Sunday, April 24, 2005

Chairman of Voting Reform Panel Resigns

Yahoo! News
Chairman of Voting Reform Panel Resigns

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

The first chairman of a federal voting agency created after the 2000 election dispute is resigning, saying the government has not shown enough commitment to reform.

DeForest Soaries said in an interview Friday that his resignation would take effect next week.

Though Soaries, 53, said he wanted to spend more time with his family in New Jersey, he added that his decision was prompted in part by what he called a lack of support.

"All four of us had to work without staff, without offices, without resources. I don't think our sense of personal obligation has been matched by a corresponding sense of commitment to real reform from the federal government," he said.

Soaries, a Republican former New Jersey secretary of state, was the White House's pick to join the Election Assistance Commission, created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to help states enact voting reforms.

A Baptist minister, Soaries was confirmed by the Senate in December 2003 and elected the independent agency's first chairman by his three fellow commissioners. His term as chairman ended in January 2005 and since then he has stayed on as a commission member.

Soaries and the other commissioners complained from the beginning that the group was underfunded and neglected by the lawmakers who created it.

"It's bad enough to be working under extremely adverse circumstances, but what throws your thinking into an abyss, as it were, is why you would be doing that when, for instance, you have to beg Congress for money as if the commission was your idea," Soaries said.

White House spokesman Allen Abney said only, "We appreciate his service and we are working to fill the vacancy promptly."

Envisioned as a clearinghouse for election information that would make recommendations about technology and other issues and distribute $2.3 billion to states for voting improvements, the commission initially couldn't afford its own office space. The commissioners were appointed nine months later than envisioned by the Help America Vote Act, and of a $10 million budget authorized for 2004, the panel received just $1.2 million.

Soaries said the commission could claim some credit for last November's relatively smooth election, including recommending "best practices" to voting administrators and getting the election reform money to states faster than it otherwise would have gone. The commission has sent about $1.8 billion to states so far.

But the commission has failed to preside over the kinds of sweeping reforms some hoped for, with many counties still relying in November on the same punch-card and lever machines derided after the 2000 election. Soaries said the commission is making progress with improvements, including technical guidelines and centralized voter registration lists, that are supposed to be in place for the 2006 election.

"There is so much more work to do to bring federal elections to the standard I think that the citizens expect, and there doesn't seem to be a corresponding sense of urgency among the policy-makers in Washington," Soaries said. "Nor does there seem to be a national consensus among leaders of the states about what success looks like."

Soaries said election reform was on the front burner after the 2000 presidential recount, but it moved to the back burner — and stayed there — after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), the No. 2 House Democrat and a lead sponsor of the Help America Vote Act, said Soaries' resignation underscored a need to give the commission adequate resources.

"I hope this administration and Congress seriously consider Mr. Soaries' observations as we develop the fiscal year 2006 budget," Hoyer said.

The commission also has run into opposition from state officials accustomed to running their own elections and wary of federal involvement. Earlier this year, the National Association of Secretaries of State approved a resolution asking Congress to dissolve the Election Assistance Commission after 2006.

But Soaries said that despite his frustration and Congress' lack of engagement, he saw a lasting role for the Election Assistance Commission.

"Someone's got to wake up every morning with the mission of improving federal elections in a way that assures the voting public that they can have confidence in voting," he said.

___

On the Net:

Election Assistance Commission: http://www.eac.gov

originally published Apr 22, 5:02 PM ET

Read More...

Democrats; Schwarzenegger ; Vermont; Conservation

washingtonpost.com
DNC Is Told Where to Move Into Bush Bloc

By Dan Balz

Sunday, April 24, 2005; Page A05

Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee has been studying the electorate, and the party's problem with voters of faith is both worse and better than he feared.

The former Vermont governor, in one of his first actions as DNC chairman, commissioned pollster Cornell Belcher to survey voters in eight states won by President Bush last November: Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, New Mexico and Nevada.

What Belcher found that worries the Democrats is that a significant percentage -- 47 percent of voters and 51 percent of white women in the eight states -- said their voting decisions are influenced as much or more by their religious faith as by traditional political issues. Not surprisingly, they went heavily for Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), with 66 percent backing the president.

But Belcher's survey also persuaded Dean and other DNC officials that these voters may not be beyond their reach. "These so-called values or faith voters are some of the most economically anxious voters in the electorate," Belcher said. "They're tremendously cross-pressured between their pocketbook concerns and their moral values concerns."

Dean believes that provides an opening for Democrats, but only if Democratic candidates learn to speak a different language. "Democrats wonder why people vote against their own economic interest," he said. "The answer is that Democrats don't connect with people's fears about how to raise their children in a difficult social environment."

The former presidential candidate said issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion are not the major obstacles facing Democrats, but the impression that Democrats convey to these voters is that their answer to those fears is more government. "The message people hear is, 'Oh, we'll raise your children for you.' That's the wrong message," Dean said.

Dean called the survey "the best poll I'd seen in 10 years," and said he hopes to road-test a message designed to reach enough voters in competitive red states to turn the tide. "If it works," he said, "the other folks in Washington will pick it up very quickly."

After the telephone interview, an aide to Dean called to say he wanted to make clear this was not a maverick enterprise on the chairman's part to create a new message, noting that he had spoken with Democratic congressional leaders and that all were working together on it.

Schwarzenegger Bobbles

These are not the best of times for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). The governor's approval ratings have been dropping, and his battle to revamp the state has run into some unexpected and embarrassing setbacks.

In one case, he was forced to retreat on his proposal to overhaul the state public employee pension system -- he wants to get rid of pensions for new workers and give them the equivalent of 401(k) accounts -- because of sloppy drafting of a proposed ballot initiative. And there are signs that he may back away from his call for merit pay for teachers.

The governor's situation has been compromised further by infighting among his advisers, which one GOP strategist said privately has resulted in a loss of focus in an operation that was highly praised in its early days.

Then, last week, Schwarzenegger came down with foot-in-mouth disease. Speaking to newspaper executives, the governor -- who is one of the country's most celebrated immigrants -- said the federal government should "close the border" between the United States and Mexico, because "it is just unfair to have all of those people coming across and have the border open the way it is."

Even before he had finished speaking, his press secretary, Margita Thompson, was trying to undo the damage, and the next day, as criticism mounted, the governor offered an apology, saying he was "sorry if I offended anyone." He explained, "I did not mean 'close.' I meant 'secure' our borders."

Schwarzenegger blamed the problem on his poor English, saying perhaps he needs to go back to school to study his adopted language.

Vermont Battle Takes Shape

The liberal group MoveOn.org wants to flex its muscles in the U.S. Senate seat that opened up last week when Vermont's James M. Jeffords (I) unexpectedly announced his retirement.

In an e-mail message, Vermont MoveOn members were asked to weigh in on whether the group should support Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), who has said he will run and has the blessing of a number of Democratic leaders.

The message said he has been "a hero on many of MoveOn's issues" and argued that, if Sanders becomes the consensus progressive candidate and raises money quickly, "he could make Republican contenders think twice before jumping into the race."

Perhaps, but Republicans see an opportunity to pick off a seat in Vermont, and among those thinking of running is Gov. Jim Douglas, who has won two tough elections in a row and could frustrate Democratic hopes of winning.

Slick

Conservation isn't what it used to be.

"Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall develop and implement measures to conserve petroleum in end-uses throughout the economy of the United States sufficient to reduce total demand for petroleum in the United States by 1,000,000 barrels per day from the amount projected for calendar year 2013."

-- Energy amendment

passed by the Senate,

99 to 1, June 10, 2003

"Not later than six months after the date of enactment of this act, appropriate Federal Departments and agencies, as identified by the president, shall propose voluntary, regulatory, and other actions sufficient to reduce demand for oil in the United States by at least 1.0 million barrels per day from projected demand for oil in 2013."

-- Energy amendment

defeated by the House,

262 to 166, April 20, 2005

Staff writer Dana Milbank contributed to this report.

Read More...

Obstructing?

Read More...

The Constructionist

Read More...

Famous Moments in the Life of John Bolton

Read More...

No More Mr. Nize Guy

Read More...

Deflection

Read More...

Happy Earth Day?

Read More...

Best Thing

Read More...

Ethcs

Read More...

Report Criticizes OMB Oversight of IT Projects

washingtonpost.com
Report Criticizes OMB Oversight of IT Projects

By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 21, 2005; Page E05

The Office of Management and Budget has not done enough to oversee $22 billion worth of critical federal information technology projects that it previously flagged as deficient, according to a government report set for release today.

The Government Accountability Office report, which will be the subject of a House Committee on Government Reform hearing this morning, says that the OMB placed 621 information technology investments for this fiscal year -- more than half of all major IT projects -- on a special "management watch list" because of weaknesses in areas such as performance, management and security. However, the report concludes that the OMB never actually compiled the projects and their problems in a comprehensive list, and that it failed to create a uniform system for following up on whether the problems were solved.

As a result, the report said "there is an increased risk that remedial actions were incomplete and that billions of dollars were invested in IT projects with planning and management deficiencies."

The report comes at a time of burgeoning demand for updated computer systems in the federal government, particularly in areas such as defense, intelligence and homeland security. President Bush's proposed 2006 budget designated about $65 billion for 1,087 IT projects. Of those, the OMB designated 342 projects, budgeted at about $15 billion, for an updated watch list.

The report noted that because of a lack of follow-up, the OMB could not explain precisely why the number of watch-list projects dropped from 621 for this fiscal year to 342 in the next.

Karen Evans, OMB administrator for electronic government and information technology, said in an e-mail response yesterday that while the OMB ultimately oversees major IT investments, the task of day-to-day monitoring lies with individual government departments. "Managing and measuring project performance is first and foremost an agency responsibility," she said. Evans is scheduled to testify at today's hearing, as are the chief information officers of several agencies.

Previous government reviews and reports have said that many of the agencies are failing in their attempts to apply new technologies and modernize outdated computer systems. A report card issued in February by the government reform committee, which is chaired by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), gave the government as a whole a D-plus for computer security. Several major government departments -- including health and human services, energy, and homeland security -- received Fs.

With the government's appetite rising for effective technology, it has been relying increasingly on the private sector to design, build and implement sophisticated computer networks, even as the portion of the federal workforce responsible for overseeing contracts has been shrinking.

"The procurements are becoming larger and more complex and involving more competition with multiple awardees," said Tom Sisti, vice president for law and policy at Washington Management Group, a government contracts consulting firm. Sisti said that while the government has done more lately to identify problems with its IT projects, "the missed opportunity here is that the government appears to be facing some challenges doing a systematic assessment of how well it's buying and implementing IT."

Committee spokesman Drew Crockett said in a statement that the OMB deserves credit for developing a watch list in the first place, but the committee "wants to ensure that tax dollars are not being spent on IT projects before their weaknesses have been addressed."

Read More...

FBI to Fire Dissident Agent

washingtonpost.com
FBI to Fire Dissident Agent
Veteran Criticized Hamas Probes

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 23, 2005; Page A10

The FBI has moved to fire a veteran agent who alleged that the bureau had mishandled domestic investigations of the Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as Hamas, the Palestinian group designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

On Thursday, Robert Wright was ordered by superiors at an FBI counterterrorism command office in Washington to hand over his badge and weapon, was suspended and was told he would be fired within 30 days, said an official with Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group whose attorneys represent Wright. Wright was told he was being dismissed for, among other things, publicly discussing sensitive FBI matters in 2003, the official said.

An FBI spokesman declined to comment, citing the confidentiality of bureau personnel matters.

John Vincent, a former FBI agent who is the Midwest representative of Judicial Watch, said Wright was informed he was being suspended in part for public statements he made at a news conference in Washington in 2003, when he criticized the FBI's "pathetic" counterterrorism work.

Wright, who had investigated Hamas activities in this country as an agent in Chicago, had stated publicly as early as 2002 that he believed the FBI should prosecute Hamas activists in the United States, rather than simply keeping tabs on them in "intelligence" probes. In the last year, the Justice Department has filed criminal charges against some of those alleged Hamas associates.

Wright has been under disciplinary investigation for almost three years. He has two lawsuits pending against the FBI. One alleges that the FBI improperly released confidential information from his personnel file, and the other accuses the bureau of violating his rights of free expression by blocking him from discussing certain subjects in a book.

Yesterday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) sent FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III a letter repeating their support for Wright and expressing concern that the FBI was retaliating against him for his public statements.

Read More...

DeLay Airfare Was Charged To Lobbyist's Credit Card

washingtonpost.com
DeLay Airfare Was Charged To Lobbyist's Credit Card

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 24, 2005; Page A01

The airfare to London and Scotland in 2000 for then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe, according to two sources who know Abramoff's credit card account number and to a copy of a travel invoice displaying that number.

DeLay's expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip.

House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists. DeLay, who is now House majority leader, has said that his expenses on this trip were paid by a nonprofit organization and that the financial arrangements for it were proper. He has also said he had no way of knowing that any lobbyist might have financially supported the trip, either directly or through reimbursements to the nonprofit organization.

The documents obtained by The Washington Post, including receipts for his hotel stays in Scotland and London and billings for his golfing during the trip at the famed St. Andrews course in Scotland, substantiate for the first time that some of DeLay's expenses on the trip were billed to charge cards used by the two lobbyists. The invoice for DeLay's plane fare lists the name of what was then Abramoff's lobbying firm, Preston Gates & Ellis.

Multiple sources, including DeLay's then-chief of staff Susan Hirschmann, have confirmed that DeLay's congressional office was in direct contact with Preston Gates about the trip itinerary before DeLay's departure, to work out details of his travel. These contacts raise questions about DeLay's statement that he had no way of knowing about the financial and logistical support provided by Abramoff and his firm.

Yesterday, DeLay's lawyer, Bobby R. Burchfield, said that DeLay's staff was aware that Preston Gates was trying to arrange meetings and hotels for the trip but that DeLay was unaware of the "logistics" of bill payments, and that DeLay "continues to understand his expenses" were properly paid by the nonprofit organization, the National Center for Public Policy Research.

In 2000, Abramoff was a board member of the group. In a telephone interview yesterday, Hirschmann said the contacts between DeLay's office and persons at Preston Gates occurred because Abramoff "was a board member of the sponsoring organization." Hirschmann added: "We were assured that the National Center paid for the trip."

House rules do not exempt such nonprofit organization board members from the prohibition on lobbyist payments for travel. They also state that this prohibition "applies even where the lobbyist . . . will later be reimbursed for those expenses by a non-lobbyist client."

Burchfield did not dispute that Abramoff used his credit card to pay for DeLay's plane fare, but said in a statement that "the majority leader has always believed and continues to believe that all appropriate expenses for the U.K. trip were paid by the National Center for Public Policy Research." He said that "to the extent that Mr. Abramoff put the charges on his personal credit card, Mr. DeLay has no knowledge of this. But that would be consistent with Mr. Abramoff obtaining full reimbursement from the National Center."

He said further that, in his view, Abramoff's participation on this trip as a board member meant he was permitted to pay for some of the expenses, subject to reimbursement, and that numerous court decisions recognize that different rules may be applicable to the same person acting in different capacities.

Andrew Blum, a publicist for Abramoff's lawyer and spokesman for Abramoff, did not respond to questions relating to the use of Abramoff's credit card for DeLay's plane fare. But he said in a statement yesterday that it was the National Center that "sponsored" the trip, "not Jack Abramoff."

Blum said that DeLay was "one of the center's honored guests on this trip" and that Abramoff "is being singled out for doing what is commonly done by lobbyists -- taking trips with members of Congress and their staff so that they can learn about issues that impact the Congress and government policy." The center's ability to sponsor "this type of educational trip, using contributor funds, is both legal and proper," Blum said.

DeLay was admonished three times last year by the House ethics committee for infringing rules governing lawmakers' activities and their contacts with registered lobbyists. House ethics rules bar the payment by lobbyists for any lawmaker's travel-connected entertainment and recreational activities costing more than $50; they also require that lawmakers accurately report the sponsor of their trips and the full cost.

In an article last month about the same trip by DeLay, The Post reported that an Indian tribe and a gambling services company made donations to the National Center for Public Policy Research that covered most of the expenses declared by participants at that time. The article also said these payments were made two months before DeLay voted against legislation opposed by the tribe and the company. DeLay has said the vote was unrelated to the payments.

The article also reported that Abramoff submitted an expense voucher to Preston Gates seeking a reimbursement of $12,789.73 to cover expenses for meals, hotels and transportation during the London and Scotland trip incurred by DeLay; his wife, Christine; and his two aides.

The new receipts add more detail about these expenses, make clear that the total expenses for all of the participants were at least $50,000 more than was previously known, and connect Abramoff directly to the payment of some charges.

For DeLay, the 10-day trip began on May 25 with a flight to London from Dulles airport and ended on June 3 with a return trip from Europe via Newark and ending in Houston. In between, his itinerary called for stops in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and St. Andrews, in Scotland. DeLay said the purpose of the trip was to hold meetings with "Conservative leaders" in Britain and Scotland, including Margaret Thatcher. The former prime minister's office has confirmed that such a meeting occurred.

DeLay's two aides, Tony Rudy and Susan Hirschmann, had an overlapping itinerary; Rudy participated from May 29 to June 3, and Hirschmann participated from May 22 to June 2. The spouses of Rudy and Buckham also were present.

The travel receipts do not make clear how the expenses for the entire trip -- which involved at least 10 people and which two sources said exceeded $120,000 -- were paid. One source familiar with the billings said yesterday that the National Center reimbursed Abramoff for the charges incurred by DeLay and his staff that were billed to Abramoff's credit card; but the receipts themselves do not indicate whether some of the charges incurred by Abramoff were ultimately reimbursed and, if so, by whom.

The receipts make clear that flights for DeLay and his wife were initially billed to Abramoff. The plane ticket for the husband of one of DeLay's aides -- David Hirschmann -- was billed to the same American Express card used for the DeLay tickets, according to a copy of the invoice.

Although Amy Ridenour, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research, has said she organized the trip, two other sources said that DeLay's round-trip business-class tickets on Continental Airlines and British Airways were booked by Preston Gates employees.

The itinerary and invoice for DeLay's trip, prepared by a travel service in Seattle, was sent by the service to Preston Gates on May 23, 2000, according to a copy of the invoice. That was two days before DeLay's departure. The invoice states that DeLay's business-class tickets on Continental Airlines and British Airways cost $6,938.70.

The records also indicate that the expenses associated with DeLay exceeded those that he declared in a signed statement to the House clerk on June 30, 2000. That form listed the purpose of the trip as "educational" and gave a tally of $28,106 in expenses for DeLay and his wife, or an average of $2,800 a day; it stated that all of these charges were paid by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which provided the data to DeLay.

Receipts from the golfing portion of the trip show that DeLay accumulated additional charges, which, according to fees set by the tour arranger, amounted to nearly $5,000 for each golfer and totaled in the tens of thousands of dollars for the entire group. Fees associated with playing golf are not listed on DeLay's travel disclosure form. Burchfield, DeLay's lawyer, said DeLay "personally paid for two rounds of golf and understands that the other two rounds of golf he played were included in his hotel package" and reimbursed by the National Center.

A copy of the $81 bill for the DeLays' expenses during the trip at a separate hotel in St. Andrews -- the Old Course Hotel Golf Resort & Spa -- states that those charges were paid by the same American Express credit card used on the trip by Buckham, the lobbyist, to pay for his own hotel room at the Glasgow Hilton. Buckham could not be reached by phone at home or his office and did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment. Burchfield said he cannot explain how this happened and did not know who owned this credit card; he also said DeLay was unaware of this fact.

Buckham, a former chief of staff to DeLay, was at the time a registered lobbyist for AT&T, Enron Corp., and the Nuclear Energy Institute. DeLay's wife was employed, at the time of the trip, by Buckham's lobbying firm, the Alexander Strategy Group, and was receiving a salary from it, according to DeLay's personal financial disclosure statement for that year, on file with the House clerk.

Abramoff, at the time of the trip, represented eLottery Inc. , a gambling services company that opposed the Internet gambling bill pending before the House. Preston Gates registered as a lobbyist for eLottery on June 2, 2000, one day before the trip ended; later in the year, Abramoff registered as a lobbyist for other clients who opposed the bill, including several Indian tribes. The federal probe is looking into his handling of his tribal clients and the large fees he was paid.

Hirschmann and her husband ultimately accumulated charges of 2,073 British pounds, or about $1,368 at the prevailing exchange rate for four nights in their "superior" room at the London Four Seasons Hotel. Those charges included $57 at the hotel lounge, $33 from the room bar, $15 from the gift shop, and $186 for chauffeured cars, according to a copy of their hotel bill. Hirschmann said one car was used to reach the meeting with Thatcher.

At least one of the Hirschmanns also played golf at St. Andrews. Susan Hirschmann is now a lobbyist at the Washington firm of Williams & Jensen; the firm's Web site contains a published claim that DeLay and other House Republican leaders are in frequent contact with her. As a staff member at the time of the trip, she would have been covered by the same ethics rules that apply to DeLay and other House members. Rudy, her staff colleague at the time, now works for Buckham's lobbying firm.

DeLay and his wife, for their part, stayed for four nights in a "conservatory" room at the same hotel in London as Hirschmann, accumulating charges of roughly $348 a night for rooms that included a glass-enclosed porch overlooking London's Park Lane, according to a copy of the bill for their stay and the Web site of the hotel.

They also ran up hotel charges of $64 for room service, $6 for a valet pressing and $133 for a private car from Heathrow airport, the bill states. Their room bill also lists a charge of $191 for six theater tickets, but Burchfield said the DeLays do not recall attending any plays in London. He said if the hotel charges were being "picked up" by a representative of the National Center, "they would not necessarily have seen the hotel bill."

DeLay, Burchfield said, "does not know how the logistics . . . [of the bill payments for the trip] were being effectuated."

House ethics rules contain detailed provisions barring the acceptance of any travel funds from private sources if doing so would "create the appearance of using public office for private gain." They also obligate lawmakers to "make inquiry on the source of the funds that will be used to pay" for any travel ostensibly financed by a nonprofit organization -- to rule out the acceptance of reimbursements that come from one organization when a trip is "in fact organized and conducted by someone else."

Trips outside the United States are also not supposed to exceed a week in length out of concern, the rules state, for "the public perception that such trips often may amount to paid vacations for the Member and his family at the expense of special interest groups." Research editor Lucy Shackelford and researchers Alice Crites and Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

Read More...

Dems: Energy bill would raise gas prices

USA TODAY

Dems: Energy bill would raise gas prices

WASHINGTON (AP) — The energy bill that passed the House on Thursday will raise gasoline prices and subsidize oil companies but fail to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said Saturday.

Markey, who tried unsuccessfully to force changes in the bill during House debate, said the legislation will make the United States more dependent on foreign oil because it fails to require cars and sport utility vehicles to be more fuel-efficient.

"We cannot afford to continue to pursue such a failed energy policy," Markey said in his party's weekly radio address. "If we fail to reduce our dependence on OPEC oil, we remain beholden to events in dangerous, unstable parts of the world. ... If we fail to reduce the cost of energy, businesses will suffer, farms will fail and families find it more difficult to make ends meet."

The bill, which passed the House by a 249-183 vote, reflects many of President Bush's energy priorities. It would open an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling and provide $12 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to traditional energy industries, including oil, natural gas, nuclear and coal producers.

But opponents said it does little to foster less energy use and will damage the environment.

While this is the fifth time in four years the House has passed an energy bill, the measure has stalled in the Senate, and it's future there is still uncertain.

The bill, said Markey, gives billions of dollars in tax breaks to profitable oil companies such as ExxonMobil and immunizes those companies from any legal liability connected with water supplies contaminated by the gasoline additive MTBE.

Markey, a member of the House Energy Committee, said Democrats "offered a more hopeful vision of our energy future." That plan, he said, would move away from an oil-dependent past and into a "technologically advanced and renewable energy future."

"We lose when we resort to desperate drilling schemes that despoil our most precious wildlife and wilderness areas," Markey said. "We win when we invest in renewable technologies such as solar and wind energy."

Read More...

Bush encounters hurdles on energy agenda

USA TODAY

Bush encounters hurdles on energy agenda

WASHINGTON (AP) — Running for president five years ago, George W. Bush pledged to jawbone energy-exporting nations to keep oil prices low and to win passage of legislation to spur more domestic energy production.

Delivering on either count has proved difficult for the Texas oilman.

Soaring oil and gasoline prices are beginning to take a toll on U.S. economic growth and on Bush's approval ratings. To get his long-stalled energy agenda passed, the president is putting more of his political prestige on the line. (Related news: Dems: Energy bill would raise gas prices)

The House voted 249-183 last week for White House-backed legislation that would give tax cuts and subsidies to energy companies and open a wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil exploration.

At a meeting Monday at his Texas ranch, Bush is promising to press Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, to do more to help ease global oil prices.

Still, the president acknowledges that there is little that he or Congress can do to quickly lower gasoline prices, which have climbed past $2.20 a gallon nationwide.

Critics also claim that Bush's energy bill does little to promote conservation or alternate energy approaches, and that he has done little of the lobbying of oil-country leaders that he promised during in his first presidential campaign.

Robert Ebel, an energy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said nothing that Bush is proposing "is going to have any immediate, or even near-term impact" on prices.

Bush s responding politically to consumer concerns that "gasoline prices are high, we haven't yet entered the summer driving season, and what is the president going to do about it?" Ebel said.

Ebel said increasing world demand for oil, particularly from fast-growing China, and lack of new refineries in the United States will exacerbate the problem for years.

With his Social Security overhaul plan winning few converts, Bush may find that promoting his energy agenda has a more immediate political payoff for jittery Republicans.

In a speech last week, Bush said high prices are "like a foreign tax on the American dream." He challenged Congress to send him an energy bill by August and described the proposal as making energy "more affordable and secure" in the future.

Similar legislation passed the House twice in Bush's first term, only to bog down in the Senate under a Democratic filibuster that was waged, in part, to protest possible exploratory drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Crude oil prices have risen 40% in the past year. But finding ways to curb them pose a particular dilemma for Bush — complicated by his own actions.

The war in Iraq, for instance, limited Bush's influence among Persian Gulf oil-producing nations.

The president recently ruled out releasing oil from the nation's emergency stockpile, saying he would only tap the 700 million barrel reserve in a national crisis.

Bush criticized President Clinton for tapping into the reserve in 2000, suggesting it was a political gesture to help Vice President Al Gore, then Bush's Democratic rival for the White House.

Bush also criticized the Clinton administration for not lobbying the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, saying Clinton "must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices." Yet as president, Bush mostly has emphasized that market forces should set world oil prices.

In a CNBC interview, Bush said he would press the Saudi crown prince to boost production. "I'll be talking to our friends about making sure they understand that if they pinch the world economy too much, it'll affect their ability to sell crude oil in the long run," Bush said.

Still, he said, there was a chance the Saudis already were pumping crude at "near capacity" levels. Ahead of the crown prince's visit, Saudi Arabia said it would do what it could to step up oil production.

Saudi oil minister Ali Naimi said the kingdom is now pumping about 9.5 million barrels per day and could increase that to 12.5 million barrels per day by 2009 if necessary to maintain "market stability."

But, he told a conference in Paris, "The measures taken by OPEC in general and by Saudi Arabia in particular are only a few factors among those which affect oil prices; consequently, our influence is limited."

Bush's expected appeal to the Saudi leader already is drawing scorn from some Democrats. "The president is right to meet with this powerful man, but it is wrong that the leader of the United States must ask favors from a foreign prince," Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said Saturday in his party's weekly radio address.

Jerry Taylor, an energy analyst at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based think tank that advocates less government regulation, said the idea that "jawboning OPEC or arranging for nice relations with OPEC will somehow get us more oil is utter illusion."

"The Saudis will produce as much oil as they think is necessary to maximize revenue. Period," Taylor said. China's rising thirst for oil, not supply shortages, is the main factor driving up global oil prices, he and other oil analysts suggested.

Read More...

Lobbyist target of several investigations

USA TODAY

Lobbyist target of several investigations

WASHINGTON (AP) — Jack Abramoff is a man with a million connections and not many friends. The uberlobbyist's dealings are the subject of tangled criminal and congressional investigations that are attracting outsized interest, in part because of his close ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

DeLay, who took a number of overseas trips allegedly arranged or financed by Abramoff, once famously described the lobbyist as "one of my closest and dearest friends."

Abramoff, who not too long ago was one of Washington's power players, now has this city exhausting its stockpile of adjectives as it hurls descriptions of unrestrained greed and cynicism in his direction — scuzzy, outrageous, pathetic, disgusting, vainglorious, to list just a few flung by members of Congress.

A shorthand summary of Abramoff's alleged dealings tends not to sound too shocking: collecting big checks from American Indian tribes for whom he performed limited work; steering clients' contributions to outside groups in which he had a personal interest; sending politicians on junkets to curry favor.

"What sets this tale apart, what makes it truly extraordinary, is the extent and degree of the apparent exploitation and deceit," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said at a congressional hearing last fall at which Abramoff repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment.

To date, Abramoff and an associate are known to have collected an eye-popping $66 million or more from six tribes.

"It's so stark a case of outrageous behavior that it set everyone back on their heels," says Thomas Mann, a Brookings Institution political scientist. "Even the most jaded of observers of the Washington lobbying scene, I think, may have been taken aback."

But if much of Washington wants to cast Abramoff as the villain, Abramoff offers himself as the victim. Suddenly it is he who is held at a distance by longtime friends and ideological allies whose causes he has advanced since his days as chairman of the college Republicans, where his compatriots were future household names of the conservative movement such as Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed.

Abramoff, 46, was forced out of his lobbying firm last year after details of his secret dealings came out. He is not talking in public anymore, but his lawyer has described him as hurt and disappointed by what some of his former friends are saying.

There has been no rush of supporters coming to Abramoff's defense. In fact, some spokespeople go off the record even to confirm their bosses once were friends.

Abramoff's spokesman, Andrew Blum, says that because of the unfolding investigations, Abramoff "is put into the impossible position of not being able to defend himself in the public arena until the proper authorities have had a chance to review all accusations.

Blum says Abramoff "hopes that those who are quick to judge him now will remember that there are two sides to every event and that the media can condemn someone before he ever has a chance to right the record."

Much of the ammunition being slung at Abramoff comes from a trove of his own e-mail released by congressional investigators. They show, for example:

•In 2002, Abramoff and an associate secretly funnel millions to consultant Reed, a former Christian Coalition leader, to help shut down a lucrative Texas casino operated by the Tigua Indians. "We should continue to pile on until the place is shuttered," Abramoff writes to Reed. Then Abramoff persuades the Tiguas to hire him and his associate, public relations consultant Michael Scanlon, to help reopen the casino. "Is life great or what!!!" he exults.

•Describing the distribution of one tribal payment, Abramoff discloses how little the Indian tribes were getting for their money: "He (Scanlon) divided the $5 million into three piles: $1 million for actual expenses and $2 million for each of us."

•Referring to their tribal clients, Abramoff writes to Scanlon that "the annoying losers are the only ones which have this kind of money and part with it so quickly." In other messages Abramoff refers to his Indian clients as the "stupidest idiots in the land," monkeys, troglodytes, morons and worse.

•In 2004, Abramoff recommends that the Tiguas retain him at no cost and at the same time proposes that the Eshkol Academy, a Jewish boys school that Abramoff founded just outside Washington, buy term life insurance policies on tribal elders and receive the benefits upon their death, with the money then channeled back to Abramoff. "In effect, Mr. Abramoff asked to be paid by putting prices on the lives of tribal elders," said retiring Republican Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, then chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

While this was unfolding behind the scenes, Abramoff was being publicly held out as a Washington rainmaker of the first order who also managed to run an upscale restaurant, help his wife raise five children and stay true to his Orthodox Jewish beliefs.

"I'm the only lobbyist who took a 90% pay cut to join the lobbying field," he told The Hill newspaper in a gushy 2003 profile.

Blum, his spokesman, said Friday the e-mails that have since surfaced had "regrettable language not against all Native Americans as some are misleadingly saying, but against the opponents to Mr. Abramoff's clients. People often use colorful language in talking about their adversaries."

Abramoff's financial dealings related to DeLay are more convoluted, and Democrats in Congress are clamoring for an investigation into the financing of several of the majority leader's trips, which often involved rounds of golf. DeLay, for his part, has adamantly denied wrongdoing, and says no one should be trading on his name to get clients or make money.

Abramoff's career as a GOP activist has had multiple incarnations that over the years have placed him at the center of causes dear to conservatives and raised questions about financial dealings.

As head of the college Republicans, he helped coordinate a "national student liberation day" to celebrate the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Grenada. Although it was portrayed as a nonpartisan event, Abramoff wrote to campus Republicans: "I don't need to tell you how important this project is to our efforts as CR's (College Republicans)."

Later he worked for the conservative advocacy group Citizens for America until he was fired amid questions about mismanaged funds.

Then he became chairman of the conservative International Freedom Foundation, later revealed to be financed by the white South African government, according to the South African truth commission.

In 1986, Abramoff headed to Hollywood, where he produced "Red Scorpion," an anti-communist movie that allegedly got money from the South African military. It was the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 that brought Abramoff back to Washington, where lobbying firms were looking to strengthen their GOP connections.

Abramoff's Republican credentials and long ties to Reed and Norquist, head of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, made him a natural; now, all three are under the microscope of congressional investigators.

Marshall Wittman, a one-time conservative activist who now works for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, sees Abramoff's rise and fall as emblematic of what he believes has happened to the conservative movement overall.

"Many other Reagan conservatives came to Washington with the stars of the revolution in their eyes and they ended up with very fat wallets in their back pockets," he said. "They came to do good and they ended up doing very, very well."

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a congressional watchdog organization, said of Abramoff: "He's a case study for what needs to be done to change the rules."

Read More...

Bush seeks funding for Iraq, Afghanistan

USA TODAY
Bush seeks funding for Iraq, Afghanistan

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush is pushing Congress to provide more money for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan — funds the Pentagon says it needs by the first week of May.

"I applaud the House and Senate for their strong support of my supplemental funding request for our troops serving on the front lines," Bush said Saturday in his radio address.

"This funding will help provide the weapons, ammunition, spare parts and equipment that our troops need to do their job," he said. "I urge Congress to come together to resolve their remaining differences, and send me a bill quickly."

House and Senate negotiators are expected to act soon to sort out differences between their versions of the $81 billion spending bill. Both versions would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

They give the president much of the money he requested, but the bills differ slightly over what part would fund military operations and how much would go toward foreign aid. Other issues to be resolved include immigration laws, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, military death benefits and the fate of an aircraft carrier.

Bush, who is spending the weekend at his Texas ranch, also prodded Congress to support cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for the poor and disabled that is run by federal and state governments.

In February, Bush proposed $8.5 billion in Medicaid cuts over five years. But the Republican-controlled Congress, leery of making politically unpopular cuts, has not been much help.

The Senate recently voted to strip $14 billion in proposed Medicaid cuts from a 2006 budget blueprint. With congressional midterm elections next year, some GOP Senate leaders saw the vote as evidence that little would be done for years to come to curb the rising costs of government benefit programs.

"Spending wisely means reducing wasteful spending that can threaten the viability of essential programs like Medicaid," Bush said. "We must end overpayment for prescription drugs by states and the federal government."

He pledged to work with states to make sure that federal Medicaid dollars are spent wisely and go to those in need of help.

"We must close loopholes that allow people who can afford to pay for their health care to shift the costs to Medicaid and drain resources needed to provide health care for the poorest Americans," he said.

Read More...

36 States Face Perchlorate Contamination

ABC News
36 States Face Perchlorate Contamination
Perchlorate, a Chemical Used in Defense Manufacturing, Has Been Detected in 36 States, EPA Says
By ERICA WERNER
The Associated Press

Apr. 23, 2005 - Like dozens of other towns nationwide, this working-class suburb is facing an emerging threat of uncertain dimensions a chemical used in rocket fuel and defense manufacturing that has befouled nearly half its drinking water supply. Concern spread along with the underground plume of water that carries the chemical from barren land that once housed World War II munitions, Cold War weapons-makers and, now, fireworks warehouses and a dump.

As one city well after another tested positive for perchlorate six of the city's 13 wells in all projected cleanup costs ballooned to more than double Rialto's $40 million annual budget. The town sued the Defense Department and dozens of other suspected polluters, pleaded with residents to conserve water and hiked water rates 65 percent.

Officials and townspeople, meanwhile, want to know just how hazardous perchlorate is. High amounts can be dangerous the chemical can interrupt the production of thyroid hormones, which are needed for pre- and postnatal development. But how much exposure should be permissible sparks debate in governmental and scientific circles.

The conclusion of city leaders: Piping any amount of perchlorate into homes posed an unacceptable gamble.

Rialto is a case study of what can happen when a community refuses to take that risk. The choices faced here when to close wells, whom to sue and how not to get sued confront officials in 36 states where the Environmental Protection Agency says perchlorate has been detected.

A majority black and Latino town of 98,000, Rialto has palm-dotted streets with small single-family homes, its downtown a mix of old-time churches, homes, businesses and strip malls. Residents work in manufacturing or retail jobs, some slogging through a 50-mile commute west into Los Angeles.

The source of Rialto's perchlorate problem is a 2,800-acre plot north of downtown, once isolated but now surrounded by new homes, notes Bill Hunt, a geologist consulting for the city.

The military used the site as a pit stop for weapons bound for the Port of Los Angeles and then the Pacific theater in World War II. Later, Cold War defense contractors built, tested and stored rockets and munitions. Then came the fireworks industry and the county dump.

With each successive tenant, city officials believe, came growing deposits of perchlorate, an oxidant used in fireworks and road flares and as an accelerant in rocket fuel.

"We'll probably never know definitively who did what and how much," says Hunt.

What the city does know is that 400 feet below ground begins a 7-mile plume of perchlorate that's polluting Rialto's aquifer, as well as groundwater drawn by residents of other nearby communities.

Standard filtering doesn't work on perchlorate, so the town has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment that uses a resin to rid water of perchlorate molecules. The water rate increases paid for those systems on two of the six contaminated wells the others remain shut and for the town's legal fight against the Pentagon, San Bernardino County and a host of corporations large and small, from General Dynamics to Pyro Spectaculars Inc.

"The city is trying to do their best, but by going after the polluters they've raised the water bills," said former Rialto resident Jan Misquez, who now lives in neighboring San Bernardino. "Us taxpayers are having to foot the bill."

None of the 42 defendants has admitted liability and some of the companies no longer exist, leaving the city to battle insurance companies with only paper connections to the events of decades ago.

Perchlorate was little-known before 1997, when tests were developed that could detect it at lower levels than before. Soon afterward, the chemical was discovered in Rialto and found to be widespread around military bases and defense manufacturing sites.

In February, the EPA issued a safety standard that any amount of perchlorate less than 24.5 parts per billion in drinking water was safe. That was much higher than the 6 parts per billion California set as a public health goal, and higher still than EPA's original draft standard of 1 part per billion, a proposal environmentalists embraced.

Pentagon officials, who could face billions in cleanup costs, criticized the 1-part-per-billion standard, instead favoring 200 parts per billion. A Pentagon spokesman declined comment for this story.

Thus far no state has issued a final drinking water regulation, and the EPA, under pressure from both sides, hasn't decided whether it will take such a step. A regulation would force cleanup, while the agency's safety standard offers only its guidance on exposure levels.

With Rialto's detections ranging as high as 88 parts per billion, city officials decided to shut down any well where perchlorate was found.

"Until there's more clarity on what is the safe amount of perchlorate for the human body to ingest, our council has chosen not to serve any amount," said City Attorney Bob Owen. "We can go online right now and find a Web site saying, 'Do you live in Rialto? Have you drunk water in Rialto? And if you have, join our group, we're going to all sue them.'"

No lawsuit has been filed, said Owen, who credits in part the town's decision to adhere to a zero-tolerance standard, unlike some other municipalities.

So far, Rialto has also managed to avoid any water shutoffs, thanks to a combination of conservation, recycling wastewater for non-drinking uses and tapping supplies from neighboring water districts on high-demand days.

Town officials believe the only long-term solution is forcing polluters to fund a cleanup.

"For us it's critical," said Rialto's water superintendent, Peter Fox. "We just don't have other water available to us."

Read More...

Bolton Finds U.N. Nomination in Jeopardy

Yahoo! My Yahoo!
AP
Bolton Finds U.N. Nomination in Jeopardy

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Withdraw or be pushed out by the White House. Survive the test of his professional life. Suffer a rejection by the Senate. That's about what it comes down to for John R. Bolton, President Bush's besieged nominee to be U.N. ambassador.

Bolton could weather the indignity of further investigation into his personal and professional behavior and win confirmation by the Senate next month. He also could find his nomination scuttled. Or he could pull the plug before a scheduled May 12 vote by a Senate committee.

Only a week ago, Bolton seemed assured of moving on to New York to be the ambassador who works toward Bush's wishes for major changes at the United Nations. His new assignment, however, was thrown into jeopardy last week when moderate Republican senators said new allegations about Bolton gave them cause to reconsider whether he was the right person for the job.

"This nomination is not doomed, but it's on life support and the plug may well be pulled any day," said Allan J. Lichtman, a political history professor at American University.

GOP support for Bolton cracked during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing early last week, so the chairman decided to postpone a vote that Bolton would have lost.

Since then, the White House has defended Bolton daily and blamed Democrats for playing politics with the nomination. Yet each new day has brought fresh allegations that Bolton dressed down subordinates or behaved, as one former colleague claimed, "like a madman," when he was crossed.

The charges come on top of unease over Bolton's past hostility toward the United Nations and allegations that the political appointee tried to pressure career intelligence analysts into twisting the facts for political reasons.

Sen. Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record), R-Ore., went to the full Senate on Thursday to decry what he called "death by a thousand cuts."

Later that day, word spread that former Secretary of State Colin Powell quietly was telling wavering Republican senators what he knows about Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security since May 2001. The two did not get along during Bush's first term.

"My sense is that he's going down," said Thomas Mann, an expert on Congress and the presidency at the Brookings Institution in Washington. It is not clear, Mann said, whether Bolton would jump or be pushed by the White House.

Vice President Dick Cheney sounded as resolute as ever about Bolton's nomination when he spoke to Republican campaign lawyers on Friday.

"If being occasionally tough and aggressive and abrasive were a problem," Cheney said, "a lot of members of the United States Senate wouldn't qualify."

Bolton has not commented publicly since he testified before the committee on April 11. Until the committee hearing on Tuesday, he appeared headed to a 10-8 party line approval, which would have sent the nomination to the GOP-controlled Senate.

Now the focus is on one committee member, Sen. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. Voinovich stunned the chairman, Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., and his colleagues when he announced during the hearing that he had misgivings about Bolton.

The White House is now lobbying Voinovich and two other GOP senators on the committee to support Bolton, although Bush has not gotten involved personally.

To salvage the nomination, the White House probably will have to offer some "exculpatory information" to counter the daily trickle of new allegations about Bolton's record, Lichtman said. In the end, however, he said it may depend on how badly the White House wants Bolton's confirmation.

"If the White House wants to spend enough political chips they could save it," Lichtman said.

Read More...

Democrats Hit Bush on Gas Prices, Energy Plan

Yahoo! News
Reuters
Democrats Hit Bush on Gas Prices, Energy Plan

Sat Apr 23, 8:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush should not be forced to ask for favors from Saudi Arabia to help lower near-record prices at American gas pumps, a senior Democratic congressman said on Saturday.

U.S. Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts blamed the Bush administration's "failed energy policy" for the high cost of oil and called for a plan that focused on renewable technologies, energy efficiency and conservation rather than an expansion of oil and gas drilling in the United States.

Bush, who hosts Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on Monday, acknowledged this week that the energy bill he has asked Congress to pass by August would not immediately reduce gas prices.

"The president is right to meet with this powerful man, but it is wrong that the leader of the United States must ask favors from a foreign prince," Markey said in the Democratic radio address.

Bush is feeling the political heat from a big rise in gasoline prices as public opinion polls show consumers are increasingly concerned. Last week, the average retail gasoline price hit a record $2.28 per gallon.

Saudi Arabia is the biggest member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the world's top oil exporter.

Bush has said he would ask the crown prince if the Saudis can step up the flow of oil and also seek a clear answer about the size of the country's spare oil production capacity.

In early April, U.S. crude oil futures hit a record-high of $58.28 per barrel. On Friday, crude futures closed above $55 a barrel.

Read More...

Demand for Rumsfeld abuse inquiry

BBC NEWS
Demand for Rumsfeld abuse inquiry
The US should name a special prosecutor to look at Donald Rumsfeld's possible role in the abuse of US military prisoners, a human rights group says.

Human Rights Watch says the US defence secretary may bear "command responsibility" for abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere.

The organisation says others, like former CIA director George Tenet, should also face investigation.

The Pentagon says Mr Rumsfeld did not authorise or condone any abuse.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) released its report ahead of the first anniversary of the Abu Ghraib scandal, which broke in late April last year.

It emerged that US guards at the Baghdad prison had subjected Iraqi detainees to torture and abuse.

Some guards have gone on trial but critics say there has been no full investigation into what senior defence figures knew about or even authorised.

"The soldiers at the bottom of the chain are taking the heat for Abu Ghraib and torture around the world while the guys at the top who made the policies are going scot free," said Reed Brody, special counsel for HRW.

Since Abu Ghraib, the Pentagon has also opened dozens of investigations into alleged abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, while allegations persist about mistreatment at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

'Evidence'

HRW said Mr Rumsfeld could be liable for war crimes under the doctrine of "command responsibility" - the legal principle that holds a superior responsible for his subordinates' actions when he knows, or should know, that crimes are being committed but fails to stop them.

It said Mr Rumsfeld approved interrogation techniques - such as the use of guard dogs to frighten prisoners and painful "stress" positions - that violated the Geneva Conventions.

It said the investigation should not be carried out by justice department officials because Attorney General Alberto Gonzales himself had a role in approving interrogation techniques.

It called on Congress and the president to establish a special commission and appoint a special prosecutor.

HRW says it has "substantial evidence warranting criminal investigations" into Mr Rumsfeld, Mr Tenet, Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the former senior commander in Iraq, and Gen Geoffrey Miller, former commander of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

'Unsubstantiated'

Mr Rumsfeld is already being sued by two civil liberties groups on behalf of eight men who claim to have been abused by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A Pentagon spokesman said HRW's allegations were "frivolous and unsubstantiated".

Lt Cdr Flex Plexico said US policy requires that all detainees be treated humanely and that any credible allegations of illegal conduct are investigated.

"There is nothing in the detention or interrogation policies established by Secretary Rumsfeld or the defence department that even remotely qualifies as torture," he told the BBC News website.

"Secretary Rumsfeld has repeatedly condemned any abuse or mistreatment of detainees."

Read More...

Medicare Change Will Limit Access to Claim Hearing

The New York Times
April 24, 2005
Medicare Change Will Limit Access to Claim Hearing
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, April 23 - A new federal policy will make it significantly more difficult for Medicare beneficiaries to obtain hearings in person before a judge when the government denies their claims for home care, nursing home services, prescription drugs and other treatments.

For years, hearings have been held at more than 140 Social Security offices around the country. In July, the Department of Health and Human Services will take over the responsibility, and department officials said all judges would then be located at just four sites - in Cleveland; Miami; Irvine, Calif.; and Arlington, Va.

Under the new policy, Medicare officials said, most hearings will be held with videoconference equipment or by telephone. A beneficiary who wants to appear in person before a judge must show that "special or extraordinary circumstances exist," the rules say.

But a beneficiary who insists on a face-to-face hearing will lose the right to receive a decision within 90 days, the deadline set by statute.

The policy change comes as Bush administration officials are predicting an increase in the volume of cases, with the creation of a Medicare drug benefit expected to generate large numbers of claims and appeals. But in a recent study, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, questioned the heavy reliance on videoconferences, saying that "beneficiaries are often uncomfortable using videoconference facilities and prefer to have their cases heard face to face."

All beneficiaries are 65 or older or disabled. About 5 million of the 41 million beneficiaries are 85 or older, and some are so sick they die while pursuing appeals.

When claims are denied, beneficiaries and their health care providers can challenge the decisions in an appeals process that has several levels of review. Their best chance to win coverage comes when they appear before impartial, independent adjudicators known as administrative law judges.

Over the last five years, beneficiaries and providers prevailed in two-thirds of the 283,000 cases decided by these judges.

The Department of Health and Human Services defended its new policy, saying the use of videoconference equipment would enable judges to "complete more cases" within the 90-day deadline, because they would not have to spend time traveling to remote sites. In a summary of its plans, the department said it was "not economically or administratively feasible" to station judges around the country.

"Having fewer offices is more cost-effective in terms of management, technology and training," the department said in a letter answering questions from Congress.

Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, said, "Access to hearings for Medicare beneficiaries will be as good as or better than" what is now available. For some beneficiaries, he said, video hearings could be more convenient.

"Video teleconferences will allow hearings to be provided more timely, with vastly more access points than Social Security currently provides through its offices," Mr. Leavitt said.

But lawmakers, judges, consumer groups and lawyers for beneficiaries expressed concern.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the senior Democrat on the panel, said four hearing offices were not enough.

Mr. Grassley and Mr. Baucus were among the principal authors of the 2003 Medicare law. The law, they noted, says Medicare judges are to be distributed "throughout the United States."

Under the new arrangement, hearings for Medicare beneficiaries in New York, New Jersey and all of New England will normally be held by judges in Cleveland. Hearings for people in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska will be held by judges in Southern California.

Judith A. Stein, director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, which has represented thousands of people in hearings since 1986, said: "The videoconferences are one of many changes that will reduce the beneficiaries' ability to get fair, favorable decisions. Sick, old and disabled people can be much more effective in person because the judge can see their illnesses and infirmities - how they walk, how they get up from a chair, how their hands shake with tremors."

Nancy M. Coleman, director of the Commission on Law and Aging, a policy and research arm of the American Bar Association, said, "It's a travesty, what's happening to the appeal rights of Medicare beneficiaries."

Videoconference equipment transmits a picture and sound so that a Medicare beneficiary, a judge and witnesses in different parts of the country can see and hear one another over secure networks. Signals will be encrypted to protect the privacy of medical information. The judge will have the file, but a beneficiary can send and receive additional documents using a fax machine.

Ronald G. Bernoski, president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges, said face-to-face hearings were valuable for judges and beneficiaries alike.

"Video teleconferences will undermine the judges' ability to assess the credibility and demeanor of witnesses," said Mr. Bernoski, a judge based in Milwaukee. "And it could reduce the beneficiaries' confidence in the proceedings. The intrinsic value of a Medicare hearing is that citizens have an opportunity to sit down in front of a high-ranking official and tell their story to someone who listens carefully and makes a reasoned decision."

One person who benefited from a Medicare hearing is Ethel L. Swarm, 76, of Bethel, Conn. She said she had excruciating pain in her left leg, was unable to walk and spent four days at Danbury Hospital. But Medicare refused to cover her stay, saying it was not medically necessary. Medicare also refused to pay for a subsequent 37-day stay in a nursing home.

After reviewing the medical evidence, administrative law judges ruled in favor of Mrs. Swarm. She won $7,437 for her hospital care and $9,250 for the nursing home stay, which helped her walk again.

The 2003 law shifted the responsibility for hearing Medicare appeals from Social Security to the Department of Health and Human Services, which is in the process of hiring 50 judges.

The government is still working out details and lining up sites with the necessary videoconference links. Nancy A. Thompson, director of the transition team at the department, refused to answer questions about the new hearing and appeal procedures or the logistical arrangements.

Ronald T. Osborn of Charlotte, N.C., who has been an administrative law judge since 1974 and has specialized in Medicare cases since 1996, said he had no interest in moving to the Department of Health and Human Services.

"Under the department's procedural rules," Mr. Osborn said, "judges will have less freedom to handle individual cases as they see fit."

Ms. Stein said that under the rules "it will be easier for Medicare officials to participate in hearings and to influence decisions, often to the detriment of beneficiaries."

Bill Hall, a spokesman for the department, said such concerns were unfounded because the judges would report to the health secretary, not the Medicare program chief.

Medicare and Social Security officials have long contended that some administrative law judges were improperly favoring beneficiaries. For their part, the judges have periodically complained that officials put pressure on them to approve fewer claims. In the early 1980's, the tension became so acute that the judges filed suit against the secretary of health and human services to preserve their independence.

Under the new rules, issued in March by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, administrative law judges must follow the Medicare law and regulations and must "give substantial deference" to manuals and guidelines issued by Medicare officials. In a particular case, a judge can decline to follow a Medicare policy but must explain why.

Read More...

Saturday, April 23, 2005

Chairman of Voting Reform Panel Resigns

Yahoo! News
Chairman of Voting Reform Panel Resigns

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer

The first chairman of a federal voting agency created after the 2000 election dispute is resigning, saying the government has not shown enough commitment to reform.

DeForest Soaries said in an interview Friday that his resignation would take effect next week.

Though Soaries, 53, said he wanted to spend more time with his family in New Jersey, he added that his decision was prompted in part by what he called a lack of support.

"All four of us had to work without staff, without offices, without resources. I don't think our sense of personal obligation has been matched by a corresponding sense of commitment to real reform from the federal government," he said.

Soaries, a Republican former New Jersey secretary of state, was the White House's pick to join the Election Assistance Commission, created by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to help states enact voting reforms.

A Baptist minister, Soaries was confirmed by the Senate in December 2003 and elected the independent agency's first chairman by his three fellow commissioners. His term as chairman ended in January 2005 and since then he has stayed on as a commission member.

Soaries and the other commissioners complained from the beginning that the group was underfunded and neglected by the lawmakers who created it.

"It's bad enough to be working under extremely adverse circumstances, but what throws your thinking into an abyss, as it were, is why you would be doing that when, for instance, you have to beg Congress for money as if the commission was your idea," Soaries said.

White House spokesman Allen Abney said only, "We appreciate his service and we are working to fill the vacancy promptly."

Envisioned as a clearinghouse for election information that would make recommendations about technology and other issues and distribute $2.3 billion to states for voting improvements, the commission initially couldn't afford its own office space. The commissioners were appointed nine months later than envisioned by the Help America Vote Act, and of a $10 million budget authorized for 2004, the panel received just $1.2 million.

Soaries said the commission could claim some credit for last November's relatively smooth election, including recommending "best practices" to voting administrators and getting the election reform money to states faster than it otherwise would have gone. The commission has sent about $1.8 billion to states so far.

But the commission has failed to preside over the kinds of sweeping reforms some hoped for, with many counties still relying in November on the same punch-card and lever machines derided after the 2000 election. Soaries said the commission is making progress with improvements, including technical guidelines and centralized voter registration lists, that are supposed to be in place for the 2006 election.

"There is so much more work to do to bring federal elections to the standard I think that the citizens expect, and there doesn't seem to be a corresponding sense of urgency among the policy-makers in Washington," Soaries said. "Nor does there seem to be a national consensus among leaders of the states about what success looks like."

Soaries said election reform was on the front burner after the 2000 presidential recount, but it moved to the back burner — and stayed there — after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), the No. 2 House Democrat and a lead sponsor of the Help America Vote Act, said Soaries' resignation underscored a need to give the commission adequate resources.

"I hope this administration and Congress seriously consider Mr. Soaries' observations as we develop the fiscal year 2006 budget," Hoyer said.

The commission also has run into opposition from state officials accustomed to running their own elections and wary of federal involvement. Earlier this year, the National Association of Secretaries of State approved a resolution asking Congress to dissolve the Election Assistance Commission after 2006.

But Soaries said that despite his frustration and Congress' lack of engagement, he saw a lasting role for the Election Assistance Commission.

"Someone's got to wake up every morning with the mission of improving federal elections in a way that assures the voting public that they can have confidence in voting," he said.

___

On the Net:

Election Assistance Commission: http://www.eac.gov

originally published Apr 22, 5:02 PM ET

Read More...

DOE seeks new firm for school testing

honoluluadvertiser.com

DOE seeks new firm for school testing

By Johnny Brannon
Advertiser Education Writer

A series of public-school testing mix-ups has prompted the Department of Education to seek a new deal with a test development company other than Harcourt Assessment Inc., which has contracted with the state for about the past 30 years.

The decision not to extend Harcourt's $22.1 million, four-year contract for providing and scoring standardized tests came after officials discovered that materials provided by the company included errors for the second straight year.

Some materials were also delivered to the wrong schools, and other schools received materials that were incomplete, the department said.

"This series of errors has thrown our testing program into virtual chaos and places the department at risk under the federal No Child Left Behind Act," schools superintendent Pat Hamamoto said in a letter to Harcourt. "It is difficult for schools to see Harcourt as a credible provider, and therefore, the department is unable to justify using Harcourt's services."

Harcourt's contract requires it to develop, administer and score next year's Hawai'i State Assessment and a new science assessment. The deal will be terminated after that, Hamamoto said.

Harcourt spokesman Mark Slitt said this year's materials contained a single error in the test portion presented to students, and that the company regretted the mistake. "This year that was one live test item that was flawed," he said. "There was a seventh-grade math item that had a flaw, despite our best efforts of checking and rechecking. And so that particular item will not be counted, and no students will be adversely affected. It's not going to count against their score in any way, and it does not undermine the overall validity of the test."

The delivery problems were caused by glitches in a new warehouse system and subcontractors that did not deliver according to schedule, Slitt said.

Last year, Harcourt acknowledged at least 45 flaws on reading and math tests taken by thousands of Hawai'i students, including an actual test question.

"Any flaw is one flaw too many, however, and we recognize that we're not perfect," Slitt said. "We're striving for perfection. Through all the hard work that we've put in improving our quality-control processes and putting in additional checks and cross-checks, we've reduced substantially the number of defects from last year."

But Hamamoto said the company's services overall were "significantly worse this year than in previous years."

"Given the deterioration in the quality of the services ... the department has no choice but to seek another contractor for our statewide student assessment program," Hamamoto wrote.

Slitt said Harcourt provides standardized testing materials in about 20 states, and intends to bid on Hawai'i's new contract when it is made available.

Reach Johnny Brannon at jbrannon@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8084.

originally published April 19, 2005

Read More...

Uncle Dick and Papa

The New York Times
April 23, 2005

Uncle Dick and Papa
By MAUREEN DOWD

It was a move so smooth and bold, accomplished with such backstage bureaucratic finesse, that it was worthy of Dick Cheney himself.

The éminence grise who had long whispered in the ear of power and who had helped oversee the selection process ended up selecting himself. In Cheneyesque fashion, he searched far and wide for a pope by looking around the room and swiftly deciding he was the best man for the job.

Just like Mr. Cheney, once the quintessentially deferential staff man with the Secret Service code name "Back Seat," the self-effacing Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has clambered over the back seat to seize the wheel (or Commonweal). Mr. Cheney played the tough cop to W.'s boyish, genial pol, just as Cardinal Ratzinger played the tough cop to John Paul's gentle soul.

And just like the vice president, the new pope is a Jurassic archconservative who disdains the "if it feels good do it" culture and the revolutionary trends toward diversity and cultural openness since the 60's.

The two leaders are a match - absolutists who view the world in stark terms of good and evil, eager to prolong a patriarchal society that prohibits gay marriage and slices up pro-choice U.S. Democratic candidates.

The two, from rural, conservative parts of their countries, want to turn back the clock and exorcise New Age silliness. Mr. Cheney wants to dismantle the New Deal and go back to 1937. Pope Benedict XVI wants to dismantle Vatican II and go back to 1397. As a scholar, his specialty was "patristics," the study of the key thinkers in the first eight centuries of the church.

They are both old hands at operating in secrecy and using the levers of power for ideological advantage. They want to enlist Catholics in the conservative cause, turning confession boxes into ballot boxes with the threat that a vote for a liberal Democrat could lead to eternal damnation.

Unlike Ronald Reagan and John Paul II, the vice president and the new pope do not have large-scale charisma or sunny faces to soften their harsh "my way or the highway" policies. Their gloomy world outlooks and bullying roles earned them the nicknames Dr. No and Cardinal No. One is called Washington's Darth Vader, the other the Vatican's Darth Vader.

W.'s Doberman and John Paul's "God's Rottweiler," as the new pope was called, are both global enforcers with cult followings. Just as the vice president acted to solidify the view of America as a hyperpower, so the new pope views the Roman Catholic Church as the one true religion. He once branded other faiths as deficient.

Both like to blame the media. Cardinal Ratzinger once accused the U.S. press of overplaying the sex abuse scandal to hurt the church and keep the story on the front pages.

Dr. No and Cardinal No parted ways on the war - though Cardinal Ratzinger did criticize the U.N. But they agree that stem cell research and cloning must be curtailed. Cardinal Ratzinger once called cloning "more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction."

As fundamentalism marches on - even Bill Gates seems to have caved to a preacher on gay rights legislation because of fear of a boycott - U.S. conservatives are thrilled about the choice of Cardinal Ratzinger, hoping for an unholy alliance. They hope this pope - who seems to want a smaller, purer church - encourages a militant role for Catholic bishops and priests in the political process.

Cardinal Ratzinger did not shrink from advising American bishops in the last presidential election on bringing Catholic elected officials to heel. He warned that Catholics who deliberately voted for a candidate because of a pro-choice position were guilty of cooperating in evil, and unworthy to receive communion. Vote Democratic and lose your soul. "Panzerkardinal," as he was known, definitely isn't a man who could read Mario Cuomo's Notre Dame speech urging that pro-choice politicians be allowed in the tent and say, "He's got a point."

The Republicans can build their majority by bringing strict Catholics and evangelicals - once at odds - together on what they call "culture of life" issues.

But there's a risk, as with Tom DeLay, Dr. Bill Frist and other Republicans, that if the new pope is too heavy-handed and too fundamentalist, his approach may backfire.

Moral absolutism is relative, after all. As Bruce Landesman, a philosophy professor at the University of Utah, pointed out in a letter to The Times: "Those who hold 'liberal' views are not relativists. They simply disagree with the conservatives about what is right and wrong."

E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com

Read More...

Fat and Happy

The New York Times
April 23, 2005

Fat and Happy
By JOHN TIERNEY

Porkers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your diets!

But don't start wearing spandex just yet.

For those of us lacking six-pack abs, this week's report that the overweight live longer is the greatest medical news in history. The authors of this study deserve a Nobel, not just for medicine, but for peace, too.

They have taken away the favorite cudgel of the scolds who used the "obesity epidemic" as an excuse to attack the flabby. The supposedly deadly consequences of fat provided the scientific rationale for the last politically correct form of prejudice.

The fatophobes are fighting on, disputing the new study and arguing that it still shows the fatal dangers of being seriously obese. But they have lost the scientific high ground. Not only do people of "normal" weight die younger than the moderately overweight, the study shows, but thin people die even younger than those of normal weight.

After decades of listening to emaciated ascetics lecture us about diet and exercise, it's tempting to return the favor. We could turn into activists ourselves and stand in picket lines outside gyms with signs proclaiming, "StairMaster = Death."

We could denounce the dangerous role models provided by the zero-body-fat actresses on "Desperate Housewives," or go to Vogue's offices for an intervention with its social X-ray of an editor, Anna Wintour.

"Anna, we want you to put Kirstie Alley on the cover, but that's not why we're here. We're here because we love you and we don't want to lose you. Now, please, for our sake, try this crème brûlée."

But we need to be realistic. One study will not change people's minds, because the crusade against fat was never just about science.

The activists fighting the evil junk-food industry always had a streak of neo-puritanism in them. They cited scientific research to justify their battle against fatty foods, but then campaigned hysterically against Olestra, the calorie-free fat substitute.

Despite the research showing Olestra to be generally safe, the prospect of Americans enjoying fat-free junk food was just too sinful to allow. So was the prospect of calorie-free colas. When soft-drink companies replaced sugar with aspartame, the food police again ignored the research and kept imagining dangers.

It never made scientific sense to terrify women about having flabby hips or thighs, because it was recognized long before this week's study that lower-body fat was medically benign by comparison with the fat at the waist - the kind in the beer guts of men at risk for heart attacks.

In four-fifths of the societies studied by anthropologists, people have sensibly considered a plump pear-shaped body to be the female ideal. Subcutaneous fat was traditionally a sign of fertility and health, a status indicator showing that a woman was not too poor to afford food.

But as food became cheaper and more available, the ideal changed. Avoiding temptation in the midst of plenty became a virtue and a status symbol of the rich. Thinness became a form of conspicuous consumption, what might be called conspicuous conservation.

George Armelagos, an anthropologist at Emory University, calls this shift the King Henry VIII and Oprah Winfrey Effect. In Tudor England, it took hundreds of gardeners, farmers, hunters and butchers to keep Henry VIII fat. In America today, anyone can bulk up without help, but it takes a new set of vassals - personal trainer, nutritionist, private chef - to keep Oprah from looking like Henry VIII.

As long as it's more expensive to be thin, fat will not be fashionable, no matter what scientists find. The survival-of-the-flabbiest theory will not make jiggly hips hip or love handles lovable, so spandex and tube tops are still out of the question.

But the new study does give us ammunition for the beach this summer. The trick is to be subtle when confronted with glistening hardbodies. Don't insult them. Gaze admiringly, and bemoan your own paunch. Then sigh and talk about the future responsibilities you have - children to raise, the mortgage to pay off, the relatives to support.

When the hardbody looks confused, stop and gaze admiringly again before continuing: "God, I wish had your body - and your courage. Good for you! Don't listen to those medical nerds. Go for it! Live lean, die young, leave a beautiful corpse."

For Further Reading:

The Anti-Pleasure Principle: The "food police" and the pseudoscience of self-denial by Jacob Sullum. Reason magazine, July 2003.

Consuming Passions: The Anthropology of Eating by Peter Farb and George J. Armelagos. HoughtonMifflin, 279 pp., 1980.

E-mail: tierney@nytimes.com

Read More...

A Civil Debate Over Civil Union

The New York Times
April 23, 2005

A Civil Debate Over Civil Union

One of the amazing things about Connecticut's approval of a law guaranteeing the rights of gay couples was the almost placid way the political process worked. This is a pioneering law - the first enacting civil union voluntarily, without court pressure - yet it was adopted with a minimum of political fireworks. There are healthy lessons in this for the rest of the nation as this vital human right progresses.

Connecticut's legislators were obviously influenced by shifting public opinion in favor of taking the historic step, but even more by the gatherings across the state where gay couples invited politicians and neighbors into their homes to experience their domestic lives firsthand. This grass-roots lobbying by gay and lesbian couples proved that their humanity was not to be denied, even if the word "marriage" was denied to them as the final compromise was passed by large, bipartisan margins and was enthusiastically signed by Gov. Jodi Rell, a Republican.

The law firmly extends to gay couples the same rights and protections guaranteed to married heterosexuals, including tax and insurance benefits, family leave, hospital visits and more. Its passage was undoubtedly eased by an amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But there's cause for optimism that this obstacle may be removed, considering the state's progressive path since the day, 40 years ago, when the courts finally struck down a puritanical law that criminalized birth control.

In the past 15 years, Connecticut has protected gays and lesbians under hate-crime, employment and housing laws, and allowed unmarried couples to raise adopted children. Just as civil union was the next logical step, so may the term marriage be finally extended someday.

Other states are heading in a different direction. Fourteen have banned gay marriage in the last year, with Kansas going further and outlawing civil union. But Connecticut's new law and the bolstering of gay unions in Vermont, Massachusetts and California provide a response to the tendency of civil libertarians to presume that lawmaking is transitory and less reliable than a court decision. Critical as the courts are, there's nothing more stirring than the sight of a legislature, representing the will of the people, passing laws to protect the rights of a vulnerable minority group.

Read More...

In Portland, Ore., a Bid to Pull Out of Terror Task Force

The New York Times
April 23, 2005
In Portland, Ore., a Bid to Pull Out of Terror Task Force
By SARAH KERSHAW

Citing irreconcilable differences with how the Federal Bureau of Investigation has operated in a post-Sept. 11 world, city officials in Portland, Ore., said yesterday that they planned to pull their police officers out of an F.B.I.-run antiterrorism task force.

Federal officials said no other city had taken such an action.

Mayor Tom Potter, a Democrat and former Portland police chief, along with several city commissioners, said they expected the City Council to approve the move next week.

Mr. Potter said that several sticking points in negotiations with the F.B.I. over how investigations are conducted and who has "top secret" security clearance had prompted his decision to remove the two officers, now detailed to the antiterrorism task force, from under the auspices of the F.B.I.

At a news conference yesterday, Mr. Potter was joined by the F.B.I.'s highest-ranking official in Portland and an official from the United States attorney's office there, in what appeared to be a show of forced congeniality. City officials said in interviews that it was clear there was hostility between the F.B.I. special agent in charge in Portland, Robert J. Jordan, and the mayor, but that they had appeared to mend fences before the news conference.

Mr. Potter said that the city's law enforcement agencies would still cooperate with the F.B.I., although his officers, if the plan is approved, would report to the Police Department, not the F.B.I.

"I do not take this step lightly," Mr. Potter said at the news conference. "We're not severing our ties; we're only changing them."

The move by Mayor Potter is not the first time that Portland, which has often shown an independent streak, has clashed with the F.B.I. In November 2001, the Police Department announced that its officers would not cooperate with the government's efforts to interview thousands of Muslim men in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

In a telephone interview after the news conference, Mr. Potter said his main rationale for this decision was that the F.B.I., in negotiations over the last several weeks, had refused to give him and his police chief the same top secret clearance given to the two officers on the antiterrorism task force. In negotiations, the bureau agreed to give the police chief clearance, officials said, but refused to give it to the mayor, who under Portland government tradition is also the police commissioner, with oversight over the department.

This angered Mr. Potter, he said, adding that his lack of security clearance would effectively render him unable to know, in highly classified investigations or other cases, what his own police officers were doing.

"It's important that I know what they know," the mayor said. "Because that is part of the oversight process. If there are things that I don't know that they know, there's always an opportunity for something to go wrong."

In brief remarks at the news conference, Mr. Jordan said: "We collectively have discussed many different proposals. I fully respect the mayor's right and responsibility to provide appropriate oversight of city police officers."

"I make the commitment to you, Mr. Mayor," Mr. Jordan added, "and to the citizens of Portland that we will continue to work with you and the Portland Police Bureau to protect the public's safety."

F.B.I. officials in Washington declined to comment on Mr. Potter's decision and his negotiations with the bureau, saying the situation was being handled by the local field office and Mr. Jordan, who, his office said yesterday, would be unavailable to comment further.

While Mr. Potter focused heavily in his announcement yesterday on the security clearance sticking points, he indicated he was also concerned about how the F.B.I., which last year wrongly arrested and detained a Muslim resident of a Portland suburb, Brandon Mayfield, and then apologized, was handling the protection of civil rights for area citizens in their antiterrorism efforts.

City Commissioner Randy Leonard, who drafted the resolution that would remove the officers from the task force, was more blunt about his concerns about the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act and how the F.B.I. was enforcing it, including its tactics in the high-profile Mayfield case.

"It would be disingenuous to say I have not been influenced by this kind of national sense - international, really - that we have taken this hard swing to the right in terms of guaranteeing personal freedoms of the citizens of this country," Mr. Leonard said.

Referring to the F.B.I., Mr. Leonard, a former Portland fire department lieutenant, added, "We as a city are not ceding over our police officers to them."

City Commissioner Dan Saltzman - there are four commissioners, and the mayor also has a vote on the Council - had not made up his mind yet, pending a review of the agreement between the city and the F.B.I., his chief of staff, Jeff Cogen, said yesterday. But it appeared likely the mayor would secure a majority.

"The commissioner was disappointed that the city and the F.B.I. were unable to reach agreement," Mr. Cogen said. "But he knows the negotiations were done in good faith."

Janine Robben contributed reporting from Portland, Ore., for this article.

Read More...

Senate Seeks Iraqi Invitation

Senate Seeks Iraqi Invitation

By The New York Times

WASHINGTON, April 22 - Leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee have urged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to seek a formal invitation from the new Iraqi government for American troops to remain until domestic security forces are capable of fully defending their country.

A letter on April 18 from Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the Republican committee chairman, and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat, argued that the initiative could "substantially reduce the daily threats to U.S., coalition and Iraqi security forces."

Read More...