right. AMY GOODMAN: Alberto Gonzales being questioned by Massachusetts Senator, Ted Kennedy. Juan. JUAN GONZALEZ: I noticed you shaking your head as we were listening to that interchange between Gonzales and Senator Kennedy. This whole question of what he did recall or didn't recall, the importance of it. MARK DANNER: Well, the question at issue through most of that was what was the White House involvement in coming up with this definition by which torture was made into such a narrow category that only the most brutal, severe, horrible behavior could legally be considered torture. If you do that, a lot of things that the administration wanted to do, and subsequently did do, and that every common person in every country in the world would consider torture suddenly became not torture under American law. Now, how did the Justice Department produce this memorandum, that redefined things that way. Gonzales claims, well, actually what would we do? This is the role of the Justice Department. They gave us the interpretation. We followed it. Senator Kennedy is trying to get to what has become obvious, which is that Gonzales, working as the President's agent, asked the Justice Department for their opinion, formally, but then engaged in discussions with them essentially, that were essentially leading discussions saying, look, this is what we want. JUAN GONZALEZ: In other words, lobbied for a legal opinion. MARK DANNER: So they asked for an opinion that would do what the opinion subsequently did do, give them freedom to torture. This has come out recently in the New York Times, particularly has done good report on this from unnamed sources within the Justice Department saying, Hey, this guy asked us questions. They were leading questions that basically showed us what he wanted. Senator Kennedy was trying to get to that, as well as in the first part of the clip you showed, the fact that within the military itself, there was extraordinary opposition to this to this redefinition of torture, and that the administration responded as it usually does, with people in the government who object to his position -- to the government's position by cutting these people out. So, the people on the military side, the experts on the military law, the people who had spent their careers making decisions about what was legal and what wasn't on the battlefield and in interrogations were simply cut out of the discussion entirely. They weren't included. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Mark Danner. He is author of Torture And Truth: America, Abu Ghraib And The War On Terror, a New Yorker magazine writer. He wrote a piece in the New York Times yesterday, an op-ed piece called, “We Are All Torturers Now.” We're going to turn to Senator Lindsey Graham, a conservative republican from South Carolina, Judge Advocate in the Air Force Reserve. Some interesting comments for Alberto Gonzales. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: The Department Of Justice memo that we're all talking about now was in my opinion, Judge Gonzales, not a little bit wrong, but entirely wrong in its focus. Because it excluded another body of law called the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. Mr. Chairman, I have asked since October for memos from the working group by Judge Advocate General representatives that commented on this Department Of Justice policy, and I have yet to get those memos. I have read those memos. They're classified for some bizarre reason. But generally speaking, those memos talk about that if you go down the road suggested, you're making a u-turn as a nation, that you are going to lose the moral high ground, but more importantly, some of the techniques and legal reasoning being employed into what torture is, which is an honest thing to talk about, it's okay to ask for legal advice. You should ask for legal advice. But this legal memo, I think, put our troops at jeopardy because the Uniform Code of Military Justice specifically makes it a crime for a member of our uniformed forces to abuse a detainee. It is a specific article of the Uniformed Code Of Military Justice for a purpose -- because we want to show our troops, not just in words, but in deeds that you have an obligation to follow the law. I would like for you to comment, if you could, and I would like you to reject, if you would, the reasoning in that memo when it came time to give a torturers view of torture. Will you be willing to do that here today? ALBERTO GONZALES: Senator, there is a lot to respond to in your statement. I would respectfully disagree with your statement that we're becoming more like our enemy. We are nothing like our enemy, Senator. While we are struggling to try to find out at Abu Ghraib, they're beheading people like Danny Pearl and Nick Berg. We are nothing like our enemy. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Can I suggest to you that I didn't say that we are like our enemy, that the worst thing we did when you compare it to Saddam Hussein was a good day there. But we're not like who we want to be, and who we have been. That's the point I'm trying to make. That when you start looking at torture statutes, and you look at ways around the spirit of the law, that you're losing the moral high ground, and that was the counsel from the Secretary Of State's office that once you start down this road, that it's very hard to come back. So, I do believe we have lost our way, and my challenge to you as a leader of this nation is to help us find our way without giving up our obligation and right to fight our enemy. AMY GOODMAN: Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina questioning Alberto Gonzales at his confirmation hearings for Attorney General. Mark Danner, our guest, author of Torture And Truth: America, Abu Ghraib And The War On Terror. Your response. MARK DANNER: Well, to me, that was the most interesting and the most important part in the entire hearings yesterday. Senator Lindsey Graham is a conservative republican from South Carolina. He also was and remains, I guess, as a reserve, a member of the Judge Advocate General in the Air Force. So, he is a military lawyer. AMY GOODMAN: A J.A.G MARK DANNER: A J.A.G., exactly. You heard there the voice of the military legal person, who was thinking not only about what we can do to put the screws to prisoners in any way we can, but also how it will affect the reputation of the United States, how it will affect the treatment of United States troops themselves when they are taken into custody, and how it will accord with previous and historic American military practice. And you know, one of the things that I was trying to do in collecting all of the documents that appear in Torture And Truth, was to show that these matters were debated vigorously within the administration, and that gradually the people who objected to what the administration was determined to do, in making it easy to torture, these people were cut out. You're getting the voice of one of those people in that Senate committee from Senator Graham. It's very important because you cannot look at him and say, well he's an administration critic who essentially is a crying liberal who, you know, doesn't realize how serious the war is. It's impossible to make that argument about him. I draw your attention to the fact that he is arguing that these steps weakened the United States, not only by putting troops at risk, but by undermining the U.S.'s reputation in the world, undermining the ideological side of this war, which the Bush administration, ironically enough, has so focused on. You know, “This is a war about democracy. We have to democratize the Middle East.” It's a political war. Graham's -- the essence of Graham's critique, quite apart from the fact that using these techniques will put American troops at risk and go against U.S. military law, is that it will undermine the U.S. reputation and its ability to politically persuade its enemies and to stop terrorism in the future, which supposedly is the Bush argument about what indeed we're doing in Iraq and what indeed the country is doing in the Middle East. You know, you have to in the words of Condoleezza Rice, stop young Muslims from having a reason for driving airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington. You do that by giving them a view of a different future, the American democratic future. That's the premise. Graham is saying very directly that by torturing, and by supplying images like that one, of -- that your listeners and viewers know so well -- of hooded man, the man with the hood over his head and the wires coming out of his fingers and his genitals which is known far and wide in the Arab world in the Middle East it's become highly recognizable by supplying that sort of ammunition, you're giving very, very strong comfort and aid to the enemy in fact. AMY GOODMAN: Mark Danner. I want to thank you very much for being with us. That image on the cover of your book as well. Torture And Truth: America, Abu Ghraib And The War On Terror. Thank you for joining us. MARK DANNER: Thank you. To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359. ---- Promoting Torture's Promoter By BOB HERBERT OP-ED COLUMNIST January 7, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/07/opinion/07herbert.html?ei=1&en=95e7595da477ec10&ex=1106110425&pagewanted=print&position= If the United States were to look into a mirror right now, it wouldn't recognize itself. The administration that thumbed its nose at the Geneva Conventions seems equally dismissive of such grand American values as honor, justice, integrity, due process and the truth. So there was Alberto Gonzales, counselor to the president and enabler in chief of the pro-torture lobby, interviewing on Capitol Hill yesterday for the post of attorney general, which just happens to be the highest law enforcement office in the land. Mr. Gonzales shouldn't be allowed anywhere near that office. His judgments regarding the detention and treatment of prisoners rounded up in Iraq and the so-called war on terror have been both unsound and shameful. Some of the practices that evolved from his judgments were appalling, gruesome, medieval. But this is the Bush administration, where incompetence and outright failure are rewarded with the nation's highest honors. (Remember the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded last month to George Tenet et al.?) So not only is Mr. Gonzales's name being stenciled onto the attorney general's door, but a plush judicial seat is being readied for his anticipated elevation to the Supreme Court. It's a measure of the irrelevance of the Democratic Party that a man who played such a significant role in the policies that led to the still-unfolding prisoner abuse and torture scandals is expected to win easy Senate confirmation and become attorney general. The Democrats have become the 98-pound weaklings of the 21st century. The Bush administration and Mr. Gonzales are trying to sell the fiction that they've seen the light. In answer to a setup question at his Judiciary Committee hearing, Mr. Gonzales said he is against torture. And the Justice Department issued a legal opinion last week that said "torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and international norms." What took so long? Why were we ever - under any circumstances - torturing, maiming, sexually abusing and even killing prisoners? And where is the evidence that we've stopped? The Bush administration hasn't changed. This is an administration that believes it can do and say whatever it wants, and that attitude is changing the very nature of the United States. It is eroding the checks and balances so crucial to American-style democracy. It led the U.S., against the advice of most of the world, to launch the dreadful war in Iraq. It led Mr. Gonzales to ignore the expressed concerns of the State Department and top military brass as he blithely opened the gates for the prisoner abuse vehicles to roll through. There are few things more dangerous than a mixture of power, arrogance and incompetence. In the Bush administration, that mixture has been explosive. Forget the meant-to-be-comforting rhetoric surrounding Mr. Gonzales's confirmation hearings. Nothing's changed. As detailed in The Washington Post earlier this month, the administration is making secret plans for the possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists who will never even be charged. Due process? That's a laugh. Included among the detainees, the paper noted, are hundreds of people in military or C.I.A. custody "whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts." And there will be plenty more detainees to come. Who knows who these folks are or what they may be guilty of? We'll have to trust in the likes of Alberto Gonzales or Donald Rumsfeld or President Bush's new appointee to head the C.I.A., Porter Goss, to see that the right thing is done in each and every case. Americans have tended to view the U.S. as the guardian of the highest ideals of justice and fairness. But that is a belief that's getting more and more difficult to sustain. If the Justice Department can be the fiefdom of John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales, those in search of the highest standards of justice have no choice but to look elsewhere. It's more fruitful now to look overseas. Last month Britain's highest court ruled that the government could not continue to indefinitely detain foreigners suspected of terrorism without charging or trying them. One of the justices wrote that such detentions "call into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention." That's a sentiment completely lost on an Alberto Gonzales or George W. Bush. E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Top security official to leave post in State Department Jan. 7, 2005, 8:43PM Associated Press http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2982712 WASHINGTON - John Bolton, the State Department's top international security official, will leave the post in the second Bush administration and be replaced by an arms control specialist at the National Security Council, a senior U.S. official said Friday. Bolton, who promoted programs to slow the spread of sophisticated weapons technology around the world, has served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security in the four years of the first Bush administration. Bolton has been outspoken in warning of the proliferation of nuclear technology and programs to develop weapons of mass destruction in North Korea, Iran and elsewhere. He took such a vehement stand that the Pyongyang government refused to accept him as a member of the U.S. delegation in talks designed to halt North Korea's nuclear program. Those negotiations have stalemated. Jack Pritchard, who dealt with North Korea before leaving the State Department in 2003, said Bolton "played a disruptive role" in the implementation of President Bush's policy toward North Korea. Also, Pritchard said, Bolton's public attacks on North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, while largely accurate, conveyed a tone contrary to U.S. policy. Bolton's replacement will be Robert G. Joseph, who worked closely with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on proliferation policy, said the U.S. official who disclosed the pending appointment on condition of anonymity. ---- Bush insists Iraq poll will bring peace By Guy Dinmore in Washington Published: January 7 2005 20:22 Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/10dff66e-60e7-11d9-af5a-00000e2511c8.html President George W. Bush on Friday rejected warnings from a prominent adviser that elections in Iraq this month could precipitate a slide into civil war, insisting that the polls would lead to peace even if there were a low turnout among the minority Sunnis. Mr Bush told reporters in the White House that it was not “constructive” to worry about the size of the turnout on January 30. He said 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces appeared “relatively calm”, an acknowledgment that Baghdad had joined three of the main Sunni provinces in lacking security because of the insurgency. Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to the president's father, warned at a foreign policy forum in Washington on Thursday that Iraq was going through “an incipient civil war”, and that the elections could deepen the conflict by leading to greater alienation of the Sunni minority from the Shia and Kurds. Asked if he shared that view, Mr Bush replied: “Quite the opposite. I think elections will be such an incredibly hopeful experience for the Iraqi people.” Mr Bush recently accepted the resignation of Mr Scowcroft, an increasingly outspoken critic of administration policies, as head of his foreign intelligence advisory board. It is not clear whether the president removed him or the former general decided to go. It was confirmed earlier that Condoleezza Rice, nominated as the next secretary of state, had chosen Robert Zoellick, the US chief trade representative, as her deputy. Officials also said that John Bolton, the department's senior arms control official, had decided to leave. Mr Bolton was the most visible “hawk” in the State Department, who had the ability to infuriate his European allies and was once denounced by North Korea as “human scum”. But he was not a neo-conservative who measured progress in changing political systems. The president's acceptance of the possibility of a low turnout among Sunni voters in Iraq reflects the administration's determination to press ahead with the polls. Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, has also expressed the view that the results would be seen as legitimate if Iraqis could vote in a majority of provinces. In private, US officials say a 30 per cent turnout among Sunnis, who make up about 20 per cent of the population but dominated the regime of Saddam Hussein, would be acceptable. Mr Bush said he looked forward to working with the newly elected government “to help train Iraqis as fast as possible so they can defend themselves”. “I think we're making great progress,” Mr Bush said, making no reference to the rapidly mounting death toll among US troops and Iraqi security forces. Reiterating what he has referred to before as his “revolutionary” foreign policy, Mr Bush said the “job” of the US and those who wanted peace was to “be aggressive in the spread of freedom”. Danielle Pletka, foreign policy specialist with the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, said that despite the switches in personnel in the second Bush administration, it should not be forgotten that the president set policy. While there might be a shift in “atmospherics” towards Europe, she saw no evidence of a change in substance regarding Europe, the Iraq crisis or non-proliferation. “Elections will happen in Iraq,” she said. “They are in this for the long haul. They have said this for a long time. They still believe it is the right thing to do.” Mr Bolton is expected to be replaced by Robert Joseph from the National Security Council. A source close to the administration said Mr Joseph was an enthusiastic supporter of developing new nuclear weapons, such as bunker-busters. -------- voting History in the Making: Dems Force Debate on Ohio Voting Irregularities Democracy Now Friday, January 7th, 2005 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/07/1621240 For only the second time in over a century, Congress debated certification of the Electoral College vote. The joint session vote tally was interrupted by Rep. Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH) who, along with other House Democrats, mounted a challenge to Ohio's 20 electoral votes. The challenge was signed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), forcing the House and Senate to split and have a two-hour debate on voting irregularities. We hear excerpts of Republicans and Democrats in both chambers. [includes rush transcript] The House and Senate met in joint session yesterday to count the electoral votes in the 2004 presidential election and certify President Bush's win over John Kerry. Vice President Dick Cheney was presiding in his role as president of the Senate, overseeing as each state's votes were withdrawn from mahogany boxes and totaled in a ceremony as old as the Constitution itself. The routine tally went by in alphabetical order, state-by-state without event until the session reached Ohio. * Joint Session of Congress, Electoral College vote tally, January 6, 2005. The Electoral College vote tally was interrupted by Democratic Congressmember Stephanie Tubbs of Ohio. Tubbs is the leader of a small group of Democrats who agreed to force House and Senate debates on voting irregularities in Ohio by mounting a challenge to the state's 20 electoral votes that had secured President Bush's reelection. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California yesterday signed the House challenge - a move no Senator was willing to do in 2000, when African-American Congressmembers rose to protest the vote from Florida. In a letter to Congressmember Tubbs, Senator Boxer wrote "I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election." John Kerry, who conceded to Bush the day after the Nov. 2 election, said he would not join the challenge. By law, a challenge signed by members of the House and Senate requires both chambers to meet separately for up to two hours to consider it. Both chambers have to uphold the challenge in order for the state's votes to be invalidated. Yesterday's challenge marked only the second time since 1877 that the House and Senate were forced into separate meetings to consider electoral votes. The last time came in 1969, when a North Carolina elector designated for Richard Nixon voted instead for independent George Wallace. Both chambers agreed to allow the vote for Wallace. After the joint session was forced to split yesterday, the Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate chambers debated Ohio voting irregularities. * Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) * Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) * Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) * Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) * Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) * Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) * Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) The Senate voted to reject the challenge 74-1 and the House 267-31. RUSH TRANSCRIPT This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate - $25, $50, $100, more... JUAN GONZALEZ: Yes, the other historic debate that went on yesterday, the House and Senate met in joint session yesterday to count the electoral votes in the 2004 presidential election, and certify President Bush's win over John Kerry. Vice President Dick Cheney was presiding in his role as president of the senate, overseeing as each state’s votes were withdrawn from mahogany boxes and totaled in a ceremony as old as the constitution itself. The routine tally went by in alphabetical order, state by state, without event, until the session reached Ohio. CLERK: Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the well-known and great state of Ohio seems to be regular in form and authentic and appears therefrom that George W. Bush of the State of Texas received 20 votes for President. Dick Cheney for the state of Wyoming received 20 votes for Vice President. DICK CHENEY: For what purpose does the member from Ohio rise? SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Mr. Vice President, I seek to object to the electoral votes of the State of Ohio. DICK CHENEY: Has the Senator signed the objection? SEN. BARBARA BOXER: The Senator has signed the objection. DICK CHENEY: An objection presented in writing, and signed by both the Representative and a Senator complies with the law, Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code. The clerk will report the objection. CLERK: “We, a member of the House of Representatives and a United States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Ohio, on the ground that they were not under all of the known circumstances regularly given. Signed, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, State of Ohio; Barbara Boxer, State of California.” DICK CHENEY: The two houses will withdraw from the joint session. Each house will deliberate separately on the pending objection, and report its decision back to the joint session. The Senate will now retire to its chamber. AMY GOODMAN: After the joint session was forced to split yesterday, Senator Boxer took to the floor of the Senate to explain her decision to sign the House Challenge. SEN. BARBARA BOXER: I join today with Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones a ten-year judge, an eight-year prosecutor, a six-year member of Congress, a woman inducted into the Women's Hall of Fame. Folks, she has great credibility, and she asks just one senator to take a couple of hours. I hate inconveniencing my friends, but I think it's worth a couple of hours to shine some light on these issues. Here is the thing -- we passed H.A.V.A. That was important. The Help America Vote Act, but then we did nothing. Senators Graham, Clinton and I introduced the bill to insure a paper trail goes along with the electronic voting. We couldn't even get a hearing in that last congress. Over in the House, it's the same problem. We need this kind of bill. So, let me simply say to my colleagues, I have great respect for all of you, but I think it's key that whether we’re republicans or democrats, we understand that the centerpiece, the centerpiece of this country is democracy, and the centerpiece of democracy is insuring the right to vote. And I ask you, my friends, from both sides of the aisle, when we get busy working in the next few weeks, let us not turn away from the things that happen in Ohio. Our people are dying all over the world, a lot from my state, for what reason? To bring democracy to the far corners of the world. Let's fix it here, and let's do it first thing out. Thank you very much, Mr. President. DICK CHENEY: Your time has expired. AMY GOODMAN: Senator Barbara Boxer, taking to the senate floor to explain her decision to sign the “House Challenge” to the electoral vote of Ohio. This is Democracy Now! We'll go back to this historic hearing in the Senate and the House in a minute. [break] AMY GOODMAN: The electoral college vote tally was interrupted by Democratic Congress member Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, the leader of a small group of Democrats who agreed to force house and Senate debates on voting irregularities in Ohio by mounting a challenge to the state's 20 electoral votes that had secured President Bush's re-election. John Kerry, who conceded to Bush the day after the November 2 election said he would not join the challenge. But let's go to the house now where Congress member Stephanie Tubbs Jones led off the challenge. REP. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES: Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen, I, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a representative from the state of Ohio, and Senator Barbara Boxer, a Senator from California, have objected to the counting of the electoral votes of the state of Ohio on the ground that they were not under all of the known circumstances regularly given. I thank god that I have a Senator for joining me in this objection, and I appreciate Senator Boxer's willingness to listen to the plight of hundreds and even thousands of Ohio voters that for a variety of reasons were denied the right to vote. Unfortunately, objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate avenue to bring these issues to light. While some have called our cause foolish, I can assure you that my parents, Mary and Andrew Tubbs, did not raise any fools. They raised a lawyer. They raised a former judge. They raised a prosecutor, and thank god, they lived to see me serve as a member of the House of Representatives. I'm duty-bound to follow the law and apply to the law to the facts as I find them, and it is on behalf of those millions of Americans who believe in and value our Democratic process, and the right to vote, that I put forth this objection today. If they're willing to stand at polls for countless hours in the rain as many did in Ohio, then I should surely stand up for them here in the halls of Congress. This objection does not have at its root the hope or even the hint of overturning the victory of the president, but it is a necessary, timely, and appropriate opportunity to review and remedy the most precious process in our democracy. I raise this objection neither to put the nation in the turmoil of a proposed overturned election, nor to provide cannon fodder or partisan demagoguery for my fellow members of Congress. I raise this objection because I am convinced that we as a body must conduct a formal and legitimate debate about election irregularities. I raise this objection to debate the process, and protect the integrity of the true will of the people. AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Congress member, Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio leading the Democrats who agreed to force the House and Senate debates challenging the electoral vote of Ohio. Among those who challenged her was Republican Congress member Candice Miller of Michigan. REP. CANDICE MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the American people must be watching this debate and literally shaking their heads. With all of the challenges facing our nation, we are spending our time debating the challenge to the validity of the presidential election simply because the Democratic Party cannot accept the fact that their candidate lost this election. They cannot accept the fact that their agenda, their vision for America has been rejected by the majority of Americans. They cannot accept the fact that President George W. Bush simply received more votes than Senator John Kerry. This election was very hard-fought on both sides. The American people have accepted the fact that it's over and they want this Congress to get to work, and to work in a bipartisan way. If this is the minority party's idea of bipartisanship, then let the people of our nation see it for what it is. Because in the spirit of bipartisanship, the Democrats are asking us to overturn the presidential election, which President Bush won by over 3 million votes nationwide, and by over 118,000 votes in the state of Ohio. In the spirit of bipartisanship, they say that somehow Karl Rove was manipulating votes from a secret computer in the White House, and that somehow these secret computers were changing the votes on punch cards and optical scan sheets that record actual votes. This language is in their challenge. JUAN GONZALEZ: That was Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller of Michigan. And now we're going to her from Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., who provided some of the most eloquent and at the same time, I think, substantive arguments in this debate. REP. JESSE JACKSON, JR.: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. Today's objection is not about an individual, but our institutions. It's not about Republicans, but our republic. It's not about Democrats, but our democracy. It's about an election result. It's not about an election result, but about an election system that's broken and needs to be fixed. Today you're hearing the facts about voting irregularities in Ohio. In 2000 we saw a similar mess in Florida and other states. As we try to spread democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is prudent, appropriate and timely to examine our own democracy. What's wrong with our democracy? What's wrong with our voting system? State after state, year after year, why do we keep having these problems? The fundamental reason is this -- Americans do not -- Mr. Speaker, the house is not in order. Americans do not have the explicit right to vote in their constitution. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore ruled, and I quote, "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for president of the United States." So, at present, voting in the United States is a state right, not a citizenship right. Hence, our voting system is built on the constitutional foundation of states' rights. 50 different states, 3,067 different counties, 13,000 different election jurisdictions, all separate, all unequal. Consider this: If you're an ex-felon in Illinois, you can register and vote. If you are an ex-felon in 11 states, mostly in the south, you're barred from voting for life. There are nearly 5 million ex-felons who paid their debt to society, but are prohibited from ever voting again, including 1.5 million African-American males. But in Maine, and Vermont, you can vote, if you're a felon, while you are in jail. Illinois, Florida, Vermont, different states, different rules, different systems. In contrast, the first amendment to the constitution guarantees us an individual citizenship right, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and we can travel between the states with such a fundamental right. However, when it comes to voting you do not have such a fundamental right. You have a state right, a state right is not a citizenship right but a right defined and protected by each state, and limited to each state. 108 of the 119 nations in the world that elect their public officials in some Democratic manner have a right to vote in their constitution, including the Afghan constitution, and the interim document in Iraq. The United States is one of 11 nations that do not have an affirmative right to vote in the constitution. Shouldn't we be the 108th nation that does just that? CONGRESSWOMAN: The House is not in order. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The House please be in order. The gentleman may proceed. REP. JESSE JACKSON, JR.: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bible says if you build a house on sand, when it rains, the winds blow and the storms come and it will not stand. Our voting system is built on the sand of states' rights. Florida one year, Ohio next year and no telling what's happening in 2008, and 2012. As a result, the American people are gradually losing confidence in the credibility, the fairness, the effectiveness, and the efficiency of our voting system. So, we need to build our democracy, not on H.A.V.A., Democrats, not on H.A.V.A., Republicans, but build our democracy on the fundamental, individual guarantee in the constitution that every citizen can rely upon in their constitution. We need to provide the American people with the citizenship right to vote and provide Congress with the authority to craft a unitary system from Maine to California, so we don't have so many separate and unequal systems. Mr. Speaker, it is the foundation upon which we build a more perfect union amongst the states. I take the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, and I yield it to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, a gentleman whose credentials on the question of voting are unparalleled and unmarked and unmatched in this Congress. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Gentleman from Georgia is recognized. REP. JOHN LEWIS: Thank you Mr. Speaker, and thank you my colleague and my friend. The right to vote and to have every vote counted is precious and sacred. It is the heart and soul of our Democratic process. We cannot be true to ourselves as a Democratic society unless we get it right. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and appropriate that we pause, that we have this discussion, that we have this debate, and that Congress hold further hearings on the question about the presidential election in Ohio and elsewhere. Our electoral system is broken and it must be fixed for once and for all. What happened in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 came to dramatize the fight that there's something wrong with our democracy. More and more of our citizens are growing uneasy. I hear people on the other side saying we should forget about it. We should get over it. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Gentleman's time is expired. REP. JOHN LEWIS: People died for the right to vote. People suffer for the right to vote. The right of every vote to be counted. It must be upheld by this body. AMY GOODMAN: Congress member John Lewis, who marched with Dr. King, a member of the student non-violent coordinating committee, following Congress member Jesse Jackson in the House. At the same time that the House debate was going on challenging the electoral votes of Ohio, the Senate was debating the same issue. This is Republican Ohio Senator, George Voinovich. SEN. GEORGE VOINOVICH: As a Republican from Cleveland who has been elected to federal, state and county and municipal offices, I'm living proof that Ohioans know how to count ballots and more importantly, we count fairly. It is clear that those who persist in beating a dead horse are attempting to create uncertainty where none exists. That is why I'm so disappointed that this body is squandering its time playing Monday morning quarterback when the result of Ohio's presidential election is clear. President George W. Bush won my home state, and its 20 electoral votes. Frankly, I am proud of how the election went in Ohio. Hundreds of thousands of new voters took part in their democracy this past November, increasing Ohio's voter participation rate to 72%, up from 64% in 2000. Unfortunately, prior to November 2, unsubstantiated allegations were being made about the electoral process in Ohio. But at the end on Election Day, and at the end of the recount, Ohio's Secretary of State's Kenneth Blackwell and the bipartisan election boards across the state did a tremendous job to insure that the election was fair, and the results were without question and I want to publicly applaud the good work of those dedicated public officials. It is time to put this election to rest. Editorial boards from Ohio newspapers, many of which endorsed Senator Kerry agree as well. The so-called recount effort is a circus that needs to pack up and leave town. AMY GOODMAN: Ohio Senator, George Voinovich, Republican. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Democratic Senator, did not agree with his assessment of the Ohio Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell. SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG: Yesterday Congressman John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, issued a report of problems that occurred in Ohio. Some of the problems that he report include: Problems with voting machines in predominantly minority Democratic-leaning wards that caused people to wait ten hours or more in the rain. One precinct was forced to close at 9:25 in the morning because its voter machines weren't working. 9:25 in the morning? The Ohio Republican party suppressed the turnout of minority, Democratic-leaning voters by engaging in free election caging tactics, which is declared illegal by a federal court. Now, Ohio Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, a Republican, deviated from election law by severely restricting voters' access to provisional ballots. He went so far as to reject voter registration applications based on paperweight and texture. Those actions and his complete unwillingness to cooperate with Congressman Conyers investigation are deeply troubling. His actions are troubling particularly because he didn't just serve as the chief election official of his state. He also co-chaired the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. Now, allowing a state official to oversee a federal election and simultaneously serve as a partisan campaign official for one of those candidates in that election is a blatant conflict of interest, and we have got to put a stop to it. That's why later this month I'm going to be introducing the Federal Election Integrity Act, to prohibit state election officials from overseeing federal elections in which they play a partisan role on behalf of one of the candidates. Secretary Blackwell is now running for Governor. He recently sent a fund raising letter to potential Republican donors, and I think his letter underscores the need for my bill. First page of his letter tells a story: "I have no doubt that the strong campaign we helped the president run in Ohio coupled with a similar effort I helped deliver for the state issue one, the marriage protection amendment, can easily be credited with turning out the record numbers of conservatives, and evangelicals on election day." Well, it's not surprising that many other people have no doubt that Secretary Blackwell also ran a strong campaign against other voters, namely minorities and Democrats. Americans need to believe that their election officials are beyond reproach. Allowing such officials to serve simultaneously in a partisan campaign capacity by seriously undermines that confidence. AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. Ultimately, the Electoral College challenge was voted down in the Senate, 74-1. In the House, 267-31. To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359. -------- ENERGY France Needs New Power Plants, Grid Warns Again Reuters FRANCE: January 7, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28856/story.htm PARIS - France needs to build new power stations by the end of the decade or risk blackouts as demand rises, French grid operator RTE said on Thursday, repeating a warning made two years ago. No new large power plants have been built since 1993 in France, despite rising consumption. France is Europe's top power producer and exporter due to a surplus in capacity, thanks to its 58 nuclear reactors. Demand last year grew 2.2 percent to 477.2 terawatt hours, said the grid in its annual review. RTE released a study in 2003 that showed a growing risk of blackouts after 2008 as there could be insufficient production capacity, especially during the peak winter heating season. "The results for the growth in electricity consumption in France only reinforces this study," RTE's head Andre Merlin said on presenting France's annual electricity statistics. The report said that France needed 1,000 megawatts (MW) of new power capacity a year after 2008 to meet peak demand. It also said growing consumption will increase the need to boost demand for baseload in France by 2017/2018. Merlin said this was not as big a concern as France has already launched plans to bring on a new European pressurised water reactor (EPR) by 2012 as 30 of its reactors due to retire after 2020. RTE, 100-percent owned by state-owned EDF, is preparing a new study, which it will present to the government in the first half of this year. "We are giving a signal that after 2008 there will be problems if there is no new means of production. Electricite de France [EDF.UL] has classic (coal and fuel oil-fired) power plants which it can bring back into service," Merlin said. The growth rate in French power production was steady last year, rising 1.1 percent last year, compared with 1.2 percent in the previous year. France produced 546.6 TWh of electricity in 2004, with output from nuclear rising 1.7 percent to 426.8 TWh, hydro-power up 0.4 percent to 64.5 TWh, and coal and oil-fired production down 2.1 percent to 55.3 TWh. Wind generation produced 0.5 TWh. Last year's demand growth was marked by a rise in large industrial consumers' usage, which grew by 1.9 percent from 2003, while small and medium consumers bought 2.7 percent more power. RTE said 0.4 percent of the consumption growth was due to a four public holidays in 2004 falling on weekends. When corrected for seasonality, French power consumption last year rose 1.7 percent from 2003. Story by Marguerita Choy REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ---- AChina to Start Filling Strategic Oil Reserves Next Year REUTERS NEWS SERVICE INDIA / CHINA January 7, 2005 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28847/newsDate/7-Jan-2005/story.htm China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer, is likely to start filling strategic oil reserves next year as the country's fuel demand continues to surge, a senior economic official said on Thursday. Chinese oil demand is expected to keep growing at or above forecast GDP growth of 8 percent this year, Zhang Xiaoqiang, vice chairman of China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said on Thursday. China imports more than 40 percent of its crude needs, a proportion that is rising as domestic production declines and consumption shoots higher to fuel robust economic growth. Ten million barrels of storage capacity in the east coast city of Ningbo is due to be ready for use in August, the first phase of a strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) of 150 million barrels planned for completion in three to five years. Chinese oil firms usually hold between 10 and 30 days of oil stocks as part of commercial operations, but Beijing has become increasingly concerned over the last couple of years over its lack of emergency stockpiles. A 15 percent surge in Chinese fuel demand last year -- above the pace of the country's wider economic growth -- helped drive world oil prices to record highs. "In 2005 we will still see a relative rapid increase in energy consumption," said Xiaoqiang. China is trying to reduce the energy intensity of its heavy industry to bring energy efficiency closer to western norms, Xiaoqiang said. In industrialised nations oil demand growth is generally less than half GDP growth. "Our energy consumption rate will be reduced step by step so we can use doubling of energy consumption to support a quadrupling of GDP," he said. The scale of last year's prices rise endangered economic health both in China and across the globe, he said. "Last year prices went above $50. Some say this is dangerous not only for China but for the world economy and I agree with this opinion," he said. -------- alternative energy Tennessee Wind Farm Expands to Generate More Clean Power Associated Press By Duncan Mansfield January 07, 2005 http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=6886 OLIVER SPRINGS, Tenn. — With a "whoosh, whoosh, whoosh," the graceful blades of 18 windmills on the South's first commercial wind farm are now producing enough clean power to be seen as more than just an eco-experiment. When the farm opened with three turbines in 2001, it generated a mere 2 megawatts of electricity, enough for just 360 homes. But the December addition of 15 larger turbines -- each as tall as a 26-story building -- boosted the capacity to 29 megawatts, enough for 3,000 homes. "Magnificent," said Rick Carson, the Tennessee Valley Authority's renewable operations manager, as he gazed out on the windmills dotting a two-mile forested ridge atop Buffalo Mountain. Still small in comparison to big wind farms in the Great Plains and Pacific Northwest, TVA's expanded operation is huge for the Southeast, where there is less reliable wind. TVA is the nation's largest public utility, serving about 8.5 million people in Tennessee and parts of Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. The new turbines rise 262 feet, 49 feet taller than the three originals. Their seven-ton, 135-foot-long white blades can be seen for miles. Despite their size, the spinning rotors can barely be heard over the mountain breeze or the coal mining that continues farther down the mountain. Privately financed by Invenergy LLC of Chicago, the $30 million expansion is expected to help erase a supply deficit in TVA's Green Power Switch renewable energy program, leaving a surplus that could be sold to other utilities. Fears that a wind farm would be a blight on mountain vistas have caused problems elsewhere for TVA. Chattanooga homeowners blocked TVA's first proposed site on Lookout Mountain five years ago so TVA came to Buffalo Mountain, about 30 miles west of Knoxville. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, now threatening to sue TVA over its coal plant pollution, raised similar concerns in 2003 when TVA suggested a second clean-energy wind farm near the North Carolina border in Mountain City, Tenn. With few other sites offering enough available wind -- the turbines need a 14 mph breeze to generate power -- TVA returned to Buffalo Mountain with an expansion plan and a 20-year, $60 million power purchase offer to lure private investor Invenergy. "I can't say I've had the first complaint," said Anderson County Mayor Rex Lynch, other than tiny Oliver Springs' demand to be paid for roads damaged in hauling the heavy turbines through town. TVA and its contractors wrote the town a $35,000 check. The expanded wind farm can now be seen some 10 miles away in downtown Oak Ridge, home to a large Department of Energy nuclear weapons and energy research complex. "I think Oak Ridgers are proud of it and like to show it off when they have visitors in town," Oak Ridge Mayor David Bradshaw said. Environmentalists have championed TVA's Green Power Switch program, which has 7,156 residential and 339 business customers paying premium prices for renewable energy. "Nobody from Kentucky south or Louisiana east has done this much," said Stephen Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. Unlike some utilities, such as Florida Power & Light, that are selling customers green power made outside the region, TVA's is homegrown. "Now there is a lot of rumbling going on," Smith said, "because TVA has demonstrated that it can be done and these turbines are performing well." Source: Associated Press -------- OTHER -------- environment EBay, Intel Launch Initiative to Recycle Used Electronic Gadgets ENN January 07, 2005 — By Rachel Konrad, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=6889 LAS VEGAS — EBay Inc. and Intel Corp. launched a recycling program Thursday to motivate Americans to safely dispose of mounting piles of used computers and other electronic gadgets. U.S. consumers retire or replace roughly 133,000 personal computers per day, according to research firm Gartner Inc. EBay lists roughly $2.5 billion worth of new and used computers every year, as well as $2.5 billion worth of consumer electronics such as cellular phones, gaming equipment and hand-held computers. But because relatively few people are willing to pay for professional recycling, and many don't want to dispose of hard drives that contain personal data, machines often end up in basements, garages and spare bedrooms. If improperly disposed, PCs can leak a plethora of toxins into the environment, including lead, cadmium, chromium and mercury. "You don't want to throw them out, and you don't know what to do with them," said eBay chief executive Meg Whitman, who launched the "Rethink" initiative at the annual International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. The effort is centered around a Web site, at http://ebay.com/rethink , where Americans with unused gadgets can get information on how to get rid of them safely. The site includes a downloadable program that will erase all data from hard drives, ensuring that the owners' financial and other data can't be shared. Other corporate sponsors include Apple Computer Inc., Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., International Business Machines Corp. and Ingram Micro Inc., as well as the U.S. Postal Service, which in some cases will help deliver PCs to eBay drop-off locations or recycling centers. According to a study commissioned by San Jose, Calif.-based Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, roughly half of all U.S. households have working but unused consumer electronics products. Roughly 400 million gizmos will be thrown out by 2010. The gizmos, ranging from old MP3 players and home media centers to million-dollar servers at large corporations, can be resold. Or eBay will connect owners with charities, such as educational nonprofits that distribute used PCs to poor communities. Or consumers can simply dispose of products at nearby recycling centers, which will be listed on the site. Rethink will only link to recyclers that promise not to dump the machines in landfills in developing nations -- a growing source of environmental toxins in China and southeast Asia. Source: Associated Press --- Effort Under Way to Weaken US Endangered Species Law ENN January 07, 2005 — By Judith Crosson, Reuters http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=6891 DENVER — For the first time in three decades, critics of the Endangered Species Act are building momentum to rewrite the law implemented to save America's threatened flora and fauna, from the star cactus to the grizzly bear. Weakening the law has been a priority for Republican Western governors, and a second Bush term provides critics of the act a prime opportunity to push the U.S. Congress for changes that would help open up vast stretches of wilderness for development. Rep. Richard Pombo of California, chairman of the House natural resources committee, is expected to introduce legislation this session to revamp the law. Activists on both sides of the issue say there is little chance of truly gutting the act given its mission of saving plants and animals, but environmentalists fear it could become significantly watered down. When the 30-year-old act became law, most Americans saw it as a way to save great species -- charismatic megafauna such as the bald eagle or the grizzly bear. Currently 518 U.S. species are listed under the Endangered Species Act. But business leaders say it imposes rules and protections that cost them money and halt commerce. "I think that the chances for improving and modernizing the act are very high in this Congress," said Jim Sims of The Partnership for the West, a business group that advocates changing the act. Problems arise for business in areas that are habitat to a species listed as endangered under the act. Logging, oil and gas drilling are halted and roads cannot be built; recreational activity can be curtailed. For example, as a result of the act's restrictions, a California school district faced a $1 million costly delay in building a school, and farmers in the Klamath Basin in Oregon lost up to $54 million because of restrictions on activities, according to a study conducted for the Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana. The most controversial proposal is change the law so it requires the use of "best science" rather than "best available science" to determine if a species is endangered. If the current research weren't conclusive, then more studies would have to be done, which would likely delay the listing of a species. "It should be a duty on the part of the agency to fill in the gaps and do some additional studies if it doesn't have good substantial information," said M. Reed Hopper, an attorney with the The Pacific Legal Foundation which represents the rights of private landowners. Ferry Shrimp, Alligators and Bears Right now any citizen can petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list a plant or animal species. If available science shows the species is in trouble, the service will begin the steps to have it listed. Critics say that means a species is listed without much documentation. An application to list the ferry shrimp which lives in vernal pools in the central valley of California was not much more than a one-page letter, Hopper said. Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, chairman of the Western Governors' Association, said recently that the Endangered Species Act has been a failure at its mission of bringing back species and must be changed. "More than 1,000 species have been listed under the act, but less than 1 percent has been successfully recovered,' Owens told a business group. But there have been success stories. The grizzly bear is doing well and other species are recovering like the alligator, the brown pelican and the gray wolf in the Rocky Mountains. Jeff Eisenberg, director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association -- which contends with the act's restrictions on grazing lands -- said species tend to stay on the list indefinitely. "All kinds of species are on there forever. There's no organized effort to get them off." Another proposed change is to require that requests to conduct certain activities on private land affected by the act be answered within a certain time. But Ralph Morgenweck, regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, argues that rules are strict because a species is not listed until it is at death's door. "The species are in bad shape. They didn't get that way overnight and it will not go in the other direction overnight," he said. Environmentalists complain that some species such as the greater sage grouse should be listed but fail to make it because industries such as oil and gas lobby against it, a claim denied by federal regulators. Source: Reuters -------- ACTIVISTS Letter From Ground Zero: Something Strange by Jonathan Schell Friday, January 7, 2005 by The Nation http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0107-22.htm As I followed the initial coverage of the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, I was reminded of a time in the early 1980s when I spent some months researching the effects of a nuclear war-- the thermal pulses from the detonations, the bursts of radiation, the blast waves spreading out from ground zero, the immediate local fallout and the delayed stratospheric fallout. Of course, my research was into a merely possible event--humanity's only actual experience of nuclear blasts having been the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--whereas the news from the Indian Ocean was actual. Still, the similarities were striking. As would happen in a nuclear war, villages and small cities were scoured from the face of the earth. "Before" and "after" satellite photographs showed the erasure even of geographic features of the landscape. Islands sank. New harbors formed. Towns were lakes. Like photographs of bombing damage, the before photos showed the fine articulation of human cultivation and dwelling--in this case, a salad of greenery laced with lines of red tile roofs and roads--and the after pictures were a smear of browns. As in nuclear war, the sweep of destruction was immense, involving a dozen countries, some as far away as East Africa. As in nuclear war, the ground was carpeted with corpses. Like the fires set by nuclear war, the flooding waters tore friends and families apart, leaving some to die while others saved themselves. As in nuclear war, it was not just immense numbers of individual lives that had been swept away; it was also the support systems of human life--transportation, fresh water, power, medical services. And so many of the injured who might otherwise have survived could not be cared for, and died. As in nuclear war, the many tales of individual survival both brought the experience to life and yet at the same time seemed to falsify it. For at its heart were the tens of thousands who had perished and could tell nothing. Yet while a nuclear war would be man-made, the tsunami was nature's work. "There is something strange happening with the sea," someone called out to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, who was vacationing in Sri Lanka and saw the sea suddenly rise. Just as strange, it then withdrew with a sucking sound, leaving a wide stretch of the seabed bare, the fish gasping. And then it rushed back in again. A man in Indonesia said, "The water separated, and then it attacked." A Kenyan man said, "It was like seeing the sun setting in the east. The tide was crazy. The water wasn't following the rules." Something strange happened with the land, too, when the earthquake that caused the tsunami struck. And soon even the sky seemed to be acting strange. "It was like Armageddon," said Zukarnaen Buyung, a Sumatran construction worker. "We didn't know it was a wave. We thought it was some kind of rain. Everything behind us was black. The sky, the water." All of nature--water, land and sky--was breaking the rules, and attacking. Few disasters have come as greater surprises than this one, and part of that surprise was its origin in nature rather than man. Perhaps that's one reason George W. Bush and Tony Blair, shuttered in the closed universe of the man-made "war" on man-made terror, were so slow to awaken to the dimensions of the catastrophe. (Both leaders remained on vacation for more than a week after the event.) They seemed unable to conceive of a tragedy that was both irrelevant to their crusade and hugely exceeded it in scale and human importance. But in truth, most people around the world seemed disoriented by nature's shock. The human capacity for mass destruction has been so highly developed in our time that we seem, without quite realizing it, almost to have claimed title to the art, as if to say, "Wait, how can nature do this? Isn't killing hundreds of thousands of people our business?" Certainly, the response was slow, both locally and internationally. The original American offer of $15 million was a disgrace to the country. Even to mention such a figure in the face of such suffering was a mockery. The word "stingy," used by UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland, is one of the kindest that might be applied. Of course, as Egeland soon pointed out, he had not explicitly singled out the US response to the tsunami for criticism; he had spoken more generally of the miserly contributions in recent years from all rich nations--which nowhere reach even 1 percent of GDP--to international humanitarian aid. (In this company, the United States is a veritable Scrooge, giving about 0.15 percent of GDP.) But coming the same day as Bush's $15 million commitment (a third of the sum that a businessman has just paid to buy a large house in Wainscott, Long Island, and less than last year's year-end bonus for the president of Goldman Sachs), it was inevitable that the criticism would be taken as it was. The US commitment has now risen to a more respectable $350 million and is likely to rise further. Misinterpretations don't usually lead to good results, yet this one has. But the literal meaning of Egeland's criticism was as important a message as the salutary misreading. In his exact words, "We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries, and it is beyond me why we are so stingy, really.... Even Christmastime should remind many Western countries, at least, how rich we have become." He was referring to the historical fact that in the past few decades the richer the rich have become, the less they have given in aid. Why, we might ask, is there, alongside armed forces in almost every country, no established international rescue army--no well-funded international force fully equipped with emergency gear ready to give prompt aid in any large-scale catastrophe? Initial funding might be $100 billion--a mere 10 percent of the trillion or so the world spends annually on arms. Why, when human need is the greatest, should the human response always be left to improvisation? There is no reason to think that nature had any lesson in mind, whether about the world's bloated, multiplying nuclear arsenals or anything else, when it shoved one tectonic plate beneath another, causing the earthquake that caused the tsunami. But we are free to draw a lesson: Leave mass destruction to nature. Our job should be to protect and preserve life. Jonathan Schell, The Nation's peace and disarmament correspondent, is the Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation Institute and the author of The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People (Metropolitan) and A Hole in the World, a compilation of his "Letter From Ground Zero" columns, which has just been published by Nation Books. ---- Amalia Avila returns from Middle East trip Mission distributed aid, met with Iraqis Jan 7 2005 12:00AM Z Wire By AMANDA SCHOENBERG OF THE REGISTER-PAJARONIAN http://www.zwire.com/news/newsstory.cfm?newsid=13699261&title=%3CP%3EAmalia%20Avila%20returns%20from%20Middle%20East%20trip&BRD=1197&PAG=461&CATNAME=Top%20Stories&CATEGORYID=410 PAJARO - In the desert near the border of Jordan and Iraq on Jan.1, delegates on the Families for Peace humanitarian aid mission, including Pajaro resident Amalia Avila, linked arms and cried when they realized this was the closest they could come to where their children died during the war in Iraq. As they concluded the ceremony, a rainbow appeared. "It was intense. Everybody was crying, particularly Amalia (Avila). Here she was in this far-off land, where she didn't speak the language, wondering why her son had been sent here," said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Global Exchange and women's peace group Code Pink, and organizer of the delegation. Families for Peace included families of soldiers killed in Iraq, one woman who lost her son on Sept.11 and humanitarian workers and doctors, who traveled to Jordan from Dec. 26 to Jan. 4. The trip was difficult for Avila, a travel consultant at the CMT agency in Watsonville, who lost her eldest son Lance Cpl. Victor Gonzalez on Oct. 14. Gonzalez, 19, a former police cadet, was killed in Ramadi just six weeks after he arrived in Iraq. Participants raised more than $150,000 in individual donations and over $500,000 worth of humanitarian and medical aid they delivered to refugees from the U.S. attack on Fallujah in November. A last-minute donation from Sacramento lawyer Stuart L. Smits paid the $2,000 for Avila's trip. Dropping off supplies was complicated because they can be confiscated along the way. The group sent about $30,000 in supplies ahead, which reached about 5,000 people in refugee camps. Additional aid will reach about 20,000 people, Benjamin said. Code Pink will continue to collect aid and fight further U.S. assaults, while Avila hopes to meet with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to stop more soldiers from being sent to Iraq. While in Jordan, the group spoke to reporters, government officials and listened to horrific stories from Iraqis, who traveled dangerous roads for two days from Baghdad to offer testimonials. The group also came across a group of Bedouins on donkeys, who criticized the invasion of Iraq. When asked how they keep up with news, they said they hook up an old television to a car battery and watch news station Al Jazeera. People told them about women raped and blindfolded in jail and ongoing prison abuse. One family told Avila that U.S. soldiers had entered their home in the middle of night and shot the men in front of their wives and children, with no explanation. "They really, really wanted to tell their stories, and they (Iraqis) were just amazed at the gesture of this group," Benjamin said. Avila felt no ill-will from Iraqis, despite their criticsm of U.S. policy. "They're telling us the real (story). It's the same pain," she said. "Now it's not a war - it's a massacre." "It was really an exchange of a lot of sad moments of people who had been affected on both sides," Benjamin said. One father appeared with his 6-year-old son with leukemia, which doctors said was likely due to depleted uranium from an area bombed by the U.S. during the First Gulf War. The group was so struck, they organized a birthday party for the boy and doctors are trying to secure medical care. When asked about upcoming elections, Iraqis either treated them as a joke or worried that they would worsen ethnic tension, Benjamin said. Although the delegation had hoped to visit Iraq, Iraqis told them that not only would they be in grave danger if they attempted to cross the border, but would risk the lives of any Iraqi seen with them. "The situation has so deteriorated to where anybody who is an American is seen as a threat," Benjamin said. "That should give George Bush pause." The group attempted to visit refugee camps near the border, but were stopped by police. They did manage to speak to some refugees who crossed into Jordan. "The children told us, 'please, please don't forget us,'" Amalia said. "It broke my heart." The group had also hoped to hold a vigil in front of the United Nations in Amman, but police snapped their candles and threatened reporters from Al Jazeera, who were covering the trip. "That was a pretty clear sign that Jordan really is a police state," Benjamin said. The delegation was followed by police everywhere they went and were under constant surveilance in their hotel. Although they originally wanted to establish a peace camp on the border, Benjamin said they would never have been granted permission. When the group returned to their bus after their vigil, Avila was amazed by the sight of hundreds of sheep grazing in the barren desert. When she asked a shepherd what they ate, he pointed out small bright green plants. "This is the hope we want to have," she said. "Where nothing is growing in the desert, if we plant the seed of peace, this seed will grow." She now has the plant at her home in Pajaro amidst presents for her family, and plans to plant it near Victor's grave in Watsonville. She arrived home from Jordan late Tuesday night.