House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), with fellow Democratic leaders Steny Hoyer (Md.), center, and Harry Reid (Nev.),

[Washington Post, May 3, 2007] President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq. Democrats backed off after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required U.S. forces to begin withdrawing as early as July. But party leaders made it clear that the next bill will have to include language that influences war policy. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) outlined a second measure that would step up Iraqi accountability, "transition" the U.S. military role and show "a reasonable way to end this war." "We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. "But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war." Bush said he is "confident that we can reach agreement," and he assigned three top aides to negotiate. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and budget director Rob Portman will go to Capitol Hill today to sit down with leaders of both parties. But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense. Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), a conservative who opposed the first funding bill, said, "The hallway talk is very different from the podium talk." While deadlines for troop withdrawals had to be dropped from the spending bill, such language is likely to appear in a defense policy measure that is expected to reach the House floor in two weeks, just when a second war funding bill could be ready for a House vote. Democrats want the next spending measure to pass before Congress recesses on May 25 for Memorial Day weekend. Beyond that, Democrats remain deeply divided over how far to give in to the White House. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq. Benchmarks have emerged as the most likely foundation for bipartisan consensus and were part of yesterday's White House meeting, participants said. "I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks," said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), who attended the session. He added that no terms were discussed. "We didn't go into any kind of detail," Durbin said. Just four Republicans supported the first version of the spending bill: Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.) and Rep. Walter B. Jones (N.C.). But a growing number of GOP lawmakers want language that would hold the administration and the Iraqi government more accountable. "The general sense is that the benchmarks are critical," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), a moderate who opposed the original bill but supports some constraints. White House officials are also looking to benchmarks as an area of compromise, but they want them to be tied to rewards for achievement, not penalties for failure. Administration officials note that they do not oppose benchmarks, and in fact have developed them in the past along with Iraqis. But they are sensitive about provoking Iraqis, who bristled last year when benchmarks crafted by U.S. and Iraqi officials became public and left the impression that Washington was dictating to Baghdad. But that approach would be too weak even for moderates from both parties. Already, liberal Democrats think that public opinion and circumstances in Iraq are on their side, and they view benchmarks alone as far too weak. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (Wis.) has repeatedly told Democratic leaders that he would not report a war funding bill out of his committee that he could not support. Pelosi is also reluctant to embrace such a compromise until she sees how far congressional Republicans are willing to bend. Democratic leaders have resigned themselves to losing many of the liberals they worked hard to bring on board the first bill. Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.), a leading Senate war opponent who helped to build Democratic consensus in the first round, said he will vote against the second version unless it includes "a binding approach to ending the war." Feingold is seeking a vote on legislation he co-sponsored with Reid to cut off war funding on March 31, 2008. But he added: "I'm willing to listen to other ideas." Conservative Republicans were just as balky. Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska) argued that any benchmarks would make the bill "unconstitutional." Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), another unwavering Bush defender on Iraq, said he would support adding benchmarks, but with no repercussions should Iraqis fall short. In a speech yesterday to the Associated General Contractors of America, Bush made a more extended argument that his decision to send additional troops to Iraq is bearing fruit there. He cited a decrease in sectarian violence, an increase in cooperation from local residents, and several recent operations against bombers and militias. Bush acknowledged that violence remains high and that U.S. casualties "are likely to stay high," but he attributed that to radicals affiliated with al-Qaeda and minimized the role of sectarian conflict even as he used the words "civil war," a phrase he has largely avoided. "For America," Bush said, "the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11."

CONCERN OVER AMERICA'S PRIVATE AND BUSINESS DEBT [Mewsmax.com, March 19, 2007] Veteran political strategist and author Kevin Phillips says he is less troubled by the USA’s $8 trillion national debt than by the $43 trillion debt racked up by individuals and businesses. Phillips devised the strategy that brought the then-Democratic South into the Republican fold when he worked for Richard Nixon’s 1968 presidential campaign. Speaking to a Society of the Four Arts gathering in Palm Beach, Fla., the strategist — now a National Public Radio commentator — said the individual and business debt equals 320 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, and that frightens him. “It’s a huge problem, and it’s systemic now,” he said in remarks reported by the Palm Beach Daily News. Phillips said crippling debt is one of five “commonalities” the U.S. today shares with the declining years of the Roman, British, Spanish, and Dutch empires. The others: The populations felt their societies were failing; religious extremists were on the rise; their economies turned away from the livelihoods that had supported ordinary people; and their imperial reach exceeded their grasp. Phillips is particularly concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and the prospect of higher oil prices in the near future. The Democrats’ victories in the November elections indicate that voters are getting “fed up” with Republican leadership, Phillips said. But he added that a Democratic takeover of the government isn’t a sure thing: “If any group of people can blow an opportunity, it’s these guys.” BACKGROUND For more than three decades, Kevin Phillips has been consistently and “transcendentally right” (as one reviewer has put it) about the dynamics of political change in America and an avid analyst of the role of wealth in democracy. Kevin’s best-selling books have influenced presidential campaigns and changed the way America sees itself. In his two most recent New York Times bestsellers, American Dynasty and Wealth and Democracy, Kevin established himself as a powerful critic of the political and economic forces that are ruling—and imperiling—the U.S. Now, in “American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century,” Kevin uncovers and assails the political coalition, led by radical religion, that he believes is driving the country to the brink of disaster. One of Kevin’s first books, The Emerging Republican Majority, set the political strategy for Richard Nixon's presidential campaign in 1968 and transformed the American political landscape for the generation that followed. Phillips’ commitment to public service and strong sense of history make his presentations valuable to any audience—business, college, or public forum—that cares about where America is headed in the future. Called a “modern Thomas Paine,” Kevin Phillips is a regular commentator for National Public Radio and a former commentator for CBS News.

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA'S MUSLIM PAST SURFACES AGAIN [NewsMax.com, March 19, 2007] The issue of Senator Barack Obama’s Muslim past has surfaced again as his campaign steps back from its flat denial that he ever belonged to the Islamic faith. Earlier this year several media outlets reported that Obama had attended a radical madrasa, or Islamic school, when he lived in Indonesia. At the time, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs declared: “To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.” The report about the radical madrasa turned out to be false. Now, in a statement to the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, Gibbs amended that declaration, saying: “Obama has never been a practicing Muslim,” the key word being “practicing.” But a boyhood friend of Obama in Indonesia, Zulfin Adi, told the Times: “His mother often went to the church, but Barry [Barack’s name at the time] was Muslim. He went to the mosque.” The Times sent a reporter to Jakarta, capital of the Muslim nation, to delve into an issue that could have a serious impact on the Democratic presidential candidate’s White House aspiration, as voters “react to a candidate with an early exposure to Islam, a religion that remains foreign to many Americans,” the Times noted. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan, and Kansas-born Ann Dunham. The couple separated when Barack was 2. They later divorced, and Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, a Muslim. In 1967, the family moved to Jakarta, where Obama was known as Barry Soetoro, and he remained there from age 6 to 10. Obama attended first grade at a Catholic elementary school near his home, St. Francis of Assisi Foundation School, which accepted students of any religion. His first-grade teacher Israella Dharmawan told the Times: “At that time, Barry was also praying in a Catholic way, but Barry was Muslim. He was registered as a Muslim because his father was Muslim.” In the third grade, Obama transferred to a public school, where he was also registered as a Muslim. Muslim students at the school attended weekly religion lessons about Islam, taught by a Muslim. In his autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama mentions studying the Quran and describes the public school as “a Muslim school.” Boyhood friend Adi said Obama occasionally went to Friday prayers at a local mosque. “We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque,” he told the Times. Sometimes, when the call to prayer sounded, Barry and Lolo would walk to the mosque together, Adi added. Obama’s half-sister Maya Soetoro, in a statement issued Wednesday by the Obama campaign, said the family attended the mosque only for “big communal events.” New revelations about Obama’s Muslim past could provide ammunition for his critics — and political opponents. One such critic is Chicago-based Internet journalist and broadcaster Andy Martin, a lawyer and consumer advocate who wrote earlier about Obama’s connection to Islam. Reacting to the claim from Obama’s sister that the family went to the mosque only for “big communal events,” Martin wrote on Thursday: “Tens of millions of ‘Christians’ flock to churches for Easter and Christmas. And they would slap you down if you told them they were not Christians merely because they only appear twice a year for ‘big communal events.’” He also wrote: “Obama no longer denies he was a Muslim. Now he says he wasn’t a ‘practicing’ Muslim. “People in general will accept most anything from public officials as long as they don’t lie about it.”

RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT KNEW ABOUT LEWINSKY

[Newsmax.com, April, 2007] The Russian government had inside knowledge about President Bill Clinton’s ongoing sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, a former senior U.S. intelligence official told NewsMax. Clinton had his final encounter with Lewinsky in the White House on March 29, 1997, after he invited her there because he had “something important to tell her,” according to the official. “He told her that he suspected his phone was bugged by a foreign embassy.” Four months before that meeting, Russian intelligence reported to then President Boris Yeltsin about Monica, the official disclosed. “Sometime between March 5 and March 29, this was communicated back to Clinton. “Then in August 1998, Clinton under oath denied the fact of this meeting. This was a grave and consequential perjury, not about sex, but about a huge national security vulnerability. “Two special prosecutors and the impeachment process let him off the hook about this, despite knowing of the perjury.”

CALL FOR MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS TO STOP KILLING ONE ANOTHER [SMH with The Washington Post, The New York Times, February 27, 2007] Denouncing the US President for the war in Iraq and calling on Muslims and Christians to stop killing one another, the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, led thousands of followers on a spirited tour of his views of God and the world in an address described by aides as his last significant appearance. Mr Farrakhan, 73, who has been battling prostate cancer for nearly 10 years, on Sunday spoke sharp words in a strong voice about international conflict and personal responsibility. He gave no hint that he was ailing. He urged people who might join the military and fight in Iraq to stay away: "This is going down, and if you're going, you go down with it. God is angry." To Democrats unwilling to impeach George Bush, he suggested censure: "Stop pussyfooting around." To people of faith at one another's throats, he urged unity: "How come we, the people of God, cannot embrace each other?" Mr Farrakhan, who has delivered a message of black pride for decades, did not repeat previous incendiary remarks about "white devils" or Jews, who he has called "bloodsuckers" who prey on black Americans. He denied that he is anti-white, anti-gay, anti-Semitic or anti-American. He said critics had produced those labels "in hopes that somebody would rise up to kill me." Detroit is where the Nation of Islam was founded in 1930. Members of a crowd that flowed to an indoor stadium on an icy afternoon to celebrate the group's Saviours' Day felt this would be Mr Farrakhan's final big speech. Given his age and health problems, and the lack of an obvious successor, questions loom large about the future and direction of the Nation of Islam. Academic experts and black Muslim leaders believe that without Mr Farrakhan's leadership, the Nation -- which has been divided by religious rifts in the past -- will shrink even more dramatically unless it shifts towards mainstream Islam's beliefs. Nation of Islam once enjoyed a near monopoly over interpreting Islam for black Americans, using the faith as a vehicle to promote black separatism. But it now competes with sects that branched away, and with groups ascribing to the more traditional and inclusive Islam followed by millions of Muslim immigrants and their offspring. Said Morris Hartman, a retired factory worker: "He's done more to bridge the gap and bring people together than any so-called leaders. I think he has had more influence on our race than anyone in America."

HILLARY CLINTON ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL [Reuters, January 22, 2007] Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her first public appearance since joining the 2008 White House race, said today she wanted to become US president because she was "worried about the future of our country." The former first lady, appearing at a health clinic in Manhattan to promote expanded health insurance for children, faced a mob of journalists eager to quiz her on her historic campaign to become the first female US president. Senator Clinton, 59, announced her widely anticipated bid to seek the Democratic Party's presidential nomination yesterday with a statement on her website declaring: "I'm in. And I'm in to win. I'm worried about the future of our country, and I want to help put it back on the right course so that we can work together to meet the challenges that confront us at home and abroad," she said. "I am best-positioned to be able to do that, and that's why I'm running." The second-term US senator from New York leads a pool of Democratic hopefuls, including Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who is expected to be her main competitor within the party and whose bid could make him the first black president. Also today, Democratic Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico announced he was seeking the party's nomination. He would be the first Hispanic US president. "It will be a great contest with a lot of talented people," Senator Clinton said of the race for the nomination. "I'm very confident." Senator Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, held a large lead in the Democratic race in a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken last week before she announced her candidacy. She was the favourite of 41 per cent of Democrats polled, more than double the 17 per cent, second-place rating scored by Senator Obama. Senator Clinton made history with her bid for the US Senate in New York in 2000, becoming the first former first lady to win one of the most powerful political jobs in the US. Supporters and detractors alike have believed for years that Senator Clinton had White House ambitions, and she said since her re-election to a second US Senate term in November she had made a "thorough review" of the problems facing the nation and "the particular strengths and talents that I would bring both to the race and to the White House." She said she chose to run "based on the work of my lifetime and my experience and my understanding of what our country has to confront in order to continue to make opportunity available to all of our citizens here and to restore our leadership and respect for America around the world." Her campaign will enjoy the political benefits of her husband who, despite his scandal-hit presidency, is enormously popular and is a powerful fund-raiser. Asked what role he and daughter Chelsea would play in the race, she said: "They're my greatest support system, my greatest advisers and they'll continue to do that." Senator Clinton took the first step toward becoming a candidate yesterday by announcing plans for a presidential exploratory committee, which allows her to raise money and hire staff. Today, she said she backed expansion of a government program to provide health-care coverage to children in low and middle-income families. The issue has long been a favourite of the former first lady, whose efforts at spearheading health-care reform during her husband's first presidential term floundered in Congress. Senator Clinton said she planned to campaign for health insurance for children and universal health care for Americans.

DEMOCRAT MAJORITY SAYS "TIME TO BRING THE WAR TO A CLOSE" [Washington Post, January 6, 2007] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid declared yesterday that "it is time to bring the war to a close" and warned President Bush that sending more U.S. troops to Iraq would be unacceptable to the Democratic majorities that have just taken over Congress. Directly challenging Bush's wartime leadership on their second day in charge on Capitol Hill, Democrats Pelosi (California.) and Reid (Nevada.) sent Bush a letter suggesting that, instead of starting a short-term escalation, he begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces in the next four to six months. The mission of remaining troops, they said, should be shifted away from combat toward more training, logistics and counter-terrorism.[Picture shows senators Charles E. Schumer, left, and Harry M. Reid] The newly ascendant Democrats are trying to pre-empt the president before he announces his new strategy. As he prepares for a nationally televised address next week, officials said, Bush is considering three main options to bolster U.S. forces in Iraq: a relatively modest deployment of fewer than 4,000 additional troops, a middle-ground alternative involving about 9,000 and, the most aggressive idea, flowing 20,000 more troops into the country. In a speech today unveiling his own revised security plan, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to publicly welcome additional U.S. troops, a condition requested by the Bush administration. Maliki's cooperation is pivotal to Bush's own efforts. Bush told Maliki in a videoconference Thursday that the United States is willing to help but that Maliki has to deliver along the way, U.S. officials said. In preparation for the shift in strategy, Bush reshuffled his national security leadership team yesterday. He replaced the top two generals running the Iraq war, named a new Army chief of staff, moved his intelligence director over to the State Department and put a veteran officer in charge of intelligence. Officials have said he also plans to move his ambassador in Baghdad to the United Nations and replace him with a veteran diplomat. Over the next few days before his speech, Bush is conducting intensive consultations with lawmakers, foreign allies and advisers. He met with lawmakers from both parties yesterday and plans to talk with leaders of Britain, Australia and possibly Denmark, countries that still have major military contingents in Iraq, according to U.S. officials and diplomats. The White House said he will talk with both Pelosi and Reid before announcing his new strategy. White House press secretary Tony Snow said the sessions with lawmakers have featured "some vigorous exchanges" and have been useful. "The fact is that these meetings may not be happy-face 'Kumbaya,' but they have been very constructive in the sense that people are talking respectfully about important issues and expressing their ideas," he said. "And some of them are quite interesting. And we're taking them into account." But some lawmakers have left the meetings unsatisfied. Sen. Ben Nelson (Nebraska), a conservative Democrat needed by Bush if he hopes to have any support across the aisle, said he pressed the president yesterday to provide a clear and specific mission before ordering additional forces to Iraq. "The White House has to make the case for sending in more troops before they send the troops," he said. "We need a new direction, not just a new slogan." Even many Republicans appear unenthusiastic about troop increases. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (Republican -Missouri.) said Thursday night on MSNBC's "Hardball" that he might say no to the surge. "I want to know what it all is," Lott said of Bush's overall plan. "But here's my main point: We've got to change the status quo. At some point we've got to say to the Iraqis, 'Congratulations. Saddam is dead. We've given you an opportunity for peace and freedom. It's yours.' " The letter by Pelosi and Reid sent a signal that the new congressional leadership intends to be aggressive in voicing opposition to Bush's handling of the war. With their new majorities, they have a bigger political megaphone and more ability to bring pressure to bear. At the same time, Pelosi and Reid have eschewed using the main legislative mechanism to change policy, namely cutting off funding for the war. "Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed," Pelosi and Reid wrote. "Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. . . . Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain." By releasing the sternly worded letter, Democratic leaders hoped to jump ahead of Bush and set the agenda for the weekend talk shows. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said the party wants to address even the terminology of the White House plan, defining it not as a "surge" but as an "escalation." "People are going to know [the president] has a very critical audience in the Democratic Congress on this proposal," he said. The prospect of increasing troop levels has been greeted with so much hostility that some lawmakers are questioning whether Bush is serious. "A surge is not a new strategy. A surge is a new tactic that does nothing to change the underlying strategy that has so clearly failed," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez (Democrat - California), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. READ FULL STORY

COURT RULING PAVES WAY FOR ABORIGINAL RIGHTS IN CANADA [BBC News, December 23, 2006] A Supreme Court ruling in Canada has given a group of native Indians the right to hunt at night despite it being illegal under Canadian law. In a split decision, the judges said rights given to Indians in treaties can overrule current Canadian laws. Native groups are calling it an important victory but critics say the ruling ignores important concerns over public safety. Hunting in the dark is illegal because it is widely felt to be very dangerous. Ten years ago, two hunters from the Tsartlip Indian band on Vancouver Island were hunting at night with rifles and electric torches. But their only catch turned out to be a decoy deer set up in the woods by wildlife officials. The two hunters were arrested. But the pair argued that hunting at night is a traditional practice for their tribe, that a treaty signed back in 1852 specifically mentions it and that grants them the right to carry on doing it. The case bounced through various courts for a decade but now, the final word from the Supreme Court of Canada is that in this case, aboriginal treaty rights do outweigh the current law and its safety concerns. Native rights groups called the decision another step forward for aboriginal Canadians. But the court itself was split over the issue, with several of the judges saying public safety should outweigh all other concerns, even in sensitive aboriginal rights cases. Regardless, the decision suggests that native groups across Canada can now challenge current laws that conflict with their long-held traditions.

10,000 AMERICAN SCIENTISTS SPEAK OUT AGAINST POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

By Union of Concerned Scientsts, USA In recent years, scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific information. To document this abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists has created the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science. 10,000 Scientists Speak Out As the list of examples of political interference in science has grown, so has concern from diverse groups of Americans, from ordinary citizens to members of Congress to the nation’s leading newspapers. Particular concern comes from the scientific community, as scientists know first hand that a healthy respect for independent science has been the foundation of American prosperity and contributed greatly to our quality of life. In 2004, 62 renowned scientists and science advisors signed a scientist statement on scientific integrity, denouncing political interference in science and calling for reform. On December 9, 2006, UCS released the names of more than 10,000 scientists of all backgrounds from all 50 states—including— 52 NOBEL LAUREATES who have since joined their colleagues on this statement. If you are a scientist, YOU CAN ADD YOUR VOICE TO THE STATEMENT RIGHT NOW. And all citizens can take action on a critical scientific integrity challenging us today: the EPA’s decision to hastily close its unique network of scientific libraries. Call today and tell the EPA to stop destroying documents, selling off library equipment, and limiting access to its critical scientific collection. The United States government bears great responsibility for keeping our environment clean and Americans healthy and safe. And while science is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be objective and impartial. Main website: UNION of CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

ONE MILE HIGH VIEW OF GRAND CANYON [Reuters, February 26, 2007] Plans to perch a walkway over the rim of the Grand Canyon are dividing the American Indian nation that owns the land, with backers calling it a fount for valuable jobs and opponents condemning it as a desecration of a sacred landscape. A private developer from Las Vegas is building the $40 million dollar, horseshoe-shaped, walkway, dubbed the Skywalk, with the permission of the Hualapai tribe on ancestral lands abutting the southern rim of the canyon in Arizona. The concrete and steel pathway is being paved with 90 tonnes of toughened glass. It will be cantilevered 70 feet (21 metres) out over the lip of the rim to offer steely-nerved visitors a dizzying glimpse of the Colorado River valley almost a mile (1.6 km) beneath their feet. Supporters say it will create hundreds of jobs for tribal members on the sprawling pine-covered reservation, home to some 2000 people, where poverty is rife and unemployment stands at about 50 percent. But traditionalists say the construction violates the hallowed natural landscape of the canyon, which is central to the tribe's creation myths. According to tradition, the Hualapai's ancestors emerged from the plunging gorge; some elders believe their blood stained parts of it a deep red. "The canyon is sacred ground and our ancestors' bones are buried there," said Dolores Honga, 71, who has performed ritual dances on the lonely, wind-swept rim for decades. "You have to love the land ... and not see it with dollar signs in your eyes," she told Reuters.. But the Skywalk is near completion and set to be inaugurated by former astronaut and lunar voyager Buzz Aldrin on March 20. CATALYST FOR DEVELOPMENT Although the Hualapai Indian Reservation runs for more than 100 miles (160-km) along the Grand Canyon, the tribe has so far failed to woo many of the 4 million paying visitors who trek there each year. Sheri Yellowhawk, who oversees the tribe's business arm, hopes that the Skywalk will lure up to 500,000 tourists in the first year alone, shelling out $25 a time to walk out over the yawning abyss. The project will create 150 new jobs for local people over the next two years, she believes, and could parlay into a larger-scale development in years to come, including a 300-room hotel and restaurant at the site, about 100 miles (160 km) east of Las Vegas. "I don't see it as desecration ... I believe that it is a safe, unique means of seeing the canyon, and a catalyst for the future development of the nation," Yellowhawk told Reuters. With less than a month until the inauguration, tribal chairman Charlie Vaughn said the dispute over the project has given him sleepless nights. But faced with the need to fund projects including a court house, a day-care center for the elderly and a fire department, he stands firmly behind the venture. "I felt the Skywalk was in the best interests of the tribe," he told Reuters as he stood at the construction site, with tour helicopters wheeling far below him in the gorge. "But let's move back from the rim with future development and preserve the beauty of the canyon."