Press Release Daily Summary

WASHINGTON-U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) announced today that the Homeland Security appropriations bill for FY06 has moved through the Full Appropriations Committee and is now slated for debate on the Senate floor. The bill includes a total of $31.86 billion for the operations and programs of the Department of Homeland Security. Once passed on the Senate floor this bill will be conferenced with the House version before it goes back to both chambers for a final vote and then on to the president to be signed into law.

“Securing our homeland is one of the most important things we do here in Congress,” said Burns. “September 11th taught us that we need to tighten our security in across the board, and these funds go directly toward that mission. We are fighting a new enemy—one we know will strive to cause harm, and these funds are critical to protecting our country.”

In addition to the $18.3 million in funding for the Northern Border Air Wing that Senator Burns announced earlier today, this bill includes important funding for immigration and border security, The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program, and Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) and Emergency Management Performance (EMPG) grants, including:

$3.4 billion for first responders, including grants to state and local communities, firefighters, and emergency management
$5.05 billion for transportation security
$9.8 billion for border protection, immigration enforcement, and related activities, an increase of $915 million from FY05
$32 million for the Federal Flight Deck Officer and Flight Crew Training Programs, and increase of $7 million from FY05

The Committee also directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit a report describing the impact the Base Realignment and Closings (BRAC) will have with regard to Homeland Security through 2010. The report is to be submitted February 18, 2006.

###

__________________________

Jennifer O'Shea

Press Secretary

Office of Senator Conrad Burns

Dirksen 187

Washington, DC 20510

202.224.2644

For Immediate Release

Thursday, June 16, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939

BIG TOBACCO’S INVESTMENT IN REPUBLICANS PAYS OFF

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement on the actions of Senior Justice Department officials in the federal tobacco racketeering trial:

Washington, DC – “Donating to George Bush might be the best investment tobacco companies made last year. We learned today that Senior Justice Department officials, appointed by George Bush, overrode the objections of career attorneys running the federal tobacco racketeering trial, ordering them to reduce the penalties by more than $120 billion dollars.

”This gift to the tobacco industry, which donated almost $3 million to Republicans last year, is yet another abuse of power by an out-of-touch administration dead set on putting the needs of wealthy donors and far right wing radicals ahead of the American people.”

###

The Finance Committee today passed the chairman's modification to the Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005 on a voice vote. The committee didn't adopt any amendments. The Joint Committee on Taxation has posted:

JCX-46-05: Description Of The Chairman's Modification To The Provisions of The "Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act Of 2005" http://www.house.gov/jct/x-46-05.pdf

And JCX-47-05: Estimated Revenue Effects Of The Chairman's Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To The "Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act Of 2005," Scheduled For Markup By The Committee On Finance On June 16, 2005

Chairman Grassley's opening statement follows.

Opening Statement of Chairman Grassley

Committee Consideration of the Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005

Thursday, June 16, 2005

On Tuesday, June 14th, I put forward the chairman’s mark on the Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005. This mark was a bipartisan product formulated with Senator Baucus, after consultation with all members of the Finance Committee. This package, once reported out of the Finance Committee, will be offered as an amendment to the underlying energy bill. In my estimation, the Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act reflects a fair balance of the interests of the members and effectively supports the development of energy production from renewable and environmentally beneficial sources. I’d like to briefly describe these tax incentives that will become part of the energy bill. For years, I have worked to decrease our reliance on foreign sources of energy and accelerate and diversify domestic energy production. I believe public policy ought to promote renewable domestic production that uses renewable energy and fosters economic development.

Specifically, the development of alternative energy sources should alleviate domestic energy shortages and insulate the United States from the Middle East-dominated oil supply. In addition, the development of renewable energy resources conserves existing natural resources and protects the environment. Finally, alternative energy development provides economic benefits to farmers, ranchers and forest land owners, such as those in Iowa who have launched efforts to diversify the state’s economy and to find creative ways to extract a greater return from abundant natural resources.

Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code currently provides a production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources including wind, biomass, and other renewables. The Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act extends the section 45 credit for three years. I have been a constant advocate of alternative energy sources. Since the inception 13 years ago of the wind energy tax credit, wind energy production has grown considerably. In addition, wind represents an affordable and inexhaustible source of domestically produced energy. Extending the wind energy tax credit through 2008 would support the tremendous continued development of this clean, renewable energy source.

The Finance Committee’s amendment supports a maturing green energy source. Experts have established wind energy’s valuable contributions to maintaining cleaner air and a cleaner environment. Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy produced in the United States can reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 33 million metric tons by replacing the combustion of fossil fuels.

In addition, this proposal helps to empower our rural communities to reap continued economic benefits. The installation of wind turbines has a stimulative economic effect because it requires significant capital investment which results in the creation of jobs and the injection of capital into often rural economic areas.

In addition, for each wind turbine, a farmer or rancher can receive more than $2,000 per year for 20 years in direct lease payments. Iowa’s major wind farms currently pay more than $640,000 per year to land owners, and the development of 1,000 megawatts of capacity in California, for example, would result in annual payments of approximately $2 million to farm and forest landowners in that state.

Environmentally-friendly biomass energy production is a proven, effective technology that generates numerous waste management public benefits across the country. The biomass definition covers open loop biomass. Open loop biomass includes organic, non-hazardous materials such as saw dust, tree trimmings, agricultural byproducts and untreated construction debris. The development of a local industry to convert biomass to electricity has the potential to produce enormous economic benefits and electricity security for rural America. In addition, studies show that biomass crops could produce between $2 billion and $5 billion in additional farm income for American farmers. As an example, over 450 tons of turkey and chicken litter are under contract to be sold for an electricity plant using poultry litter being built in Minnesota. This is a win-win; not only do the farmers not have to pay to dispose of this stuff, they get paid to sell the litter. You could find similar examples throughout the Midwest and other farm regions across America. Finally, marginal farmland incapable of sustaining traditional yearly production is often capable of generating native grasses and organic materials that are ideal for biomass energy production. Turning tree trimmings and native grasses into energy provides an economic gain and serves an important public interest.

I am very proud of a long history of supporting new alternative energy concepts in the production of electricity. The chairman’s mark, as modified, continues that commitment. By using animal waste as an energy source, an American livestock producer can reduce or eliminate monthly energy purchases from electric and gas suppliers and provide excess energy for distribution to other members of the community.

Swine and bovine energy is truly green electricity, as it also furthers environmental objectives. Specifically, anaerobic digestion of manure improves air quality because it eliminates as much as 90 percent of the odor from feedlots and improves soil and water quality by dramatically reducing problems with waste run-off. Maximizing farm resources in such a manner may prove essential to remain competitive in today’s livestock market. In addition, the technology used to create the electricity results in the production of a fertilizer product that is of a higher quality than unprocessed animal waste.

The Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act is important to agriculture, rural economies and small business, and it is also important for domestic supply and energy independence. Rural America can play an important part in energy independence and domestic supply. In addition to the production of electricity, this amendment includes additional tax incentives for the production of alternative fuels from renewable resources. We continue the small producers credit for the production of ethanol. We continue the incentive for the production of biodiesel. Biodiesel is a natural substitute for diesel fuel and can be made from almost all vegetable oils and animal fats. Modern science is allowing us to slowly substitute natural renewable agricultural sources for traditional petroleum. It gives us choices for the future and it can relieve the strain on the domestic oil production to fulfill those important needs that agricultural products cannot serve.

Renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel will improve air quality, strengthen national security, reduce the trade deficit, decrease dependence on the Middle East for oil, and expand markets for agricultural products. The Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act amendment is a balanced package. I would like to note, with some satisfaction, that today we have the opportunity to do the people’s business in the way they want us to do business. This energy tax incentives amendment was crafted in a bipartisan way on an important initiative in a way that reflects the diversity of our views and the diversity of our nation.

U.S. Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations
Chairman Sen. Dick Lugar

Press Secretary: Andy Fisher, andy_fisher@foreign.senate.gov, (202) 224-2079 Date: 6/16/2005

Ashley Judd to testify before Senate Foreign Relations

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on Thursday, June 23, at 10 a.m. in Room 419 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to examine the magnitude of the AIDS pandemic and the urgent need to develop an effective HIV vaccine. Its goal is to explore possible legislative initiatives to accelerate the development of an effective HIV vaccine.

Actress Ashley Judd, Global Ambassador for YouthAIDS, will testify about her recent trip to work with children in Africa. YouthAIDS works in more than 60 countries to educate and protect young people from HIV/AIDS.

Congressmen Pete Visclosky (D-IN) and Pete King (R-NY) will discuss H. Res. 286, a companion bill to Lugar’s S. 42, which highlights the urgent need to coordinate global efforts to develop an HIV vaccine.

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, will testify about the scientific challenges in developing an HIV vaccine, current U.S. research efforts for the initiative and ongoing work with developing countries to establish the capacity for clinical trials.

Dr. Helene Gayle, Director, HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Reproductive Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, will talk about the need for a HIV vaccine, the scientific and other hurdles in its development, current activities of the Gates Foundation to promote research, and the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise.

Dr. Seth Berkeley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) will also testify.

Additional witnesses may be added.

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar has initiated the following legislation to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic:

S. 350: Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005, which calls for a strategy to assist orphans in developing countries, especially those orphaned by AIDS.

S. 42: HIV Vaccine Resolution that commends President Bush’s leadership with the G-8 countries on supporting the HIV Vaccine Enterprise and the improvement of efforts to coordinate vaccine research.

Under Lugar’s Chairmanship, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues to make HIV/AIDS a priority. Last May, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on “The Deadly Intersection of AIDS and Hunger” with Jim Morris (UN World Food Program), Andrew Natsios (USAID) and Ambassador Tobias, (U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator). Last March, the Africa Subcommittee held a hearing on the progress of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

In November 2004, Sen. Lugar received the Bishop John T. Walker Award from Africare in recognition of his work on these issues.

# # #

_________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 16, 2005

Contact: John Reid

Director of Communications

(202) 224-4746

ALLEN: DURBIN SHOULD ASK FORGIVENESS FOR REMARKS

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) today responded to the disparaging remarks made Tuesday by the Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Il) regarding the American military troops serving at Guantanamo Bay. Senator Durbin likened the actions of U.S. soldiers at the military base to those of “Nazis, Soviets, in their Gulags,” and regimes that had “no concern for human beings.”

Allen said, “Senator Durbin’s remarks were reprehensible. To compare our brave and honorable American troops to the Nazis and other brutal, murderous regimes is outrageous and irresponsible. It is appalling to me that a U.S. Senator would disparage our men and women in uniform in this way. This hateful assertion can be demoralizing to our brave troops and their families praying for their loved one’s safety back home. Moreover, it must bring glee to terrorists and those who are enemies of America.

“The patriots serving in Guantanamo and elsewhere around the world are truly some of the finest that our nation has to offer and I’m so proud of the way they represent America. I believe Senator Durbin should ask for forgiveness from the troops and their families for his absurd, deplorable analogy.”

# # #

Opening Statement of Chairman Grassley

Committee Consideration of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005

Thursday, June 16, 2005

On Tuesday, June 14th, I put forward the chairman’s mark on the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005. This mark was a bipartisan product formulated with Senator Baucus, after consultation with all members of the Finance Committee. This package, once reported out of the Finance Committee, will be offered as an amendment to the underlying energy bill. In my estimation, the Energy Tax Incentives Act reflects a fair balance of the interests of the members and effectively supports the development of energy production from renewable and environmentally beneficial sources. I’d like to briefly describe these tax incentives that will become part of the energy bill. For years, I have worked to decrease our reliance on foreign sources of energy and accelerate and diversify domestic energy production. I believe public policy ought to promote renewable domestic production that uses renewable energy and fosters economic development.

Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code currently provides a production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources including wind, biomass, and other renewables. The Energy Tax Incentives Act extends the section 45 credit for three years. I have been a constant advocate of alternative energy sources. Since the inception 13 years ago of the wind energy tax credit, wind energy production has grown considerably. In addition, wind represents an affordable and inexhaustible source of domestically produced energy. Extending the wind energy tax credit through 2008 would support the tremendous continued development of this clean, renewable energy source.

The Energy Tax Incentives Act is important to agriculture, rural economies and small business, and it is also important for domestic supply and energy independence. Rural America can play an important part in energy independence and domestic supply. In addition to the production of electricity, this amendment includes additional tax incentives for the production of alternative fuels from renewable resources. We continue the small producers credit for the production of ethanol. We continue the incentive for the production of biodiesel. Biodiesel is a natural substitute for diesel fuel and can be made from almost all vegetable oils and animal fats. Modern science is allowing us to slowly substitute natural renewable agricultural sources for traditional petroleum. It gives us choices for the future and it can relieve the strain on the domestic oil production to fulfill those important needs that agricultural products cannot serve.

Renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel will improve air quality, strengthen national security, reduce the trade deficit, decrease dependence on the Middle East for oil, and expand markets for agricultural products. The Energy Tax Incentives Act amendment is a balanced package. I would like to note, with some satisfaction, that today we have the opportunity to do the people’s business in the way they want us to do business. This energy tax incentives amendment was crafted in a bipartisan way on an important initiative in a way that reflects the diversity of our views and the diversity of our nation.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Thuesday, June 16, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Statement By Senator Dianne Feinstein

on the Nomination of Terrence Boyle

Judiciary Committee Executive Business Meeting

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today opposed the nomination of Judge Terrence Boyle to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The following is Senator Feinstein’s statement, portions of which were delivered in committee, and the remainder was entered into the record:

“Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesy in holding the nomination over to this week. Given your flexibility, I will try to limit my remarks on the nomination of Judge Terrence Boyle. Judge Boyle is a long-serving federal district court judge in North Carolina, and is in fact the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Looking at the decisions that Judge Boyle has rendered in the District Court, I cannot support elevating him to a lifetime appointment to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Boyle’s decisions and his frequent reversals by higher courts, including the court he is being nominated to, reveal that he is an activist judge whose strong “states’ rights” views have made it difficult for many individuals to receive fair treatment when they seek to vindicate their civil rights in his courtroom.

In fact, many individuals never have their day in court because of Judge Boyle’s tendency to dismiss civil rights cases before the facts are even presented.

Given Judge Boyle’s hostility towards civil rights and his willingness to substitute his personal beliefs for the law, I am concerned that Judge Boyle is particularly ill-suited to sit on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fourth Circuit is the Court of last resort for most people whose cases come before it. And, the Fourth Circuit is home to a higher percentage of African-American and minority residents than any other Circuit Court. (Associated Press, “Despite Appointment Judge Still Not on 4th Circuit,” September 21, 2000.) About 22% of Fourth Circuit residents are African-American. (Raleigh News & Observer, Boyle Unlikely to Get Easy Nod, May 10, 2001.)

People need to know that, regardless of their background, religion, race, or gender, when they enter a courtroom they will receive fair treatment and that the Judge will apply the law as it is written. Confirming a judge with Judge Boyle record on civil rights, particularly, in a Circuit where more of its citizens are likely to be disenfranchised by Judge Boyle’s decisions, sends the wrong message.

Numerous organizations advocating minority rights and equal opportunity have called and written me to voice their strong opposition to Judge Boyle’s nomination. The NAACP stated that “if Judge Boyle were confirmed his views would jeopardize the civil rights and liberties of African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities.”

The Black Leadership Forum, a confederation of many of the nation’s leading civil rights organizations, said that elevating Judge Boyle to the Fourth Circuit “would be a stinging insult to all Americans, and especially African Americans.”

Looking at Judge Boyle’s decisions, I appreciate these concerns.

I do not lightly conclude that Judge Boyle is a judicial activist hostile to the federal civil rights laws that protect Americans from discrimination. It is a conclusion reached after reading numerous decisions by Judge Boyle and reading numerous decisions reversing Judge Boyle that were written by appellate court judges on the Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court.

As a District Court Judge, Judge Boyle has had a strikingly high number of his decisions overturned by the Fourth Circuit – the Court to which he is now seeking confirmation. In fact, Judge Boyle’s reversal rate is twice as high as any other District Court Judge nominated by President Bush to a Court of Appeals.

Many of these erroneous decisions are the direct result of Judge Boyle’s tendency to decide the cases before him on the basis of his “States’ Rights” philosophy – even when that philosophy directly conflicts with the law or the facts of the case. The “States’ Rights” philosophy is the same legal theory that was for years used to prevent the federal government from stopping segregation. Today, Judge Boyle continues to use this theory to throw out lawsuits brought to remedy discrimination.

Standing alone, Judge Boyle’s strong belief in “States’ Rights” legal theory would be less of a concern. I have voted to confirm numerous judges whose political and legal views I disagree with. However, a judge must be able to set aside those views when they take the bench. A judge’s job is to apply the law, not to make it. Unfortunately, as reflected by Judge Boyle’s high reversal rate, Judge Boyle seems unable to avoid injecting his personal views into his legal decisions.

Civil Rights

For example, in Ellis v. North Carolina, Judge Boyle ignored binding Supreme Court precedent in order to dismiss a case brought by an African-American woman against her employer, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ignoring binding Supreme Court precedent that is directly on point, Judge Boyle applied his “states’ rights” legal theory and decided that state employers enjoy sovereign immunity from equal employment opportunity lawsuits under Title VII.

Under Judge Boyle’s reasoning, the Title VII federal anti-discrimination statute would not apply to any state employer, even if it were engaging in discrimination.

The Fourth Circuit reversed Judge Boyle in a brief decision that noted his failure to cite the Supreme Court’s unambiguous precedent. The legal error was so clear that the Fourth Circuit did not even bother with the typical oral arguments of the parties.

Similarly, in U.S. v. North Carolina, Judge Boyle allowed his states’ rights views to trump not only judicial precedent, but the agreement of the parties involved in the litigation. After the Department of Justice and the State of North Carolina reached an agreement to settle litigation involving allegations of gender discrimination in the hiring practices at a North Carolina state prison, Judge Boyle took the highly unusual step of rejecting the settlement.

Judge Boyle wrote that “Nothing is more offensive to the idea of federalism than the notion that the federal government will punish a state for having a non-conforming culture – for being different than the other states. . . It is most emphatically not the purpose of federal law to impose a uniformity of cultural outcome upon the individual states.”

Incredibly, Boyle characterized possible discrimination as a part of a state’s culture – and argued that the state therefore should not be subject to federal anti-discrimination laws. A panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed Boyle, again criticizing him for not considering controlling precedent.

Following the law as set forth by higher courts is one of the most basic parts of a judge’s job, yet Judge Boyle has repeatedly abandoned this responsibility when precedent conflicted with his States’ Rights views.

Disability Discrimination and “States’ Rights”

Just as Judge Boyle has ignored civil rights law because of his states’ rights views, so has Judge Boyle ignored statutory language and precedent on the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in promoting his states’ rights agenda.

In Pierce v. King, Judge Boyle aggressively applied his states’ rights doctrine in dismissing a disabled inmate’s legal claim for reasonable accommodations that would allow the inmate to participate in the prison work program that enabled inmates to reduce their sentences. Boyle ignored precedent and ruled that the federal government did not have jurisdiction to protect citizens from discriminatory acts by a state.

The Supreme Court reversed Judge Boyle, noting that an existing unanimous Supreme Court decision written by Justice Scalia, Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, had already held that the ADA applied to state prisons.

At his Judiciary Committee hearing, in answering questions from Senator Kennedy, Judge Boyle attempted to justify this decision and others involving the ADA by saying that his decisions were consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Tennessee v. Lane. Upon reading the transcript of the hearing, Professor Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke Law School wrote me to say that he “was very concerned that Judge Boyle’s answers to Senator Kennedy’ questions were simply wrong as to the law” and that his effort to distinguish Lane was “disingenuous.” It is particularly disturbing that even after his decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court he continues to defend them, rather than learning from his mistakes.

Law Enforcement Opposition

The diversity of opposition to Judge Boyle is notable. Not only are civil rights organizations against Judge Boyle, but he is strongly opposed by the law enforcement community. Numerous law enforcement organizations have urged that Judge Boyle not be confirmed for what they characterize as a record of incompetence, hostility toward police officers, and misleading answers to the Judiciary Committee.

John Midgette, Executive Director of the North Carolina Police Benevolence Association stated that “Judge Boyle represents a direct threat to the law enforcement profession and to our Constitutional and civil rights.” He went on to say that the Police Benevolence Association had “never before taken a position in opposition to one of the President’s judicial nominees. We are compelled to do so because of Judge Boyle’s embarrassing record.”

Similarly, the National Center for Women & Policing, which had never opposed a nominee to the federal judiciary found that “Judge Boyle’s dismal record with respect to the constitutional rights of law enforcement officers, and in particular his rulings regarding gender discrimination claims in United States v. North Carolina, are so troubling that we urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject his nomination.”

Conclusion

As a district court judge, Judge Boyle repeatedly placed his states’ rights views above the law. This judicial activism has no place on a federal Court of Appeals, and particularly not on the Fourth Circuit. Accordingly, I will vote against Judge Boyle’s nomination and urge the rest of the Committee to do the same.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Bob Stevenson (202) 224-4445

June 15, 2005 Amy Call (202) 224-1865

Nick Smith (202) 224-3355

FRIST COMMENTS ON ROBERTS’ BOLTON PROPOSAL

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) made the following statement today regarding Chairman Roberts’ proposed compromise on the nomination of John Bolton to be UN Ambassador:

“I applaud Sen. Roberts’ initiative to strike a compromise that makes sense. The intelligence committee is the appropriate Senate body to handle this matter.

“I understand the names he vetted with the DNI were taken straight from the Minority Report of the SFRC. They are also names of persons that were raised by Sen. Dodd and Sen. Biden during committee hearings and deliberations. The fact that none of these names were in any of the 10 intercepts confirms what Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller have said previously---John Bolton did nothing improper in requesting these intercepts, and there is no reason for concern.

“It is now time to move forward and give John Bolton a straight up-or-down vote to be UN ambassador. This post has gone unfilled now for nearly 5 months, and at a time when pressing issues such as genocide in Darfur, Iran’s nuclear program, North Korea’s nuclear threats, and continued mismanagement and corruption at the UN are the stories of the day.”

-30-

05-219

For Immediate Release

Thursday, June 16, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

REID FLOOR STATEMENT ON BOLTON NOMINATION

Remarks as prepared:

Yesterday morning I came to the floor to provide an update on the status of the Bolton nomination. As I said then and I repeat now, Senate Democrats have had a clear and consistent position on this matter: If the Administration works in good faith to give the Senate the information it requires, Senate Democrats are ready to immediately give this nomination an up or down vote.

We are not going on a fishing expedition here. Democrats are seeking clearly defined and specific information about two very important issues that bear directly on John Bolton’s fitness to represent this great country at the United Nations:

Did Mr. Bolton attempt to exaggerate what Congress and the American people would be told about Syria’s alleged WMD capabilities?

Did Mr. Bolton use, and perhaps misuse, highly classified intelligence intercepts to spy on bureaucratic rivals who disagreed with his views or for other inappropriate purposes?

At the time I made those remarks, sadly, the Administration and Senate Republicans had taken the position for the past month or more that nothing needed to be provided to the Senate on either of these issues.

Last evening the Chairman of the Intelligence came to the floor to announce that he had attempted, “one last good faith effort to alleviate [Senate Democratic] concerns.” These questions were directed to a member of the Intelligence Committee or a member of the Armed Services Committee. They were directed at the White House.

Mr. President, let’s take a look at the Chairman’s efforts. They completely ignored one of the two issues on which we are seeking further clarification, namely whether Bolton attempted to exaggerate what Congress and the American people would be told about Syria’s alleged WMD capabilities.

Let me remind my colleagues that this is no small matter. Concerns about this Administration hyping intelligence cannot be dismissed lightly. U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq today largely because this Administration told the Congress and the American people that Iraq not only possessed stockpiles of WMD but was also capable of using them against us and our allies.

Subsequently, we have learned that the Administration’s own investigator concluded Iraq did not possess either the stockpiles or the means of delivery. And just as importantly, there are a series of unanswered questions about whether senior officials in this Administration dramatically and intentionally hyped this threat to justify their desire to invade Iraq.

So Mr. President you can see why we believe it is no small matter for us to learn whether Mr. Bolton was a party to other efforts to hype intelligence.

Let’s be clear about what is happening in Washington and the Senate today. We have a White House that continues to drive a radical agenda, determined to consolidate its power and abuse it when necessary to push its unpopular policies. This disagreement over the Bolton nomination is not about partisan politics, ideology, or even reform at the United Nations. It is about whether we permit this Administration yet again to walk roughshod over the Constitution and our duty as Senators to ensure that our country is represented by qualified and ethical individuals.

Instead of joining the Senate to protect and respect the Constitution – this administration has decided to pick a fight with harsh rhetoric and negative attacks as it concentrates its power and continues its secretive approach to governing.

Instead of joining us in a bipartisan conversation to reform Social Security – this Administration has pursued a risky privatization scheme that will slash benefits and threaten our economy with massive new debt. This Administration has also acquiesced to its radical right wing base and supported the intrusion of the federal government into the private lives of families.

And just as troubling as all of this, when the Administration fails to get what they want they rev up the negative attack machine and set it to slash and burn. The pattern could not be clearer and the American people are joining us to say enough is enough.

For months now, Democrats have been talking about reforming Washington and focusing on the issues that affect the lives of American families. Our work on the energy bill this week is a fine example of this. We have a bipartisan bill that we hope to continue to improve on the floor over the next days and weeks. Americans are sick and tired of getting caught in the crossfire of partisan sniping so let’s continue to join together in the commonsense center and do the work that the American people sent us here to do.

So I end as I began, if this Administration – like previous Administration – respects the requests of the Senate, we will immediately move to grant Bolton an up or down vote. I stand by that pledge today.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Susan Wheeler (202) 224-5150

June 15, 2005 Lindsay Nothern (208) 344-1108

***SATELLITE FEED AVAILABLE***

CRAPO COMMITS TO KEEP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDS

Encourages men to participate in awareness and prevention efforts

Washington, DC – Idaho Senator Mike Crapo told participants at a national domestic violence prevention forum in Washington, DC, today that he is committed to preserving a federal trust fund dedicated to victims of crime related to domestic violence. During the speech to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Crapo also called on men to take a larger role in preventing domestic violence by mentoring and serving as examples for other men.

Crapo has also signed on to co-sponsor the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which has just been introduced in the Senate. The measure will provide $795 million a year over a five-year period in grants to states and localities to address all aspects of violence against women. Shelters and services in Idaho are funded to a large extent with federal dollars.

“Men have a particularly important role to play in raising awareness of and preventing this terrible crime,” Crapo told the National Network gathering. “As responsible and moral partners, we must step up to the plate and set an example in our homes and communities, by not tolerating destructive behavior and by confronting those who persist in this behavior. Sexual and domestic violence is not a ‘women’s issue;’ it is society’s issue that poisons communities regardless of economics, race, or whether the community is rural or urban.”

Crapo noted progress is being made to preserve the $1.2 billion set aside in the Victims Of Crime Act (VOCA) trust fund. The VOCA funding is collected through federal fines, not through any taxes, but the Office of Management and Budget wants to transfer the dollars into the general fund. Crapo has led the effort thus far in the Senate to stop the transfer. The issue is pending in a Senate subcommittee; a similar committee in the House has already rejected the idea.

“Overall cuts in the federal budget are necessary, but fiscal restraint can be done responsibly,” Crapo told the group. “We cannot discontinue valuable, life-saving programs that rescue and safeguard women, children and men who are victims of domestic violence. I support full funding for the Violence Against Women Act and will continue to see that needed resources are made available. The reauthorization this year is more than double the amount of the original bill eleven years ago and it represents an increase of $66 million over the bill passed in 2000.” Crapo encouraged the group to advise lawmakers in their states about the need for the legislation.

Crapo also noted passage of the VAWA legislation is vitally important to tribal members, many of which do not have immediate assistance available. “VAWA has a specific section addressing the crisis of violence against Indian women. Statistics nationally show that Native American women are stalked, battered and raped at a much higher rate than any other group of people,” Crapo said. “Under current law, tribal governments cannot impose sentencing or fines commensurate with the crimes of rape and battery on non-natives. Laws must be changed in order that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.”

A satellite feed of Crapo’s remarks to the National Network to End Domestic Violence today in Washington, DC is available:

Today

1:45—2:15 p.m. Mountain Time / 12:45 p.m.—1:15 p.m. Pacific Time

C-Band

Galaxy 3

Transponder 7 Horizontal

Downlink Frequency 3840

Standard Audio

FOR INTERESTED MEDIA: A radio actuality is available by calling 1-800-545-1267. Press 327 at any time during or after the greeting and instructions. If you encounter any difficulties with the system, please contact Susan Wheeler at the above number. You can also access the actuality through the Internet at www.senate.gov/src/radio/crapo.

# # #

To directly link to this news release, please use the following address: http://crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=238943

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Allison Dobson / Maureen Knightly

202.224.3254

Statement of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

New Evidence of Political Interference into Tobacco Litigation

Calls on DOJ to Immediately Cease Any Possible Settlement Negotiations while an Investigation into Political Misconduct is Pursued

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) released the following statement today in response to new evidence of political interference into litigation against the Big Tobacco by the U.S. Department of Justice:

“Every day a new revelation seems to surface suggesting serious inconsistencies and political interference in the Department of Justice’s case against Big Tobacco. Last week we learned that after years of pursuing the public’s case against Big Tobacco, the government made a sudden change of course and put the tobacco companies’ financial interest ahead of the health interests of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Then it was reported that government attorneys pressured their own witnesses to alter their testimony to favor tobacco companies. And today we learn that those same attorneys argued just one month ago for the stricter penalties they later sabotaged.

“Fortunately, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility has opened an investigation into political interference in this case as I and other Senators requested.

“As evidence of political interference into this case continues to mount, and an investigation of that interference is pursued it should be crystal clear that any and all settlement negotiations must cease until we can be sure the government has the interest of their client—the American people—at heart.

“The facts are clear, convincing and simple. Big tobacco companies spent decades—and billions of dollars—misleading the American people in order to hook them on a deadly habit that kills 400,000 Americans each and every year. Today, they must face the consequences appropriate to this conduct.”

-- 30 --

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein on

Detention of Enemy Combatants at Guantanamo Bay

Washington, DC – At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today said that she is concerned that America’s policy on the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is failing. The following is the text of her statement:

“I want to begin by thanking Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy – today’s hearing is, in my view, timely and extremely consequential.

I am increasingly concerned that our nation’s policy concerning the detention and interrogation of prisoners taken in Iraq and elsewhere in the course of the ‘War on Terrorism’ is deeply flawed in both conception and implementation.

First, let me make clear my view that in this modern world of asymmetric warfare, non-state actors, and unconventional threat, there is an absolute necessity to have a program to securely hold prisoners, effectively interrogate them, and where appropriate, prosecute them under our civil or military laws.

But I also believe that any such program needs to meet three basic tests: (1) is it legal; (2) is it right; and (3) does it work. I fear that our current course of action fails all three tests.

To address these tests, and gather the facts necessary to understand the current situation, last week I wrote to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, asking twelve important questions, which I believe are a starting point for our inquiry. Last night, I received an interim response to four of my 12 questions – and these had been previously disseminated and only focused on Guantanamo. I look forward to receiving answers to my remaining questions. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be introduced into the record.

The first test is a legal test, and I believe our witnesses can speak to this test today. It is whether the entire program, including the conditions of incarceration, the techniques of interrogation, and the procedures for determining guilt and innocence, meet standards of American law, and our obligations under binding international treaties. This includes questions such as:

Are we adhering to our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture? Are we adhering to U.S. law prohibiting torture? Do the procedures in place meet legal and constitutional due process standards?

In my view this is a relatively simple, objective test, and amenable to a lawyerly inquiry. There should be no ambiguity – if it is against the law, or violates our nation’s obligations under treaties, we do not do it.

The second test is one of policy. It my strong view that it is not enough to know what we can do under law; we have an obligation to examine what we should do in light of our nation’s ethical and moral history. Our soldiers (as well as our Intelligence Agencies) have a long and honorable tradition of ethical behavior. For more than two hundred years we have prided ourselves on being different – different from the Nazis; different from the Soviets; different from al Qa’ida. Simply put, there are some things that Americans do not do, not because it is illegal, or some lawyer says we cannot, but because it is wrong.

I am increasingly concerned that we are failing this second test. Our “policy on torture” has become obscure, complicated and ever-changing. I sit on two committees with jurisdiction, and have sat through hours and hours of hearing and briefings – I do not think I have a very good idea of what, if anything, our policy consists of. Frankly, the Administration’s repeated statements about “wherever possible adhering to law” are unhelpful. The rules of engagement for our armed forces and intelligence agencies should be clear and simple, and in accord with our basic values. An infantryman should not need to be a graduate of a law school to know what to do with a prisoner.

The third test is a practical one – does what we are doing work? Put aside the legal and moral issues which lie at the heart of the first two tests. For argument’s sake, put aside what the law is, or what is right or wrong, and focus only on whether U.S. interests are being furthered by our policy. My question is this: Does the value of the intelligence gathered from interrogations outweigh the self-evident harm being done to the perception of America in the rest of the world? In other words, are we creating more terrorists and insurgents than we are stopping?

From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo, to allegations that there is a constellation of other prisons being run by America around the world, we are being watched, and watched closely. There are literally millions of young men throughout the Muslim world who are deciding as we speak whether to take up arms against us, or work towards peaceful resolution of complex issues.

The bottom line: I am increasingly concerned that we are failing on all three tests. The legality of our procedures is suspect. The ethics and morality of our methods is in question. And, perhaps worst of all, it simply may not be helping us win the war on terrorism.

I hope that today’s hearing marks the beginning of a new approach to this issue. I hope that the Congress will refocus and intensify its involvement in this issue. I hope the Administration will be more forthcoming and engaged in this effort. I hope that we can work together to ensure that American can fight, and win, a 21st Century war, with out damaging the core values forged in wars of the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries.

It must be remembered – American soldiers beat the forces of Nazism and Fascism; and beat the forces of Communist totalitarianism, without giving up what makes us Americans. We can and must do the same today. Usama bin Ladin and his ilk are dangerous and powerful. But they are not, fundamentally, different from other evils which America has fought against, and defeated.”

###

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator - Texas
CONTACT: DON STEWART
(202) 224-0704 office (202) 365-6702 cell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 15, 2005

CORNYN: IF WE CLOSE GITMO, WHICH STATE IS GOING TO HOUSE THE TERRORISTS?

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, Chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee, made the following statement Wednesday regarding the Judiciary Committee hearing on detainees at GITMO:

“Those who claim that we should close GITMO have yet to provide a viable alternative. But perhaps that is because there simply aren’t many good alternatives to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and I can’t imagine any Senator or Congressman that would want to have some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists housed in their state. And certainly they are not suggesting that we simply set them free.

“It’s important to remember that not only are the terrorists held there in a place where they can no longer harm Americans, they are also producing critical intelligence information. We simply must have a facility like the one at Guantanamo where we can gather the intelligence that’s important to saving American lives.

“The detainees at GITMO are terrorists whose goals include killing as many Americans as possible. They need to be incarcerated, they need to be interrogated. They include al Qaeda member and bin Ladin chauffer Salim Hamden and Mohamed al Qatani—the “20th hijacker”—who was captured after fleeing the fighting in Tora Bora. And at least 12 of the detainees who have been released from detention have returned to the battlefield to fight against the United States or its allies. Closing the detention center and releasing the terrorists now held there would unleash another wave of terror, and I will not support that effort.

Information gleaned from interrogation sessions at GITMO, specifically interrogations of Mohamed al Qatani, includes insights into al Qaeda’s operations, funding and tactics; detailed descriptions of fellow al Qaeda supporters and their activities in the United States; information on infiltration routes used by al Qaeda operatives for border crossings; and detailed information on the ‘dirty thirty’ group of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards who are also held at GITMO.

Sen. Cornyn is a member of both the Senate Armed Services and Judiciary Committees. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.

www.cornyn.senate.gov

A Nebraskan’s View

Senator Ben Nelson

June 15, 2005

MEMORIES OF A GREAT NEBRASKAN

By the time you read this a great Nebraskan will have been laid to rest. J. James Exon was a leader on the state and national scenes for 26 years. He was a dear friend, mentor and confidant and I shall miss him.

It was with a great deal of sadness that I served as a pallbearer at his funeral. It is with much pride and happiness that I share with you a few fond memories of Jim Exon.

Jim Exon understood Nebraskans like no one else which explains his popularity with the people of this state. He loved all of us and in turn we loved him back.

He was a Democrat in a highly Republican state, yet he never lost an election in 2 campaigns for Governor and 3 for United States Senate. He understood that Nebraska is a populist state more than it is a partisan state. Most Nebraskans judged him on what he said and what he did, not on his political registration.

Jim Exon was a common man. Nebraskans will remember Jim Exon as one of the greatest leaders Nebraska ever had. Anyone who travels around Nebraska today can see the continuing legacy from his quarter century of public service.

Jim Exon built on the Nebraska tradition of working together. In that way he carried on the legacy of another giant in Nebraska’s history, Senator George Norris. Norris founded the unicameral legislature in an effort to improve the workings of government and to achieve results. Jim Exon had the same philosophy.

I had the honor of serving in then-Governor Jim Exon’s cabinet as Nebraska Director of Insurance. He has been a friend and mentor ever since even as I have followed him as Governor and U.S. Senator. I would frequently call him to seek advise and he would often call to offer it. Now, those calls will cease but I don’t think I’ll ever stop learning from Jim Exon.

The people of Nebraska always appreciated Jim Exon in life as they do now in death. We will miss him but we can all take comfort in the fact that his fingerprints are on more than a quarter century of our history and Nebraska and the United States of America are far better places because of his generous service.

As a former poker buddy of Jim Exon’s I can say that the man was driven to win. He was surprised by those who didn’t try to beat him. That attitude carried over into his public life and is “part and parcel”, which is a phrase he loved, of the reason so many Nebraskans are fond of him. He made you feel like he was on your side. He made you feel your issues were important. And most of all, he made you feel proud to be a Nebraskan.

Those in public life must face the last great scrutiny when they leave this world for the next. Their careers are examined again. Their friends and foes get one last unanswered say. In the case of Big Jim Exon, who liked to have the last word, I know this must be driving him crazy.

In the case of Jim Exon the last word goes to Nebraska, the state and the people he loved so dearly. The State of Nebraska will miss Jim Exon, his wisdom, his humor and his common sense. He is one Nebraskan who from start to finish, and through every day, truly did lead ‘the good life.’

#####

U.S. Senator Ken Salazar

Member of the Agriculture, Energy and Veterans Affairs Committees

2300 15th Street, Suite 450 Denver, CO 80202 | 702 Hart Senate Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES

June 15, 2005
CONTACT: Cody Wertz – Press Secretary

202-228-3630

Jen Clanahan – Deputy Press Secretary

303-455-7600

SEN. SALAZAR TO DISCUSS “SET AMERICA FREE” ENERGY INDEPENDENCE STRATEGY

WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Senator Ken Salazar will discuss this week’s Senate business, including the energy bill that is currently under debate, on his weekly media conference call. Senator Salazar will lay out the steps necessary to “Set America Free” from dependence on foreign oil and create an America with a responsible, diversified energy strategy that will be stronger and have a more robust economy. His proposal is to progress these goals through renewable energy and fuels, through efficiency and conservation, and through a balanced approach to diversification.

NOTE: This morning Senator Salazar is a guest speaker at the Energy Efficiency Forum in Washington, D.C. Along with Salazar other speakers at the forum will include President Bush, former Michigan Governor and current president of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) John Engler and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

The conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, June 15, at 12:55 P.M. EDT/10:55 A.M. MDT.

The call enables Colorado media outlets to receive updates about the U.S. Senate for their local audience. There will be time available for questions from the press after Senator Salazar’s statement.

This call will be a conference call - instructions to call in are listed below.

WHO: United States Senator Ken Salazar

WHAT: Weekly Press call

WHERE: Call toll free: 1-866-909-2663

Meeting ID: 3527590

WHEN: 12:55 P.M. EDT/ 10:55 A.M. MDT, Wednesday, June 15, 2005

IMPORTANT – To improve the quality of the call please always mute your phone when not speaking, do not place the conference call on hold and always minus out the call from your mix (for radios).

# # #

Cody Wertz,

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Ken Salazar

202-228-3630 office

202-674-7656 cell

For Immediate Release

Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939

Marc Comer, Senator Kerry, 202-224-8496

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

DEMOCRATS TO UNVEIL REPORT ON IMPACT OF REPUBLICAN PRIVATIZATION PLAN ON SMALL BUSINESSES

Washington, DC- Senator Byron Dorgan, Chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, Senator John Kerry, Ranking Member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Francis Cavanaugh, Former CEO of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Dallas Salisbury, President and CEO of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, and Mrs. Leonor Rodríguez, a small business owner, will join to unveil a new report by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee on the impact that the Republican proposal to privatize Social Security will have on small businesses.

President Bush’s Social Security privatization plan would cut benefits for small business owners and employees who rely on Social Security as their sole source of retirement income, while burdening small business owners with costly administrative requirements to establish and maintain private accounts.

WHO: Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman, Democratic Policy Committee

Sen. John F. Kerry, Ranking Member, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee

Francis Cavanaugh, Former CEO, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board,

Dallas Salisbury, President and CEO, Employee Benefit Research Institute

Mrs. Leonor Rodríguez, Owner, Editorial El Mundo

WHAT: Roundtable and release of report on the impact of the Republican proposal to privatize Social Security on small businesses

WHEN: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 2:00 PM ET

WHERE: Room 512, Hart Senate Office Building

###

I’ll send out a notice on when the members will record their votes on whether to recommend the legislation as soon as that’s scheduled. It should be sometime this afternoon in conjunction with full Senate votes. There won’t be any discussion; members will check in with our chief clerk and record their votes. After that, I’ll send out the results when they’re available. – Jill G.

Opening Statement of Chairman Grassley

Senate Finance Committee Consultative Consideration of

the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Today the Committee will be reviewing, and making informal recommendations on, proposed legislation to implement the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. Before we begin with the technical review of the proposed bill, let me put this agreement in context. Over twenty years ago Congress first opened our markets to products from Central America and the Caribbean. We did so because, at that time, Central America was a region in political and economic upheaval. Civil strife, wars, and political violence were part of daily life. As a result, too many innocent people lost their lives, and many more their livelihood.

I think the headlines on this chart accurately reflect the gruesome and chaotic violence of the time. Twenty years later, we see a very different Central America. Through sustained political and economic engagement with the region, including the continuation of unilateral trade preferences for over twenty years, we have a very different story today. And today, with the progressive leadership of their governments, the people of Central America are enjoying the fruits of democracy -- elected governments and generally stable civil societies. These leaders now want to cement the gains of the past twenty years and build a better foundation for the future. Part of this progressive vision is articulated in the CAFTA. Remember, the idea of creating a CAFTA came not from the United States, but from the leaders of Central America who first broached the idea of strengthening our trade relations at the Quebec Summit of the Americas in April 2001.

But, just because the idea was theirs doesn’t mean that our nation won’t substantially benefit from the agreement. This chart shows the status quo. On one side, you can see the situation today. A one-way street. On the other side, you can see the result of CAFTA implementation. A two-way street. The fact is, passage of CAFTA is good for both our geopolitical and economic interests. We have very little to lose and much to gain from its passage. In contrast, we have much to lose and little to gain by its defeat.

Former President Carter makes this point well in a letter he recently wrote that, through CAFTA: “... our own national security and hemispheric influence will be enhanced with improved stability, democracy, and development in our poor, fragile neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean.” The letter continues: “There are now democratically elected governments in each of the countries covered by CAFTA. In negotiating this agreement, the presidents of the six nations had to contend with their own companies that fear competition with U.S. firms. They have put their credibility on the line, not only with this trade agreement but more broadly by promoting market reforms that have been urged for decades by U.S. presidents of both parties. If the U.S. Congress were to turn its back on CAFTA, it would undercut these fragile democracies, compel them to retreat to protectionism, and make it harder for them to cooperate with us.” Clearly, the stakes here are high.

Now, today the committee will be reviewing legislation designed to implement this important trade agreement. The committee’s informal consideration of the legislation is part of the consultative process envisioned in Trade Promotion Authority. It is an informal act that is not required as part of Trade Promotion Authority. Still, I think it is important to review the bill in a public forum, provide an opportunity to comment on the bill, and propose potential legislative changes.

I’d like to remind members that TPA specifically states that implementing legislation should contain only measures that are “necessary or appropriate” to implement the agreement. I’d note that some amendments that have been filed go far beyond that which is necessary or appropriate to implement the agreement. Some of these create entire new federal programs that are totally unrelated to this agreement. Others trample on the jurisdiction of other Senate committees.

And, while the recommendations made here today are not legally binding on the administration, how we use the process sends a strong signal to the administration about how we expect the process to be used. If we want others to respect the parameters laid out in the statute, we should do the same. Thus, if we abuse the process by recommending that unrelated items be included in the bill, we should not be surprised if this or future administrations do the same.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Information Contact:

June 14, 2005 Bill Duhnke (202) 224-1700

Chairman Roberts Responds to Senators Biden and Dodd on Bolton Nomination

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today sent the following letter to Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Joe Biden (D-DE) regarding the nomination of Under Secretary John Bolton to be the United States Representative to the United Nations.

At issue was the request by Senators Biden and Dodd to disclose the names of U.S. citizens in National Security Agency intercepts legally and appropriately reviewed by Under Secretary Bolton at the U.S. Department of State.

“At the request of my colleagues,” Chairman Roberts said, “I have directed staff to examine Under Secretary Bolton’s use of intelligence and after careful review, the Senate Intelligence Committee continues to find no evidence of abuse. I am prepared to assist in any reasonable effort to examine the facts, but an examination of upwards of 40 names appears to be an effort to preserve the issue, not to resolve it.”

The following is the text of the letter:

“I am writing to bring you both up to date regarding efforts to resolve questions relating to the nomination of Under Secretary John Bolton to be the United States Representative to the United Nations. In April 2005, Chairman Lugar wrote to me requesting assistance with some intelligence issues related to your committee’s consideration of Mr. Bolton’s nomination. Chairman Lugar noted that questions had arisen with regard to requests by Mr. Bolton for the names of U.S. persons that were redacted in intelligence intercept reports. In my response to Senator Lugar, which I copied to Senator Biden, I explained why I believed that Mr. Bolton’s requests were not only entirely appropriate, but routine. As far I as could determine, that was the end of the matter. Now, based on statements by you and some of your colleagues, concerns about Mr. Bolton’s requests for identities have apparently expanded to include whether Under Secretary Bolton sought these identities to exact some form of retribution against certain government officials. Although the Committee’s Minority Report and statements made by minority members seem to indicate that the universe of these officials is very small, I was surprised to see in your recent letter that the universe is indeed expanding to include “approximately three dozen ‘names of concern.’”

“In the Committee’s Minority Views, I can find reference to only six government officials that Mr. Bolton is alleged to have either sought to remove or

displayed “abusive behavior” toward. Two of these individuals are not identified in the report and their names do not appear to have been provided to the Foreign Relations Committee. This leaves a total of four named individuals I believe your Committee would want to cross reference with the redacted intercept names.

“Intelligence Committee staff contacted your respective staffs to attempt to clarify this matter. Senator Biden’s staff was unable to provide any additional information about the need for three dozen names except that the names may include non-government officials as well. Senator Dodd’s staff said that a larger list of names was necessary because of numerous issues raised during the nomination process regarding Libya, North Korea, and China, in addition to the Cuba matter. My staff was informed by Senator Dodd’s representative that reading the Foreign Relations Minority Views would illustrate these points. I asked my staff to once again examine the Minority Views.

“Upon review, my staff did not find any references to other individuals against whom Mr. Bolton is alleged to have sought retribution. The Minority Views did not highlight any issues related to Libya, other than the repeated unsubstantiated assertion that the Libya success resulted because “Mr. Bolton was kept off the case.” On North Korea, the Minority Views noted only that Mr. Bolton may not have made all of the changes to a speech on North Korea suggested by the former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea and described an exchange between the two in which the former Ambassador thanked the Under Secretary for making the changes that he did. Finally, the issues described related to China involved a member of Mr. Bolton’s staff, not Mr. Bolton who was out of the country at the time. There is no indication in the report that Mr. Bolton even took an interest in the matter after his return. If there is any additional information that may justify “approximately three dozen ‘names of concern’” of which I am not aware, I would be happy to receive it. Absent such additional information, I cannot support a request which suggests that three dozen names are pertinent to the intercept issue.

“While I cannot recommend this proposal to the Director of National Intelligence, as we discussed, I could recommend a more focused request that is consistent with your public statements and Minority Views. Such a request may be a basis for moving this process forward, a goal that we all share. Once again, I am at a complete loss as to how your list of “names of concern” could have grown to nearly forty. I urge you to reconsider the scope of your request and determine which names are actually supported by the findings of your committee. I stand ready to assist any reasonable effort to resolve intelligence-related matters as they pertain to Under Secretary Bolton’s nomination.”

###

S:\Press\News Releases\2005\biden.dodd.intel.letter.pr.wpd

Sarah (Ross) Little

Communications Director

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Kansas

202-224-4774

202-224-3514 fax

sarah_little@roberts.senate.gov

109 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

DEMOCRATIC LEADERS CALL FOR MORE AMBITIOUS ENERGY INDEPENDENCE GOALS

Washington, DC - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, and Senator Maria Cantwell will hold a press conference to lay out the ambitious Democratic agenda for energy independence TOMORROW, June 15 at 10:00 AM in Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rm. 192. By encouraging innovation and American know-how, Democrats want to put America on the path towards independence from Middle East oil.

Democrats were happy to see a bipartisan energy bill come out of committee, but this bill doesn’t go far enough in strengthening our national security, spurring our economy and protecting our environment.

WHO: Senators Reid, Durbin, Cantwell

WHAT: Press Conference to call for energy security.

WHERE: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Rm. 192

WHEN: TOMORROW, June 15 at 10:00 AM

###

Leahy Statement from the Congressional Record, Out Today:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSULTATION ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

JUNE 13, 2005

On Consultation

I spoke on the Senate floor last week about the benefits to all if the President were to consult with Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle on important judicial nominations. I return today to emphasize again the significance of meaningful consultation on these nominations because it bears repeating given what is at stake for the Senate, the judiciary and this country.

In a few more days the United States Supreme Court will complete its term. Last year the Chief Justice noted publicly that at the age of 80, one thinks about retirement. I get to see the Chief from time to time in connection with his work for the Judicial Conference and the Smithsonian Institution. Sometimes we see each other in Vermont or en route there, and I am struck every time by his commitment. I marvel at him. I think that his participation at the inauguration earlier this year sent a powerful positive message to the country. I know that the Chief Justice will retire when he decides that he should, not before. He has earned that right. I have great respect and affection for him and he is in our prayers.

In light of the age and health of our Supreme Court Justices, speculation is accelerating about the potential for a Supreme Court vacancy this summer. In advance of any such vacancy, I have called upon the President to follow the constructive and successful examples set by previous Presidents of both parties who engaged in meaningful consultation with Members of the Senate before selecting a nominee. This decision is too important to all Americans to be unnecessarily embroiled in partisan politics.

I said again last week that should a vacancy arise, I stand ready to work with President Bush to help him select a nominee to the Supreme Court who can unite Americans. I have urged consultation and cooperation for four years and have reached out, again, over the last several months to this President. I hope that if a vacancy does arise he will finally turn away from his past practices, consult with us and work with us.

Some Presidents, including most recently President Clinton, found consultation with the Senate in advance of a nomination most beneficial in helping lay the foundation for successful nominations. President Reagan, on the other hand, disregarded the advice offered by Senate Democratic leaders and chose a controversial, divisive nominee who was ultimately rejected by the full Senate.

In his recent book, “Square Peg,” Senator Hatch recounts how in 1993, as the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he advised President Clinton about possible Supreme Court nominees. In his book, Senator Hatch wrote that he warned President Clinton away from a nominee whose confirmation he believed “would not be easy.” Senator Hatch goes on to describe how he suggested the names of Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom were eventually nominated and confirmed “with relative ease.” Indeed, 96 Senators voted in favor of Justice Ginsburg’s confirmation, and only three Senators voted against; Justice Breyer received 87 affirmative votes, and only nine Senators voted against.

The Constitution provides that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" judges. For advice to be meaningful it needs to be informed and shared among those providing it.

Those recent examples are not the only examples of effective and meaningful consultation with the Senate. According to historians, almost 150 years ago, in 1869, President Grant appointed Edwin Stanton to the Supreme Court in response to a petition from a majority of the Senate and the House. More than 70 years ago, in 1932, President Hoover consulted with Senator William E. Borah regarding who he should nominate to succeed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. According to historical reports, as has been confirmed by Republican Senators, Senator Borah counseled the President to select Benjamin Cardozo from his list of potential nominees.

Bipartisan consultation would not only make any Supreme Court selection a better one, it would also reassure the Senate and the American people that the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice has not become politicized.

Recently, a bipartisan group of 14 Senators joined together to avert an unnecessary showdown in the Senate over the effort to invoke the “nuclear option.” That would have changed 200 years of Senate tradition and the protection of minority rights. In their agreement the bipartisan coalition say the following:

“We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.”

I agree. Bipartisan consultation is consistent with the traditions of the Senate and would return us to practices that have served the country well. They are right to urge greater consultation on judicial nominations.

In that regard, I was pleased to see the President respond to a question at a news conference two weeks ago by agreeing to consult with the Senate about his nomination should a vacancy arise on the Supreme Court. I see that as a positive development. More troubling are reports that the White House plan does not include meaningful consultation at all, but a “war room” and some sort of preemptive contact to allow them to pretend they consulted without anything akin to the kind of meaningful consultation this important matter deserves. If the White House intends to follow that type of plan, it would be most unfortunate, unwise and counterproductive.

Though the landscape ahead is sown with the potential for controversy and contention should a vacancy arise on the Supreme Court, confrontation is unnecessary. Consensus should be our mutual goal. I would hope that the President’s objective will not be to send the Senate nominees so polarizing that their confirmations are eked out in narrow margins. This would come at a steep and gratuitous price that the entire nation would have to pay in needless division. It would serve the country better to choose a qualified consensus candidate who can be broadly supported by the public and by the Senate.

The process begins with the President. He is the only participant in the process who can nominate candidates to fill Supreme Court vacancies. If there is a vacancy, the decisions made in the White House will determine whether the nominee chosen will unite the nation or will divide the nation. The power to avoid political warfare with regard to the Supreme Court is in the hands of the President. No one in the Senate is spoiling for a fight. Only one person will decide whether there will be a divisive or unifying process and nomination. If consensus is a goal, bipartisan consultation will help achieve it. I believe that is what the American people want and what they deserve.

If the President chooses a Supreme Court nominee because of that nominee’s ideology or record of activism in the hopes that he or she will deliver political victories, the President will have done so knowing that he is starting a confirmation confrontation. The Supreme Court should not be an arm of the Republican Party, nor should it be a wing of the Democratic Party. If the right-wing activists who were disappointed that the nuclear option was averted convince the President to choose a divisive nominee, they will not prevail without a difficult Senate battle. And if they do, what will they have wrought? The American people will be the losers: The legitimacy of the judiciary will have suffered a damaging blow from which it may not soon recover. Such a contest would itself confirm that the Supreme Court is just another setting for partisan contests and partisan outcomes. People will perceive the federal courts as places in which “the fix is in.”

Our Constitution establishes an independent federal judiciary to be a bulwark of individual liberty against incursions or expansions of power by the political branches. That independence is at grave risk when a president seeks to pack the courts with activists from either side of the political spectrum. Even if successful, such an effort would lead to decision-making based on politics and forever diminish public confidence in our justice system.

The American people will cheer if the President chooses someone who unifies the nation. This is not the time and a vacancy on this Supreme Court is not the setting in which to accentuate the political and ideological division within our country. In our lifetimes, there has never been a greater need for a unifying pick for the Supreme Court. At a time when too many partisans seem fixated on devising strategies to force the Senate to confirm the most extreme candidate with the least number of votes possible, I have been urging cooperation and consultation to bring the country together. There is no more important opportunity than this to lead the nation in a direction of cooperation and unity.

The independence of the federal judiciary is critical to our American concept of justice for all. We all want Justices who exhibit the kind of fidelity to the law that we all respect. We want them to have a strong commitment to our shared constitutional values of individual liberties and equal protection. We expect them to have had a demonstrated record of commitment to equal rights. There are many conservatives who can meet these criteria and who are not rigid ideologues.

This is a difficult time for our country and we face many challenges. Providing adequate health care for all Americans, improving the economic prospects of Americans, defending against threats, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the continuing upheaval and American military presence in Iraq, are all fundamental matters on which we need to improve. It is my hope that we can work together on many issues important to the American people, including maintaining a fair and independent judiciary. I am confident that a smooth nomination and confirmation process can be developed on a bipartisan basis if we work together. The American people we represent and serve are entitled to no less.

# # # # #

U.S. Senator Ken Salazar

Member of the Agriculture, Energy and Veterans Affairs Committees

2300 15th Street, Suite 450 Denver, CO 80202 | 702 Hart Senate Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES

June 14, 2005
CONTACT: Cody Wertz – Press Secretary

202-228-3630

Jen Clanahan – Deputy Press Secretary

303-455-7600

SEN. SALAZAR TO SPEAK AT BIPARTISAN PRESS CONFERENCE ON ENERGY BILL

WASHINGTON D.C. – United States Senator Ken Salazar will participate in a bipartisan press conference today discussing the efficiency and conservation provisions in the bipartisan Energy Bill now being considered by the U.S. Senate.

Sen. Salazar will be joining Senate Energy committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM), Senate Energy committee ranking member Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Senate Energy committee member Byron Dorgan (D-ND).

Also present will be Peter Smith, President of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Kateri Callahan, President of The Alliance to Save Energy and Steven Nadel, Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

WHO: United States Senator Ken Salazar

WHAT: Bipartisan Press Conference Discussing Bipartisan Energy Legislation

WHERE: 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington D.C.

WHEN: Today, Tuesday, June 14, 2005, 11:30 A.M. EDT/ 9:30 A.M. MDT

# # #

Cody Wertz,

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Ken Salazar

202-228-3630 office

202-674-7656 cell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Adam Elggren (202) 224-3370

June 14, 2005

BYU COUNSEL GRIFFITH CONFIRMED TO DC CIRCUIT

Washington – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) joined an overwhelming majority in the United States Senate to confirm Brigham Young University Counsel Tom Griffith to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by a vote of 73 to 24.

“Tom Griffith will be an outstanding addition to this important court,” Hatch said. “He’s a top-notch attorney who has distinguished himself as one of the best legal minds in the country. The United States Senate and BYU are just two of the institutions that have relied on his impeccable integrity, keen judgment and great expertise over the years. The D.C. Circuit and America’s judiciary need judges of Tom’s caliber. As many of his peers have noted, Tom will not only be a good judge — he will be a great one.”

Griffith currently serves as BYU’s general counsel and served as counsel to the U.S. Senate from 1995-1999, a span which included the controversial impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

# # #

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this e-mail is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named as addressees. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, publication, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please forgive the inconvenience, immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message without keeping a copy.

For Immediate Release

Monday, June 13, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939

LEADERS CALL FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE TO SECURE AMERICA

Former CIA Director Woolsey Joins Senate Democrats in Calling for Independence from Middle Eastern Oil

Washington, DC – Today, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Byron Dorgan, and Former CIA Director James Woolsey held a press conference to lay out Democratic priorities to move America towards energy independence. The Democrats discussed a bold new initiative to put America on the path towards energy independence as Democrats continue their effort to reform Washington with commonsense proposals that put the American people first.

“Anyone who is serious about national security knows we must be serious about moving our country toward energy independence,” Senator Reid said. “The Democrats’ goal is to reduce imports of foreign oil by 40 percent over the next 20 years – so that our country will never be held hostage to our dependence on foreign oil. I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues to make this goal a reality.”

Democrats are putting forth a bold new goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 40 percent in 20 years – a goal that will make America more secure, energize our economy and protect our environment. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) will lead Democrats during the debate of the Senate Energy Bill in making this important goal a part of the Energy Bill. Democrats believe being serious about national security means being serious about ending America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

“Our goal of reducing imports of foreign oil by 40% over the next 20 years is a matter of national security and economic prosperity,” Senator Durbin said. “It will not only make us safer, it will help move us toward job growth, and a healthier, cleaner environment. Leadership, investment in American ingenuity and innovation, and a commitment to succeed, will guide us to our destination.”

“We are hopelessly addicted to oil from some of the most troubled parts of the world,” Senator Dorgan said. “We can’t continue to rely, for the long term, on Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries for so much of our energy supply without doing real harm to this country. We need to get more of our energy from right here at home. Developing hydrogen fuel cells and making greater use of ethanol, two of our biggest priorities, will allow us to do just that. Simply put, energy independence means greater national security.”

###

SUMMARY OF THE CANTWELL ENERGY SECURITY AMENDMENT

In order to prevent the United States from becoming any more dependent on foreign oil imports, the Cantwell amendment would set a national, 20-year goal to import 1.5 million barrels oil per day less in 2025 than we are doing today. In other words, the Cantwell amendment would make it a national priority to achieve oil savings over the next 20 years equivalent to 40 percent of our projected foreign oil imports.

At the time of the 1973 oil embargo, our nation only imported about 28 percent its oil supply. But today, we are importing about 58 percent of our total supply—a figure that is expected to increase to 68 percent in 2025. Without federal leadership, imports are expected to grow from just over 13 million barrels per day in the first four months of 2005—to 19.1 million barrels per day in 2025.

As long as we remain dependent on oil as a primary fuel source, dependence on foreign imports will remain a geologic and economic fact of life. The U.S. sits on just 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, in stark contrast to the two-thirds located in the Persian Gulf region. In fact, the Saudi state-run oil company alone has 30 times the reserves of Exxon-Mobil, the largest American company. Today, nine of the ten reserve-richest companies in the world are owned entirely by foreign governments.

The costs of American dependence on foreign oil are staggering in economic, environmental, and security terms. A recent report from the Energy Department’s Oakridge National Lab estimated that foreign oil dependence has cost the American economy $3.6 trillion since 1970. The same report estimated oil dependence would cost the American economy $150 billion to $250 billion in 2005 alone, based on oil prices in the $35-$45/barrel range (when in fact they have actually been higher).

Meanwhile, competition for oil supplies is expected to increase dramatically over the next 20 years as developing economies industrialize rapidly and experience continued population growth. In 2003, China overtook Japan as the second largest oil consuming nation in the world. Chinese demand for oil is expected to double by 2025, nearly meeting current U.S. imports.

Growing demand in the U.S. and developing nations, the declining value of the dollar, political unrest in oil producing nations, and a perceived lack of spare production capacity in major exporting countries around the world have led institutions and firms like the International Monetary Fund and Wall Street's Goldman Sachs to predict the price of oil could climb as high as $100/barrel during some periods in the next 20-25 years.

Technology solutions already exist to dramatically increase the productivity of the United States energy supply and replace imported oil. These include numerous efficiency technologies that can easily be paid for in saved fuel costs, oil extraction technologies that can probably pull more oil from existing or “depleted” U.S. oil fields than was ever produced in the first place, and the potential for American farmers to grow cleaner burning biofuels to replace imported oil. In fact, according to an April 2005 study by the Energy Department’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, our nation has a sustainable supply of biomass sufficient to displace at least 30 percent of our overall petroleum consumption.

THE UNDERLYING BILL: Section 151 of the underlying Senate Energy Bill contains an "oil savings" provision that would direct the President to implement measures sufficient to reduce by 2015 the country's projected demand for oil by one million barrels a day. Assuming that all those savings came from import reductions, the U.S. would still be importing 14.4 million barrels a day. That's over a million barrels a day more than we import today.

THE CANTWELL ENERGY SECURITY AMENDMENT: The Cantwell amendment would strike the underlying bill's oil savings measure. It would replace it with a provision extending the planning horizon to 2025—and set a more ambitious goal, to save oil equivalent to 40 percent of our projected imports in 20 years (7.64 million barrels per day). Under the Cantwell amendment, the U.S. would be positioned to reverse the dual trends of increasing oil consumption and dependence on foreign oil supplies. In fact, when the goal is met, the U.S. would be positioned to reduce imports by 1.5 million barrels per day compared to 2005. Those savings would be equivalent to the amount of oil the U.S. currently imports from Saudi Arabia.

Uncle Sam Shouldn’t Bankroll Lifestyle Drugs

by U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, of Iowa

Every day millions of Americans benefit from the miracles of modern medicine, especially groundbreaking pharmaceutical research that’s produced life-saving prescription medicines.

Of course, paying for prescription medicines is not cheap. And I learned a long time ago, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

The federal government spends about $50 billion on prescription drugs. Next year, when the new Medicare prescription drug benefit goes into effect, it will spend even more.

As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which bears legislative and oversight authority over Medicare, I successfully steered through Congress the legislation to create the first-ever Medicare Rx benefit.

I held dozens and dozens of town meetings across Iowa to gather input from seniors, younger workers, health care professionals and community leaders during the months and months of negotiations it took to reach the bi-partisan agreement on Medicare’s biggest improvement since 1965.

As a matter of public policy, adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare was simply the right thing to do. Without it, the health care program insuring some 49 million Americans was stuck in the 1960s practice of medicine.

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 sought to strike the most reasonable balance between the need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit and its cost for hard-working taxpayers.

From my chairmanship of the tax-writing panel in the U.S. Senate, I take seriously my responsibilities to spend tax dollars wisely. Call it conscientious stewardship or a tight-fisted grip over the federal purse strings. Either way, I cringe to see one nickel wasted by the federal government.

We live in a world of limited resources. Contrary to some points of view, Congress can’t tax its way to balancing the budget. It would break the ingenuity and entrepreneurial way of life that fuels the American Dream for millions of newcomers and long-time citizens of this country.

So lawmakers must strike the right balance to budget the responsibilities of the federal government, from maintaining a strong military to providing national security, building roads and bridges, enforcing criminal, health and environmental laws, policing the nation’s borders, processing immigration and visa requests, and financing other vital services provided for law-abiding, taxpaying citizens of this country.

The bottom line that many of my colleagues in Washington conveniently forget however, is that government services are paid for entirely by taxpayers. The money coming into the Federal Treasury doesn’t grow on a tree farm near Forest City, Iowa.

This brings me to my latest effort to rein in federal spending by eliminating payment for certain lifestyle drugs under all federal health care programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicare and Medicaid alone would spend $2 billion on these drugs, including Viagra, Cialis and Levitra between 2006 and 2015.

Now I appreciate the view undoubtedly held by many that these drugs can improve one’s life. But it comes back to our world of limited resources. Scarce Medicare and Medicaid dollars would be put to better use paying for life-saving medical treatments, pain management for the chronically ill and preventive care for an aging American population.

Obviously, I’m not introducing legislation to prevent those covered by federal programs – such as Medicare and Medicaid - from obtaining prescription drugs prescribed for sexual or erectile dysfunction. Patients wanting to use these medicines to improve sexual performance are welcome to pay for them out of their own pockets. My legislation also would not prevent coverage by the federal government of these drugs for treatments not related to sexual performance.

My legislation also would address another controversy that’s cropped up recently regarding these taxpayer-financed anti-impotence drugs. A news survey released in May exposed that nearly 800 convicted sex offenders in 14 states had been obtaining Viagra through the federal-state Medicaid program. In Iowa, at least three registered sex offenders received Viagra via Medicaid from April 30 through May 20 of this year.

Lawmakers confront difficult spending decisions year after year. But this one seems like a no-brainer. This is a reasonable way Congress can conserve at least two billion federal health care dollars over the next decade. It reflects an underlying goal of the MMA to ensure access to life-saving medicines. It is good public policy for the public good that illustrates good stewardship over hard-earned tax dollars. And it would help sustain federal health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, for more Americans in the future.

109-11-05

For Immediate Release

Monday, June 13, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

REID STATEMENT ON SENATE APOLOGY FOR FAILURE TO ENACT ANTI-LYNCHING LEGISLATION

Washington DC – Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid delivered the following statement on the Senate’s Anti-Lynching Resolution today on the Senate floor.

Remarks as prepared:

Mr. President, in this Body’s two centuries of history, we’ve have done many great things. Sent men to the moon. Created schools for our kids. Fed the hungry. And extended a helping hand to struggling families.

But today, I rise to speak about one of this institution’s great failures - - its shameful refusal to enact anti-lynching legislation in the first half of the 20th Century.

Today, one of the saddest chapters in our Chamber’s history will come to a close when we apologize for the Senate’s inaction. I join my colleagues in apologizing to the deceased victims of lynchings and their surviving loved ones, and I pray this Chamber will never fail to see justice done again.

While the exact number is impossible to determine, best records indicate that since 1882, 4,749 individuals have died from lynching - - 3,452 of them African Americans.

These Americans were killed, tortured, mutilated and maimed with near impunity. Many were innocent. Most were denied due process under the law. And their killers rarely faced consequences for their actions.

The Senate’s inaction helped create a culture of acceptance towards these heinous crimes against humanity.

Photos from the book “Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America” show men, women and children donning their finest clothing and gleefully posing in front of deceased - - often mutilated - - corpses. Even worse, many photos were turned into postcards until 1908 when the Senate at least amended U.S. Postal Service regulations to forbid the mailing of lynching photographs made into postcards.

American history is rich with stories of heroes and heroines as well as patriots and patriotism; however, the lynching of so many Americans will always be a stain on our democracy.

Only after the passage of time…

Only after ever growing pressure from civil rights organizations…

Only after over 200 anti-lynching bills, condemnation in foreign nations, petitions from 7 U.S. Presidents, and outcry from the African American press and some mainstream publications did the occurrence of this horrible act decline.

It is my sincere hope that the relatives of the victims of these horrible acts will accept this Body’s sincere apology and take some solace in the Senate finally recognizing its shortcomings.

It is also my sincere hope that the Senate does not stop with this apology.

There is more work to be done. We can honor the legacy of these victims by continuing to confront the challenges in civil rights before us and enacting legislation that will protect voting rights and improve the lives of so many Americans.

First, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand strong in support of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.

Second, disparities between African Americans and whites in health care and education are still too great. I encourage this Body to support legislation that will improve health care among African Americans, improve educational resources and provide additional opportunities for African Americans as well.

In closing Mr. President, I ask that the families of the victims of these heinous crimes accept the Senate’s apology, and I pray that my colleagues will act positively on upcoming legislation that will honor the souls of those passed and that they may finally rest in peace.

###

___________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 13, 2005

Contact: John Reid

Director of Communications

(202) 224-4746

*** MEDIA ADVISORY ***

ALLEN – LANDRIEU ANTI-LYNCHING NEWS CONFERENCE

To Be Carried Live Via Satellite Starting at 4:25 p.m. EDT Today

WASHINGTON, DC –U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) and Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) will be taking part in a 4:30 p.m. EDT news conference on Senate Resolution (S.39), a formal apology from the United States Senate for its failure to enact anti-lynching legislation in the first half of the 20th century. The Senators will be joined by families of lynching victims.

Television & Radio Satellite Coordinates for News Conference Feed

Galaxy 3

Transponder 6 Vertical

Downlink 38-20

Standard Audio

The satellite window will open today, June 13, 2005, at 4:25 p.m. EDT and extend until 5:25 p.m. EDT

Feel free to record and broadcast this transmission.

# # #

This is a background document.

Senate Finance Committee Republican Staff Summary

The Informal Committee Consultative Process Under

Trade Promotion Authority Procedures

After a trade agreement is signed, the Administration works closely with the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees to develop draft implementing legislation and a draft statement of administrative action. This consultative process can include informal Committee consideration of the implementing legislation. At such time Committee members can review the implementing bill and make recommendations regarding the text of the bill. This is sometimes called a “mock markup.”

Although the Finance Committee normally convenes an informal session to review the implementing bill, it is not required to do so. No informal recommendation by the Committee is legally required by Trade Promotion Authority procedures (TPA) before the bill is formally submitted to the Congress for an up or down vote.

However, as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley has chosen to conduct the informal Committee process in a similar manner as the usual legislative process. This approach gives members of the Committee an opportunity to review and propose amendments they feel are necessary or appropriate to implement the agreement into U.S law.

Thus, during this process the standard Committee rules of 48 hours notice, operating in executive session subject to a quorum, posting documents on the Internet, and making the proceedings open to the public, are usually followed.

As a result, during informal Committee consideration of the bill, the Committee can vote on each recommended change to the bill (if any are offered). The Committee can also vote on whether to approve or disapprove of the draft implementing bill as amended. Neither the votes on recommended modifications to the bill nor the final Committee vote on whether to approve or disapprove the Committee’s recommendation, as amended, has legal effect.

The House Ways and Means Committee may follow a similar process. Should the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee approve different implementation recommendations, they can try to reconcile these differences and make a joint recommendation to the Administration. Again, the recommendation is not legally binding (or even required) under TPA.

After considering the recommendations of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, if any, the Administration will then prepare formal implementing legislation to be introduced in the House and Senate. Once this formal bill is submitted, the statutory timelines and privileged consideration under TPA apply.

After the President submits the formal bill to the House and Senate, the bill is introduced by the Majority Leader in the House (or his designee) on behalf of himself and the Minority Leader (or her designee). Similarly, in the Senate the bill is introduced by the Majority Leader (or his designee) on behalf of himself and the Minority Leader (or his designee).

Once the bill is introduced, the Congress has a maximum of 90 session days to vote on the bill.

For Immediate Release

Monday, June 13, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

LEADERS CALL FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE TO SECURE AMERICA

Former CIA Director Woolsey Joins Senate Democrats in Calling for Independence from Middle East Oil

Washington, DC - Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Byron Dorgan, and Former CIA Director James Woolsey will hold a press conference to lay out Democratic priorities to move America towards energy independence TODAY, June 13 at 2:15 PM in the Mansfield Room, S-207. With the Energy Bill coming to the Senate floor next week, these Democratic leaders will discuss their energy independence agenda.

Democrats believe that for too many years the White House and Congressional Republicans have put the needs of big oil ahead of our national security and our economy. Democrats believe that America can only be secure when it is independent of Middle East oil.

WHO: Senators Reid, Durbin, Dorgan, and Former CIA Director James Woolsey

WHAT: Press Conference to call for energy security.

WHERE: Mansfield Room, S-207

WHEN: TODAY, June 13 at 2:15 PM

###

Senate Floor Statement of Sen. Carl Levin
on the Nomination of
Richard Allen Griffin and David McKeague
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

With today’s confirmation of William Pryor, 211 of 218 of President Bush’s judicial nominees have been confirmed. After Richard Griffin’s and David McKeague’s upcoming confirmation, 213 of 218 of President Bush’s nominees will have been confirmed. What a contrast to the way that President Clinton’s nominees were treated. More than 60 of President Clinton’s nominees never received a vote in the Judiciary Committee. In the battles over judicial nominations that have consumed this body in recent years, the way those nominees were treated stands out as uniquely unfair. Even then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that this treatment of President Clinton’s nominees to the 6th Circuit was “inexcusable.”

For the last four years of the Clinton Presidency, there were Michigan vacancies on the Sixth Circuit court. The Republican majority refused to hold hearings in the Judiciary Committee on Clinton nominations for those vacancies. Indeed, one of those nominees waited longer for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee than any nominee in American history had - a hearing she ultimately never received.

Her nomination was held up for some time by former Senator Spencer Abraham in an attempt to secure the nomination of his preferred candidate to a second position. Then, the seats were kept vacant because the majority hoped that a Republican would be elected President and would put forward his nominees for those vacancies. When President Bush came to office, he not only filled positions which should have been filled by nominees of President Clinton, his nominees were allowed to go forward even over the objections of their home state senators.

Today, we will confirm two of President Bush’s Michigan nominees to the Sixth Circuit. They should be confirmed. I will vote for them. But in deciding to move on, we should not excuse the treatment of President Clinton’s nominees or the refusal of President Bush to adopt a bipartisan solution to the acknowledged wrong. A brief history of the Michigan vacancies on the 6th Circuit will hopefully also prevent a recurrence of the tactic which was used against Clinton nominees -- denial of a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, year after year.

Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Helene White was nominated to fill a 6th Circuit vacancy on January 7, 1997. Some months later, Senator Leahy, as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, came to this floor to urge that the Committee act on her nomination. This would be the first of at least sixteen statements on the Senate floor by Senator Leahy regarding the 6th Circuit nominations over a four year period.

A year and a half after Judge White was nominated -- Senator Leahy came to the floor and said: “At each step of the process, judicial nominations are being delayed and stalled.” His plea was again ignored and the 105th Congress ended without a hearing for Judge White.

On January 26, 1999, President Clinton again submitted Judge White’s nomination. That day, I urged both Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to recognize that fundamental fairness dictated that she receive an early hearing in the 106th Congress, having received no hearing in the 105th.

On March 1, 1999, a second Michigan vacancy on the 6th Circuit opened up. The next day, Senator Leahy returned to the floor, reiterated that nominations were being stalled by the majority.

The reason that the majority in the Judiciary Committee did not hold a hearing on Judge White was because of Senator Abraham’s opposition, based on his effort to obtain the nomination of Jerry Rosen, a district court judge in the Eastern District of Michigan, to the second Michigan opening on the 6th Circuit. President Clinton, however, in September of 1999, decided to nominate Kathleen McCree Lewis to that seat.

Soon thereafter, I spoke with Senator Abraham about the Lewis and White nominations, Senator Leahy again urged the Committee to act, calling the treatment of judicial nominees “unconscionable.”

On November 18, 1999, I again urged Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to proceed with hearings for the two Michigan nominees. At that time I noted that Judge White had been waiting for nearly three years and that the confirmation of the two women was “essential for fundamental fairness.” 1999 ended without Judiciary Committee hearings.

In February of 2000 Senator Leahy spoke again on the Senate floor about the multiple vacancies on the 6th Circuit. Less than two weeks later, I again made a personal plea to Senator Abraham and Chairman Hatch to grant a hearing to the Michigan nominees.

On March 20, 2000, the chief judge of the Sixth Circuit sent a letter to Chairman Hatch expressing concerns about a reported statement from a member of the Judiciary Committee that “due to partisan considerations” there would be no more hearings or votes on vacancies for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals during the Clinton administration. His concern would turn out to be well founded.

On May 2, 2000, I sent a note to Chairman Hatch, but neither Judge White’s nor Ms. Lewis’s nominations were placed on the Committee’s hearing agenda. Over the next several months, Senator Leahy came to the floor ten more times to urge action on the Michigan nominees. I also raised the issue on the Senate floor on several occasions.

In the fall of 2000, in a final attempt to move the nominations of the two Michigan nominees, I met with the Majority Leader to discuss the situation. On September 12, I sent him a letter saying “the nominees from Michigan are women of integrity and fairness. They have been stalled in this Senate for an unconscionable amount of time without any stated reason.” Neither the meeting with Senator Lott, the Majority Leader, nor the letter prompted the Judiciary Committee to act on the nominations, and the 106th Congress ended without hearings for either woman.

By this point, Judge White’s nomination had been pending for nearly four years - the longest period of time that any circuit court nominee had waited for a hearing in the history of the United States Senate. Ms. Lewis’s nomination had been pending for about a year and a half.

The experience of Kent Markus of Ohio will shed some light on these events. Professor Markus was nominated by President Clinton in February of 2000, to fill an Ohio vacancy on the 6th Circuit. Both home state senators indicated their approval of his nomination. Nevertheless, he was not granted a Judiciary Committee hearing. In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Professor Markus recollected the events:

“...To their credit, Senator DeWine and his staff and Senator Hatch’s staff and others close to him were straight with me. Over and over again they told me two things:

1) There will be no more confirmations to the 6th Circuit during the Clinton Administration, and

2) This has nothing to do with you; don’t take it personally -- it doesn’t matter who the nominee is, what credentials they may have or what support they may have.”

And Professor Markus continued:

“... On one occasion, Senator DeWine told me ‘This is bigger than you and it’s bigger than me.’ Senator Kohl, who had kindly agreed to champion my nomination within the Judiciary Committee, encountered a similar brick wall... The fact was, a decision had been made to hold the vacancies and see who won the presidential election. With a Bush win, all those seats could go to Bush rather than Clinton nominees.”

The logic of it was quite straightforward, and unfair.

Senator Stabenow and I are not alone in our view that what occurred with respect to the Michigan nominees was fundamentally unfair. As I said, even Judge Gonzales, then-White House Counsel, has acknowledged that the treatment of some nominees during the Clinton administration was, in his word, “inexcusable.”

Given that belief, Senator Stabenow and I had hoped that the Bush Administration might consider a bipartisan approach and believed that simply moving forward with Bush nominees would mean the unfair tactic used against the Clinton nominees would succeed.

The number of Michigan vacancies on the federal courts provided an unusual opportunity for bipartisan compromise. In an effort to achieve a fair resolution of the mistreatment of President Clinton’s Michigan nominees, Senator Stabenow and I proposed a bipartisan commission to recommend nominees to the President for two of the then-four open Michigan Sixth Circuit positions. Similar commissions have successfully been used in other states. Such a commission would not guarantee the recommendation of any particular individual, much less the nomination of any particular individual, since the nomination decision is the President’s, and the President’s alone. That proposal was rejected. The Administration rejected another proposal to resolve the matter suggested by Senator Leahy and endorsed by then-Governor John Engler, the Republican Governor of Michigan.

In the hopes of stimulating a bipartisan response, Senator Stabenow and I returned negative blue slips on President Bush’s nominees. Despite past practice of not proceeding in the face of negative blue slips from home state Senators, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the nominees.

In 1999, Chairman Hatch had stated, with respect to the Clinton nomination of Judge Ronnie White, “had both home-State Senators been opposed to Judge (Ronnie) White in committee, [he] would never have come to the floor under our rules, [and] that would be true whether they are Democrat Senators or Republican Senators. That has just been the way the Judiciary Committee has operated...”

During the entire Clinton presidency, it is my understanding that not a single judicial nominee got a Judiciary Committee hearing if there was opposition by one home-state Senator, let alone two. But in our case, both home-state Senators opposed proceeding with President Bush’s Michigan judicial nominees absent a bipartisan approach, but the Committee held hearings anyway.

So, the unreturned blue slips of one Republican senator was enough to block Judiciary Committee consideration of two nominees by a Democratic President. But despite negative blue slips of both home state Democratic Senators, hearings were held for 6th Circuit nominations of President Bush. That is inconsistent and unfair.

Mr. President, each of us who was here during the time knows what happened to President Clinton’s Michigan nominees to the 6th Circuit was unfair. Senator Hatch said it accurately, and I give him credit for putting it just this way, in July of 2004: “The two senators from Michigan have been very upset and if I’d put myself in their shoes I’d feel the same way.”

Well, Mr. President, it is time, however, to move on.

We support moving on with these two nominations, and hope that doing so might produce some bipartisanship and compromise. But bipartisanship can’t just be a one way street. It requires reciprocity.

In closing, I want to thank Senators who worked for a bipartisan approach for the Michigan nominees. In particular, I thank Senator Reid, who, like Senator Daschle before him, got personally involved and tried to achieve a compromise. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his extraordinary efforts over many years. I can’t tell you how many times he came to the floor and personally got involved. I want to thank Senator Specter, who has recently provided some bipartisan suggestions to the White House.

###

For Immediate Release

Thursday, June 9, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID IN OPPOSITION TO THE NOMINATION OF WILLIAM PRYOR

Remarks as prepared:

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

At the outset, let me note the unusual fact that we are considering whether to confirm this nominee to a court on which he has been sitting for over a year as a recess appointee. In my view this nomination is entitled to no special deference as a result of the nominee’s status as a sitting federal judge.

There are serious constitutional questions about the validity of Mr. Pryor’s recess appointment, and his confirmation at this time does not answer those questions with regard to cases heard by this or other recess appointees. Nor should it embolden President Bush to continue the questionable practice of appointing judges without the advice and consent of the Senate.

I oppose this nominee because his views on a wide range of vital issues are far outside the mainstream of legal thought, and I question his ability to put those views aside to decide cases impartially.

I said during the floor debate yesterday that Janice Rogers Brown is President Bush’s most objectionable nominee. But I want to be clear: on the critical issue of civil rights, William Pryor holds views that are equally offensive as those of Justice Brown. The Pryor nomination deserves to be defeated just as the Brown nomination deserved to be defeated.

Any analysis of Mr. Pryor’s judicial philosophy should begin with his views on federalism. This nominee has been a self-styled leader of the so-called “federalism revolution” in conservative legal circles, a movement that challenges the authority of Congress to remedy civil rights violations.

Now I am certainly thankful that the Framers of the Constitution had the wisdom to create a federal system that divided power between the national and state governments. But for Mr. Pryor, the word “federalism” is more than that – it is a code word for a systematic effort to undermine important federal protections for the disabled, the aged, women, minorities, labor, and the environment.

While Attorney General of Alabama, Pryor told a Federalist Society conference that Congress “should not be in the business of public education nor the control of street crimes . . . With real federalism, Congress would . . . make free trade its main domestic concern. Congress would not be allowed to subvert the commerce clause to regulate crime, education, land use, family relations, or social policy. . .”

One proponent of the federalism movement is Michael Greve, a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Greve told the New York Times that “what is really needed here is a fundamental intellectual assault on the entire New Deal edifice.” Greve said he thinks this attack on the New Deal will get a good hearing from judges like William Pryor. Greve says of Pryor: “[he] is the key to this puzzle; there’s nobody like him.”

Let’s look at some of the bedrock laws that Mr. Pryor has challenged under the banner of federalism. Mr. Pryor has argued that the federal courts should narrow, or throw out entirely, all or portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Clean Water Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the Voting Rights Act.

What would America look like this federalist revolution were to take hold in the federal courts? University of Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein describes it well:

“Many decisions of the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and possibly the National Labor Relations Board would be unconstitutional. It would mean that the Social Security Act would not only be under political but also constitutional stress . . . the Securities and Exchange Commission and maybe even the Federal Reserve would be in trouble. Some applications of the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act would be struck down as beyond Congress’s commerce power.”

As Attorney General of Alabama, Pryor had the sole power to decide what legal action the State and its agencies would take, and he used that power to file “friend of the court” briefs attacking many of these statutes. In fact, Alabama was the only state to file a brief against the Violence Against Women Act, while 36 states submitted briefs in support of the statute – which had passed Congress with bi-partisan support.

With regard to the Voting Rights Act, Mr. Pryor had the following to say when he testified before Congress in 1997: “I encourage you to consider seriously, for example, the repeal or amendment of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which is an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness, and consider modifying other provisions of the Act that have led to extraordinary abuses of judicial power.”

The Voting Rights Act is still of vital importance, and section 5 is one of its most important sections. I have grave concerns that if Mr. Pryor cannot understand the continuing need for voting rights protections for minorities, he is unlikely to rigorously enforce the Act in cases before the 11th Circuit. This is especially important since all of the states within the circuit are covered, in whole or in part, by Section 5.

Mr. Pryor has waged an assault on other civil rights laws. In the case of Alexander v. Sandoval, Pryor filed a brief for Alabama which urged the Court to drastically restrict Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in federally funded programs. In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court agreed with Pryor and held that there is no private right of action to enforce Title VI regulations. This ruling was a dramatic setback for the civil rights movement and continues to impede the enforcement of civil rights laws.

While five Supreme Court Justices agreed with Pryor about Title VI, his outside-the-mainstream views have often been rejected by the current conservative Supreme Court. In fact, the Court unanimously rejected three of Mr. Pryor’s federalism arguments: that sovereign immunity applies not only to states but to counties; that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to state prisons; and that a law barring a state from selling the personal information of its citizens without permission is unconstitutional.

It is no wonder that the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, in an editorial entitled “Right-wing Zealot is Unfit to Judge,” wrote that Mr. Pryor’s nomination “is an affront to the basic premise that a candidate for the federal bench must exhibit respect for established constitutional principles and individual liberties. Pryor may be a good lawyer and a faithful Republican, but his lifelong extremism disqualifies him for a federal judgeship.”

And there is more.

There is Mr. Pryor’s view of the Equal Protection Clause, which led him to oppose a 7-1 ruling by the Supreme Court that opened the Virginia Military Institute, a state-funded university, to women. Predictably, Mr. Pryor called that case an example of the Supreme Court being “both anti-democratic and insensitive to federalism.”

There is Mr. Pryor’s contempt for what he called the “so-called wall of separation between church and state” and his belief that this important doctrine was created by “errors of case law.” In fact, Mr. Pryor remarked at a graduation ceremony that “the challenge of the next millennium will be to preserve the American experiment by restoring its Christian perspective.”

There is his view of the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court – which has not exactly been liberal on this issue – rejected Mr. Pryor’s argument that prison guards could handcuff prisoners to a hitching post in the Alabama sun and deny them bathroom breaks or water. It also rejected his argument that it is permissible to execute the mentally retarded. It also rejected his argument that counsel need not be provided to indigent defendants charged with a misdemeanor that carries a jail sentence.

Mr. President, is this the kind of judge we want to confirm to a lifetime seat on a federal appellate court?

Do we want a judge who, when the Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of Alabama’s use of the electric chair in 2000, lashed out at the Court by saying A[T]his issue should not be decided by nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Do we want a judge who, on the day after the Supreme Court’s final ruling in Bush v. Gore, said “I’m probably the only one who wanted it 5-4. I wanted Governor Bush to have a full appreciation of the judiciary and judicial selection so we can have no more appointments like Justice Souter.” On another occasion he said: “Please God, no more Souters.”

This kind of temperament served Pryor well as a Republican politician, but this doesn’t represent the kind of judicial temperament we want on the federal bench.

The Senate must exercise its Advice and Consent responsibility with great care. In fact, we should follow Mr. Pryor’s own advice. He once told a Senate subcommittee that “your role of advice and consent in judicial nominations cannot be overstated.” I agree with him on that point. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to withhold its consent to the nomination of William Pryor.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Susan Wheeler (202) 224-5150

June 8, 2005 Dorothy Boger (202) 224-7479

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO DISCUSS SOCIAL SECURITY ON

CRAPO’S “CAPITOL WATCH”

Live statewide cable call-in program airs Tuesday, June 14th

Washington, DC – Social Security Deputy Commissioner James Lockhart will join Idaho Senator Mike Crapo to discuss the Social Security program next week during a live statewide television call-in program. Crapo’s “Capitol Watch” airs the second Tuesday of each month on most cable access stations in Idaho. The program comes as Crapo and fellow members of the Senate Finance Committee are considering proposals to maintain the solvency of Social Security.

“Doing nothing means a 25% cut in Social Security benefits for recipients sometime around the year 2040,” Crapo noted. “There are many proposals on the table and this forum will be a way to get information about the ideas about improving Social Security out there, including the option that we hold off on any reforms. I am very pleased Deputy Commissioner Lockhart would make himself available to answer the questions of Idahoans.”

Lockhart is both Deputy Commissioner and Chief Operating Officer for Social Security. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the President’s Management Council and Secretary of the Social Security Board of Trustees.

Idahoans are invited to call in and ask questions of Senator Crapo during the live telecast by calling 1-800-736-8255 (SEN-TALK). The program airs from 7 to 7:30 p.m. Mountain/6 to 6:30 p.m. Pacific on Tuesday, June 14th.

“Capitol Watch” will air in the following cities over the following cable channels:

Boise/Nampa/Caldwell 11

Coeur d’Alene 19

Idaho City 37

Idaho Falls/Blackfoot 19

Lewiston 13
Moscow 11

Pocatello 22

Twin Falls 60

The program is sponsored by the Idaho Cable Telecommunications Association (ICTA) and local cable systems throughout Idaho. Local cable systems provide access and the channel numbers may vary from month to month. To directly link to this news release, use the following address: http://www.crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=238609

# # #

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

SENATE DEMOCRATS JOIN TOGETHER TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

Senators call on Senate to take action on the National Defense Authorization Act

Washington, DC – Today, Senators Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow, Mark Dayton and Mark Pryor joined together to show how Democrats are working to support our troops and military families. Democrats believe it is time to put partisan politics aside and focus on the issues that really matter for American families and particularly for our troops and their loved ones. Senate Democrats believe we should be working on the bipartisan FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act, critical national security legislation to support our troops and their families.

“Republican Congressional leaders continue to reveal their misplaced priorities,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). “Democrats believe it’s time Congress gets its priorities straight and puts our troops ahead of politics. Every day we focus the Senate on the political goals of the Republican Party is a day the Senate is not taking action to ensure that our soldiers receive the pay raises, equipment, and increased health benefits they need and deserve. That’s just wrong.”

“The Armed Services Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that provides much-needed funding for ongoing military operations, continues the modernization of our armed forces, and improves the quality of life for our service members and their families,” said Senator Levin, Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee. “I'm hopeful that the full Senate will take up this bill in that same cooperative spirit.”

Democrats are calling for the Senate to act on the $600 million in new funds devoted to combating terrorism. Democrats also want to pass the $1.4 billion authorization on top of the President’s request for new force protection gear for our soldiers, and $171 million for up-armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles.

“Our troops deserve better than open-ended commitments and misplaced priorities at home. We’ve spent endless hours, dozens of days, and too many weeks debating radical judges and Republican attempts to abuse power,” said Senator Kennedy (D-MA). “Meanwhile, look what’s happening to the strength and security of this country. Our military forces are protecting America amidst a growing insurgency and increasingly dangerous conditions. No more delays and excuses: We need to protect our troops and do what¹s right for all Americans.”

Democrats also believe our military families need urgent care. Democrats want over $100 billion for military personnel, including costs of pay, allowances, bonuses, death benefits and permanent change of station moves. Democrats believe our uniformed service personnel deserve an across the board pay raise and an increase in the death gratuity to $100,000 for survivors of military members whose deaths were combat related. Democrats also want to increase TRICARE health benefits for the children of survivors, as our military families deserve better healthcare.

“The Army is facing many critical issues including equipment shortages, extended and expanded troop rotations and recruitment and retention shortages. Instead of working to address these vital issues the majority leadership has decided to continue to debate radical judges,” said Senator Jack Reed (D-RI). “Congress must work to ensure that our military has the proper troop level and equipment, and I urge the Republican leadership to reorganize its priorities on the Senate floor.”

“Congress needs to get back to the business of protecting our nation by moving forward on the Defense Authorization bill,” said Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN). “This bill will increase the pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform, who are serving so valiantly, and will ensure that our troops receive the best training and equipment available.”

“I am pleased that we were able to avert a nuclear showdown in the Senate, but now it is time to get back to work. I believe there is no better place to start than with the Defense Authorization Bill,” said Senator Pryor (D-AR). “We’ve all made a promise to our servicemen and women that while their away protecting us; we would be in Washington protecting them and their families. We should not let partisan judicial politics stop us from keeping that promise.”

###

SENATE DEMOCRATS SEEK TO KEEP AMERICA STRONG

AND SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

While the Republican majority has decided to spend several weeks focused on confirming several radical judges, Senate Democrats believe we should be working on the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act, critical national security legislation to support for our troops and their families. While in the middle of a war on terror and a costly war in Iraq, Democrats believe the Senate’s time would be better spent focused on strengthening our military and providing our troops with the resources and equipment they need to keep America strong.

DEMOCRATS WANT TO KEEP AMERICA STRONG:

Democrats want to debate and pass the Defense Authorization bill, which contains key provisions to support our troops and their families. Without passage of this authorization bill, key support for our troops would not be available. The bill contains:

Over $1 billion to counter terrorism and secure weapons of mass destruction.

$1.4 Billion over the President’s request for force protection gear for service members, including $171 million for up-armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles.

Over $100 billion for military personnel, including pay, allowances, bonuses, death benefits and permanent change of station expenses including key increases that will expire this year.

An increase of the death gratuity to $100,000 for survivors of military members whose deaths were combat-related.

Increased TRICARE health benefits for children of survivors.

Authority for the Navy and the Air Force to adjust their personnel levels so they will not be forced to cut critical programs to pay for more personnel than they planned for.

More than $5.3 billion in military construction and family housing projects that will not be able to proceed if this bill is not enacted.

###

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, June 8, 2005

Grassley Continues Push for Transparency, Accountability and Independence at FDA

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley is questioning the make-up of the new drug and safety board set up by the Food and Drug Administration to provide independent review of FDA-approved medicines.

In a letter sent to the acting commissioner of the nation’s drug safety agency, Grassley asked for assurances that the board could act in an unbiased way given its composition and said the deliberations of the panel should be more transparent in order to improve accountability at the Food and Drug Administration.

Grassley has conducted oversight of the Food and Drug Administration since early last year based on concerns about how the agency resisted making public information about suicide risks for teenagers using antidepressants and cardiovascular risks associated with the painkiller Vioxx. Grassley is chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, which is oversees the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Medicaid has spent more than $1 billion on Vioxx. Medicare will offer a new prescription drug benefit beginning in January. Grassley has advocated administrative and legislative reforms to make the Food and Drug Administration's work more transparent.

In April, Grassley and Sen. Christopher Dodd introduce a bill (S.930) to set up an new, independent Center inside the Food and Drug Administration to review drugs and biological products once they are on the market. In February, Dodd and Dodd and Grassley introduced a separate bill (S.470) to make clinical trial results publicly available to researchers, doctors and consumers. Both pieces of legislation have been endorsed by consumer and health groups including the Center for Medical Consumers, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the National Women's Health Network, Public Citizen, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

The text of Grassley’s letter regarding the FDA’s new Drug Safety Oversight Board follows here.

June 6, 2005

Lester M. Crawford, D.V.M., Ph.D.

Acting Commissioner

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Dr. Crawford:

On May 18, 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the members of its new Drug Safety Oversight Board (DSB). According to the FDA's policies and procedures manual for the DSB, one of the purposes of this board is to provide independent oversight and advice to the director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) regarding drug safety issues.

The new board, however, is established within CDER and has no authority to pull a drug from the market if it determines that the drug is harmful to patients. Of particular concern to me is the makeup of the DSB. The FDA states that the DSB will "enhance the independence of internal deliberations and decisions regarding risk/benefit analyses and consumer safety." But, I do not believe that this is the case for several reasons. First, a majority of the DSB members are senior managers within CDER, the center responsible for drug approvals. In fact, CDER officials hold 11 out of a total of 15 voting positions on the DSB. Even more interesting regarding the make-up of the board is the fact that only three of the 11 DSB CDER officials come from organizational subunits not directly involved in the review of new drug applications. Moreover, two of these three originally came from the Office of New Drugs, which is charged with getting new drugs on the market in the first place. So, what we have here is nothing more than the status quo. My question to you, Dr. Crawford, is: Where are the people responsible for post-marketing surveillance who have allegiances only to post-marketing safety and the public's well-being and not to the drugs that they helped put on the market in the first place?

In addition, according to FDA Week (May 20, 2005), the FDA announced in early May that the deliberations of the DSB will be private, unlike decisions that are made by FDA's advisory committees. It is surprising to me that the FDA has chosen to make DSB deliberations private at a time when the agency should be making every effort to improve transparency and accountability.

As Chairman of the Committee on Finance, I request that the FDA explain in detail how it will ensure that the DSB is truly independent and objective. In addition, please describe in detail any actions the FDA will take to assure the public that decisions made by the DSB will be unbiased.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding the issues and concerns set forth in this letter and would appreciate a response to my inquiries no later than July 1, 2005.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

REID EXPRESSES DEEP CONCERN OVER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S OUT OF TOUCH PRIORITIES

Reid Calls on the President to Put the American People Ahead of Politics

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement upon news that the Bush administration edited climate change reports.

Washington, DC. “I am deeply concerned to learn that the White House has once again put its partisan agenda ahead of the needs of the American people. By repeatedly editing government documents on global warming to cater to the special interests, the Bush administration has once again shown that it will abuse its power by any means necessary.

“What concerns me most is the pattern of behavior this incident points to. From putting radical ideology ahead of scientific reasoning on stem cell research to the politicization of the FDA and the falsification of data and records regarding the safety of Yucca Mountain, the Bush administration has shown a brazen disregard for sound science. The American people are entitled to expect that their elected officials would allow independent experts and scientific research be left untainted by political interests.

“It is time for the Republicans and the President to stop their abuse of power and focus on the needs of American people. Democrats believe it is time to cleanse Washington and restore the commonsense center to fight for the priorities of American families. By keeping America strong, expanding economic opportunity, making health care more affordable and available, putting America on the path of energy independence and making retirement more secure for all Americans, Democrats are putting the people’s agenda first. We hope the Republicans in Congress and the President will join us in this effort.”

###

GEORGE W. BUSH’S PATTERN OF ABUSING POWER BY PUTTING PARTISAN POLITICS AHEAD OF SOUND SCIENCE:

White House Edited Unfavorable Information on Climate Change Out of Official Reports. The New York Times reports today that a Bush Administration official who formerly led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in order to minimize the links between emissions and global warming. “In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved.” [New York Times, 6/8/05]

The FDA has Failed to Approve Emergency Contraception for Over-the-Counter Sale Despite the Recommendations of Its Own Advisors. Despite the fact that the FDA’s own advisory panel voted 23 to 4 to support the manufacturer’s application for over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception, the FDA has failed to approve the application. The FDA's scientific staff also strongly recommended approval of over-the-counter sale. One dissenting member of the advisory board boasted in a sermon that he wrote a memo scuttling the application’s approval, claiming, “God took that information and he used it through this minority report to influence the decision. For only the second time in five decades, the FDA did not abide by its advisory committee opinion, and the measure was rejected." [Washington Post, 4/7/05; American Health Line, 5/13/05]

George W. Bush Stands in the Way of Important Stem Cell Research. Bush has threatened to veto any bill from Congress providing for research on stem cells. This is despite evidence that research on stem cells offers the potential for important medical breakthroughs. The White House said in a Statement of Administration Policy, “The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 810, which would require Federal taxpayer dollars to be used to encourage the ongoing destruction of nascent human life.” [The New York Times, 5/21/05; White House, 5/24/05]

Scientists and Nobel Laureates Say Bush Administration Has Censored Reports: In late February, more than 60 influential scientists, including more than 20 Nobel laureates, signed a statement saying the administration had disbanded scientific advisory committees, placed unqualified people on other panels and censored reports by others when their scientific conclusions conflicted with administration policies. [New York Times, 3/30/04]

Bush Proposed Cutting Non-Defense Research and Development Programs Across the Board. George Bush has proposed cutting research and development in most non-defense research programs through FY 2009. Bush’s cuts would reduce the National Science Foundation’s budget by 4.7%, the EPA’s research budget by 15% and the Veterans’ Affairs budget by 15.1%. These cuts will stymie important scientific discoveries. [AAAS, AAAS Analysis of the Outyear Projections for R&D in the FY 2005 Budget, 5/7/04]

White House Redacted Global Warming Threat from 2003 EPA Report. The anticipated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report “intended to provide the first comprehensive review of what is known about various environmental problems” with a target release date of June 27, 2003 was greatly redacted by the White House, according to the New York Times, such that “a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures [was] whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs.” Nowhere to be found were references to studies proving that smokestack and tail-pipe emissions contribute to global warming, which threatens health and ecosystems. [New York Times, 6/19/03]

Federal Study Reporting Harm in Arctic Refuge Drilling Ordered Changed to Reflect Bush Position. Only one week after issuing a report detailing environmental damage that would be caused by oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the US Geological survey issued a second report stating that drilling would have no impact on wildlife. The revised report was “commissioned by Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton almost immediately after the initial report came out,” and “bolsters the Bush administration's case…” The Washington Post reported, “Interior [Department] sources acknowledged that Norton's political aides were behind the request…” [Washington Post, 4/7/02; New York Times, 3/30/02]

Removed Safe Sex Information From Government Web Sites: Web sites for the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control removed fact sheets on the “effectiveness of condoms” and a sex education program curriculum called “Programs that Work” which focused on HIV and highlighted several proven programs that involve condom use. [Washington Post, 10/22/02]

###s

June 6, 2005 CONTACT: Susan Wheeler (202) 224-5150

Alison Aikele (202) 224-7518

Media Advisory

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND HEARING TO ADDRESS ROLE IN FINANCIAL WORLD

Washington, DC –Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, Chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs International Trade and Finance Subcommittee, will chair an oversight hearing on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Tuesday. The witnesses will discuss the progress on reforming the IMF, Argentina’s debt repayment agreement with the IMF, China’s ten-year fixed exchange rate between the dollar and the yuan, and a potential IMF gold sale as a means of financing debt reduction for poorer nations.

The panel will feature:

Randal Quarles, Acting Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs
Dr. Allan Melzter, Professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University
Dr. C. Fred Bergsten, Director of the Institute for International Economics.

For more information regarding the hearing, visit the Banking Committee website at http://banking.senate.gov/.

###

To directly link to this news release, please use the following address: http://www.crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=238487

For Immediate Release

Monday, June 6, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

REID AND DORGAN: DEMOCRATIC PRIORITIES ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE’S PRIORITIES

Senators Call on Congress to End the Partisan Fights and Address Crucial Issues Facing American Families

Washington, DC - As Congress returns from the Memorial Day recess, Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Senator Byron Dorgan joined together today to call on the Republican majority to end their partisan power grab and join Democrats in addressing the agenda of the American people. Instead of continuing to pick fights over radical judges, Democrats stand ready to address the issues that American families face every single day.

“We’ve spent weeks and weeks debating radical judges. But we haven’t spent a single day debating a health care plan, or a jobs plan, or an education plan that will help hardworking Americans,” said Senator Reid. “Radical judges don’t deserve our attention. The American people do. Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor have jobs. They have health care. They’re doing just fine.”

The two Democratic Senators discussed the need to reform Washington and to make it work for the American people once again. Democrats want to end the partisan bickering that neglects American families and instead come together in the commonsense center. Democrats are focused on strengthening our national defense, rebuilding our economy, providing families with affordable health care, making America energy independent, and securing our retirement.

“Instead of catering to one extreme faction within their Party, I wish the Republicans would join Democrats in facing head on some of the real challenges to our country,” Senator Byron Dorgan said. “We have a positive, common-sense reform agenda to fix real problems that the American people face every day -- the exporting of American jobs, the high cost of prescription drugs, high gasoline prices and a whole host of others. We ask the President and the majority party in Congress to join us.”

Reid and Dorgan were joined by Sherry Strother, a registered nurse from Prince Georges County. Strother shared with the Senators her concern that not enough was being done in Washington today to help middle-class families with rising health care costs, skyrocketing college tuition and a sluggish economy that makes meeting ends meet harder and harder everyday.

###

Remarks of Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Leader

As prepared for delivery:

If you want to see how out-of-touch Republicans are, just look at their plans for the Senate this week.

They’ve put radical judicial nominees back on the agenda.

Democrats believe we should move in a different direction. We believe the people’s issues – not partisan issues – should be on the Senate’s front-burner.

Radical judges don’t deserve our attention. The American people do. Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor have jobs. They have health care. They’re doing just fine.

We should be talking about the problems facing Sherry Strother and her family, but for the six months we’ve been in session, these problems have been ignored.

We’ve spent weeks and weeks debating radical judges. But we haven’t spent a single day debating a health care plan, or a jobs plan, or an education plan that will help hardworking Americans.

Just today, we learned that thousands of low- and middle-income families are paying more for college because they no longer qualify for financial aid thanks to a change in the rules.

Instead of debating radical judges, the Senate could be looking into these changes and finding ways to help these families pay for school.

Democrats believe it’s time that issues like education were put back on the Congressional Calendar.

That is why we’re offering a reform agenda for America’s families.

I hope that Republicans of good faith will join Democrats in turning away from partisan politics and take up the work of the American people.

For Immediate Release

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Grassley Continues Efforts to Crack Down on Steroid Abuse

Introduces Bill to Add a Common Steroid to List of Banned Substances

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley today introduced legislation that would add dehydroepiandrosterone, or DHEA, to the list of anabolic steroids that are classified as controlled substances under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act.

DHEA is a steroid precursor that the body converts into testosterone, a banned substance, after it is ingested.

“Unfortunately, many young people are turning to ‘supplements’ like DHEA as an alternative to illegal steroids. They believe that since these products are sold over-the-counter that they must be safe,” Grassley said. “These legal steroids have the same dangerous effects on the body as the illegal kind. Informing the public of the dangers and getting them off of the shelf will help protect young people.”

Last year Congress passed and the President signed into law that Anabolic Steroid Control Act, which added 18 anabolic steroid precursors to the list of steroids that are classified as controlled substances.

Even though DHEA is banned by the Olympics, the World Anti-Doping Agency, NCAA, NFL, NBA and Minor League Baseball, it was not included in last year’s legislation and is available over-the-counter to anyone, of any age, without a prescription.

Like all steroids, DHEA has a number of potential long-term physical and psychological effects, including heart disease, cancer, stroke, liver damage, severe acne, baldness, dramatic mood swings and aggression.

“If last year’s law is going to be relevant and effective, it’s critical that DHEA be included in the list of controlled substances,” Grassley said.

- 30 -

MEDIA NOTE: There will be a satellite feed available from 12:15 pm to 12:30 pm AST on IA-5, transponder 5V, Downlink 3800. The feed will be available from the Republican Conference code-a-phone by calling 1-800-545-1267 then pressing 322. It will be available digitally via the web at: http://src.senate.gov/murkowski/radio/

For Immediate Release: Contact: Elliott Bundy or Kristin Pugh

May 26, 2005 202/224-4513 or C288-6398;202/224-9301or C997-5358

SENATE ENERGY BILL TO GREATLY HELP ALASKA DEVELOP ITS NATURAL RESOURCES, SAY SENS. MURKOWSKI & STEVENS

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As markup concluded on the Senate’s version of comprehensive energy legislation, Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens said the measure contains provisions that offer historic opportunities for Alaska and its Native residents to both develop their energy sources for the benefit of its economy and to generate low-cost power for residents statewide.

“This bill contains provisions to help unlock Alaska’s potential as the nation’s true energy storehouse,” Murkowski said. “It offers provisions to help develop our oil, natural gas, huge coal resources and the future gold mine of our vast gas hydrate reserves. It also provides the means to help Alaskans build a modern electrical system involving a range of both renewable and non-renewable sources.

“There is no bigger step we can take to further natural resource development and the expansion of our economy than to reduce the cost of electric power in both rural and urban Alaska. This bill provides the resources to move Alaska’s economy into the 21st century.”

"Alaska has oil, natural gas, coal and immense gas hydrate reserves,” said Stevens. “Our nation needs a comprehensive energy policy that utilizes Alaska's terrific potential. Developing our natural resources is critical to providing our nation with a dependable, secure source of energy and with providing Alaska with jobs and economic development well into the future."

Murkowski said that she will continue to work to improve the bill, both on the Senate floor and in a later conference with House members, and that the committee proposal and adopted amendments contain the following provisions of importance to Alaska:

· Rural Energy Assistance: The bill authorizes $550 million over the next decade for improvements to the state’s energy infrastructure. Under the bill some $55 million yearly is authorized to the Denali Commission to be used to fund a host of projects including energy generation and development, (through fuel cells, hydroelectric, solar, wind, wave, tidal and other alternative energy sources) transmission networks, interties, fuel tank replacement and cleanup, fuel transportation networks and related facilities and coal energy generation and alternative coal fuel projects.

· Power Cost Equalization: The funding to the Denali Commission is also intended to provide up to $5 million a year for a decade to endow the Alaska Power Cost Equalization program. Currently the fund contains $185 million, whose interest is used to subsidize the first 500 kilowatts of electric usage by rural residents. The funding is intended to increase the size of the endowment so the fund can spin off more earnings to fully fund the program that this year is cutting the cost of power by between 20 and 30 cents per kilowatt hour in 175 rural communities.

· National Petroleum Reserve Oil-Gas Leasing Changes: This provision allows oil leases to be extended for 10 years to give lease holders more time to develop oil inside the 23.3-million acre petroleum reserve, which is forecast to hold up to 10.6 billion barrels of oil and 73 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It also allows for more expeditious lease sales, gives authority for reduced lease royalties where needed to stimulate production, allows for unit agreements to speed oil or gas field development and allows the Secretary to waive administration of oil and gas leases when the subsurface estate is held by Arctic Slope Regional Corp. It also creates the North Slope Science Initiative to fund better scientific research into the effects of oil and gas leasing in northern Alaska authorizing future funding for the effort.

· Alaska Offshore Royalty Suspension: This provision allows the Secretary of the Interior to suspend federal royalty requirements in Outer Continental Shelf lease planning areas in Alaska where the aid is needed to encourage oil and gas production. The authority is the same that the Secretary enjoys in other areas nationwide and is intended to help increase Alaska OCS production – a significant potential benefit to the state since the bill provides $500 million in OCS revenues to producing states based on production. Alaska would be guaranteed a minimum of $5 million from the funding.

· Gas Hydrate Research and Development Assistance: The measure, authored by Murkowski, Stevens and Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, is designed to continue research and expand efforts to develop a commercial process for producing natural gas from methane hydrates – gas locked in ice and permafrost. The nation is estimated to contain a fourth of the world’s total reserves of methane hydrates – about 200,000 trillion cubic feet - with Alaska holding about 15 percent of the nation’s resource – 600 trillion cubic feet on shore and 32,000 trillion cubic feet offshore.

· Cook Inlet Carbon Dioxide Oil Enhancement Program: Murkowski won an amendment that will permit the Department of Energy to determine the feasibility of using carbon dioxide to increase oil return from the maturing Cook Inlet oil field. The U.S. Department of Energy last month issued a report that indicated the nation could recover up to 43 billion additional barrels of oil from aging oil fields, if carbon dioxide was pumped into the fields to force more oil to the surface. The report indicated that up to 12 billion of the barrels could come from Alaska, about 670 million, potentially being available from the aging Cook Inlet reservoirs near Kenai.

· Indian Energy Assistance: The bill provides grant assistance and up to $2 billion of loan guarantees to help Natives nationally and tribes and Alaska Native corporations develop energy resources on their lands. The bill gives priority for federal funding to projects that will utilize new technology, such as coal gasification, carbon capture and sequestration and renewable energy-based electricity generation.

· Healy Clean Coal Loan: The bill provides the Secretary of Energy the authority to make a market-rate loan of up to $80 million to fund improvements to get the Healy clean coal power plant up and running. The nearly $300 million clean-coal technology power plant has not operated since its testing period because of concern over the reliability of the plant. The loan has dropped to $80 million from the previous $125 million proposal because of new engineering reviews that has reduced the estimates for the extent of work needed to get the plant operating. The loan would allow the plant’s eventual owner to make whatever equipment upgrades are necessary to get the plant operating. It is currently owned by the Alaska Industrial Development and Energy Authority.

· Renewable Energy Provisions: The bill provides assistance to renewable energy projects, anticipating a continuation of a production tax credit for wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy among other forms of renewable energy. The bill also includes assistance to development of ocean energy including tidal, current and thermal ocean energy electricity projects. The measure fences off 40 percent of potential assistance for ocean energy and other new forms of renewable energy. The biomass provision also gives a preference for grants to development of power from biomass obtained from disease-infested timber, which could be of particular importance to the Kenai Peninsula where roughly 5 million acres of spruce have been killed by the spruce bark beetle in the past decade.

· Coal Production Assistance: The bill includes $200 million per year in aid for projects to utilize the nation’s coal resources, with the aid especially intended (80 percent) to help construction of clean coal gasification combined cycle plants. Alaska, with an estimated 160 billion short tons, leads the nation in known reserves of low-rank, low-sulfur coal.

· Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Provision: Building on last year’s success in winning loan guarantees and two tax deductions for pipeline segments and a North Slope gas conditioning plant, the bill includes a provision requiring the Department of Energy to write a progress report every six months on how work is proceeding on an Alaska gas line – a provision designed to help maintain momentum for the project.

· Israeli-U.S. Energy Cooperation: The measure also includes a provision that extends an agreement between Israel and the United States to cooperate on energy research and development activities.

· Alaska hydropower bill: The measure, sought by the State of Alaska, includes a clarification to 2000 legislation that allowed the State’s Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) to take over the licensing of small hydroelectric projects in Alaska that produce less than 5 megawatts of power from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The new clarification makes it clear that the state has the same authority as FERC in reviewing agency recommendations concerning the impacts of hydro projects.

· Small hydro debt forgiveness: The measure also includes an amendment that allows the Rural Utility Service to make grants for project debt reduction in high-cost service areas. The language is potentially important for three Alaska projects: the Power Creek hydro project in Cordova, the Chilkat Valley project outside of Haines and the Tazimina hydro project near Iliamna all of which are causing extraordinarily high electrical costs in their communities due to economic downturns in their service areas. The language simply permits the Rural Utility Service to make grants to aid these projects in the future.

· Alaska Science Provisions: While the Senate bill does not contain earmarked appropriations, projects that were included in the House energy Bill and will be considered during conference include funding for an Arctic Engineering Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and a $61 million authorization for a Barrow Geophysical Research Facility to provide a home for climate research in the Far North.

Murkowski said she also will be working with the Senate Finance Committee to include provisions in the tax title of the bill to further a host of energy developments in the state and across the nation. The tax title is likely to be developed by the Finance panel in mid June.

###

May 26, 2005

A Nebraskan’s View

Senator Ben Nelson

A quarter of a century ago when things got bogged down in Washington the late Nebraska Senator Ed Zorinsky used to say, “there are too many Republican Senators and too many Democrat Senators and not enough United States Senators.”

Well, I am pleased to report to you that today there are indeed some United States Senators who are willing to put partisan politics aside for the good of the country.

Although they have been affectionately nicknamed “The Mod Squad” because of their moderate views, the group includes Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives.

This is the group of 14 Senators who came together in a historic compromise agreement that got the best of all worlds.

This agreement, which I have been working on for months, broke the logjam and allowed for up or down votes on President Bush’s judicial nominations. It also avoided the so-called Nuclear Option which would have changed the rules of the Senate and eliminated the centuries old constitutional guarantee that protects the rights of the minority to have extended debate through the filibuster.

I called my alternative “The Non-Nuclear Option”. In an editorial the Washington Post re-named it “The Nelson Option”. While recognition is always flattering the important thing is that we got it done and the Senate is now moving ahead with the business of the Nation.

When I was running for the Senate in 2000, I pledged to put partisanship aside to do what is right for Nebraska. I told Nebraskans that if they elected me they could count on me to carefully consider the issues and ultimately do what I think is best.

From tax cuts, to Medicare reform to campaign finance reform and now to the battle over stalled judicial nominations, I have distanced myself from the partisan atmosphere in Washington to get things done.

The debate over these judges has consumed the Senate and all of Washington. When I’m in Nebraska most folks do not ask me about the judicial nomination process. Nebraskans tell me they want an energy bill that will boost ethanol production and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nebraskans are concerned about the president’s plan to divert Social Security funds to private accounts and a myriad of other important legislative priorities.

Those who do mention judges and nominations express concern about where the Senate seemed to be headed. Many expressed to me the desire to stop the bickering and get on with the Senate’s business. Others offered encouraging words in support of the compromise effort and those comments made me feel that Nebraskans were appreciative of our efforts.

President Bush seemed to share their sentiments when he reacted to the compromise by saying, “it’s about time we’re making some progress”.

With our compromise everybody wins. Those seeking to protect minority rights win. Those seeking to confirm judicial nominations win. Small states win.

We accomplished this by working together with common purpose and shared concern for the future of this body. I am proud of what we have accomplished and I will treasure the new friends I made in the process.

I would like to share with you the names of my fellow Senators who signed the agreement with me. These brave senators are: Senator John McCain, Senator John Warner, Senator Robert Byrd, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator Ken Salazar, Senator Mike DeWine, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Mark Pryor, Senator Lincoln Chafee, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and Senator Daniel Inouye.

NEWS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

CONTACTS: Brendan Daly (Pelosi), 202-226-7616

Jim Manley (Reid), 202-224-2939

Pelosi and Reid Decline to Select Non-Voting Members for the Administration's Medicaid Commission

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement today on their decision to decline to appoint non-voting members to the Bush Administration’s Medicaid Commission. The Republicans budget, which passed in April, included $10 billion in cuts to Medicaid. The Commission will recommend how to make those cuts:

“After much deliberation, we have decided not to appoint Members of the Senate and House as non-voting members of the Administration’s Medicaid Commission. An invitation to Democrats to select four Members of the Senate and House to advisory roles without a vote is wholly inadequate to lend any Commission even the air of bipartisanship.

“In contrast, the Administration will select all 15 voting members and 15 ‘non-voting advisor members,’ with Senate and House Republicans invited to select four non-voting advisory Members of the House and Senate. Not only is it inadequate to offer four selections out of 38 positions to Democrats, but it is inappropriate to offer any Member of the House or Senate, whether Democrat or Republican, a non-voting role on such a Commission.

“Unfortunately, the partisan nature of the Commission and the lack of voting rights are not our only reasons for refusing to appoint Members.

“We fundamentally disagree with the premise that this Commission should make recommendations on how to cut Medicaid outlays by $10 billion by September 1. While we need to reduce the deficit, we should not make cuts affecting the most vulnerable Americans in order to finance more tax cuts for the wealthy. If there are budget cuts to be made, we should also look to other initiatives within the jurisdictions of the relevant Committees.

“It is unprecedented that Congress would direct the Committees of jurisdiction to cut a program by $10 billion in a budget resolution, and then participate as non-voting advisors in a separate Commission of unelected membership to recommend how those cuts should be accomplished. If Congress can decide how much to implement those cuts, it does not need a Commission to figure out how to cut the program. To the contrary, it is the responsibility of the elected Congress to make such cuts, and Members who support those cuts should be held accountable for those decisions.

“The Ranking Democrats of the Committee with jurisdiction over Medicaid - Senator Max Baucus and Congressman John Dingell - wrote a thoughtful letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt two weeks ago. That letter set forth how a balanced and independent Medicaid Commission should be constituted, and how it should operate to make recommendations to Congress.

“Unfortunately, all of their significant suggestions were rejected. Furthermore, there was no consultation with us or the Ranking Members on how a Commission should be formed.

“Medicaid is a crucial program that serves almost 60 million Americans, including children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities. We have no confidence that this Commission, particularly in this time frame, could make recommendations that would improve and strengthen this program. Therefore, for the sake of taxpayers, the people that this program serves, and our partners in the states, we have no choice but to decline this invitation.”

# # #

News Release

For release: May 24, 2005 Contact: Coy Knobel, phone 202-224-3424

Web address: enzi.senate.gov Email: Coy_Knobel@enzi.senate.gov

Enzi is pleased a path has been cleared for some judge nominees, but he is wary of possible further obstruction

Washington, D.C. – Seven Republican senators reached an agreement with seven Democrat senators Monday evening that would clear the way for votes on some of President Bush’s judicial nominees that have been held up by Democrats.

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., made the following comments regarding the agreement.

“It looks as though we’ve reached a point where we actually are able to have a vote on the nominees rather than a vote on whether to vote.

“I congratulate Majority Leader Frist for bringing this to the point where both sides felt agreement was necessary. Had he not pressed the issue we would still be at the point we’ve been for the last two years where circuit court judges couldn’t be approved and were hidden by a smokescreen of 205 district judges being approved.

“I’m hopeful now that we’ll be able to fill the circuit court positions, but it's not clear yet exactly how this agreement will affect Supreme Court nominees or any nomination opponents decide to classify as being part of “extraordinary circumstances" and therefore open to filibuster. We must continue to be ready to move forward if obstruction occurs.

“When the opposition said they would approve any of the seven judges as long as we would throw three overboard what they were really saying is that all seven were qualified, but they weren’t going to approve seven. Some nominees from last Congress withdrew their names. They weren’t going to put up with this anymore and that by itself could keep other qualified judges from accepting a nomination. Hopefully this compromise will work and encourage good people to be judges.”

-end-

For immediate release: Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Contact: Jennifer Reed or Tom Gavin, 202-224-3904; http://byrd.senate.gov

Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd

"An Agreement to Keep 'Advice and Consent' Alive"

Senator Byrd delivered these remarks following the historic agreement among senators to avert the “nuclear option” showdown.

In his now revered Second Inaugural Speech, Abraham Lincoln observed, that:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God give us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds....

I have always believed that the Senate, by its nature, attracts and probably also creates men and women of the quality and character that are able to step up when faced with crises that threaten the Ship of State, to calm the dangerous seas which, from time to time, threaten to dash our Republic against rocky shoals and jagged shores.

The Senate proved it to be true again yesterday, when 14 Members of this revered institution came together to avert the disaster called the nuclear option. These men and women of great courage.

As William Gladstone said, in referring to the Senate of the United States, the Senate is that remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics.

I thank all of those Republicans and Democrats who worked together to keep faith with the Framers and the Founding Fathers. We have kept the faith with those whose collective vision gave us this marvelous piece of work, the Constitution of the United States. Thank God that this work has been done and we have averted a catastrophe.

Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution refers to the Senate and to its duty to provide both its “Advice and Consent” to nominations before the nominees can be confirmed. There are two parts to that proposition, which are that the Senate must provide the President with its “Advice,” as well as its “Consent.” Again, Article II, Section 2 states that the President shall nominate “by and with” the Advice and Consent of the Senate. It is therefore a shared responsibility between the President of the United States and the Senate.

By its agreement yesterday, the Senate is keeping that construct alive.

The agreement reminds us of the words of our Constitution by encouraging the President to consult with the Senate on the take-off, meaning prior to sending his nominees up for our consideration. In recent times -- and by that I mean under Presidents of both parties -- there hasn’t been all that much consultation by the President with the Senate. Here, we are offering the hand of partnership to the Chief Executive, and saying consult with us. You don’t have to take our advice, but here it is. And by considering that advice, it only stands to reason that any President will be more assured that his nominees will enjoy a kinder reception in the Senate.

The agreement, which references the need for “Advice and Consent” as contained in the Constitution proves once again -- as has been true for over two hundred years -- that our revered Constitution is not simply a dry piece of parchment. It is a living document. Yesterday’s agreement was a real life illustration of how this historical document continues to be vital in our daily lives. It inspires, and it teaches. And yesterday, it helped the country avoid a serious calamity.

Mr. President, for this reason and others, I would ask that the agreement that was reached by 14 Senators yesterday be submitted for the record, so that we in the Senate and the President may all have a way of easily revisiting the text of that agreement for future reference.

On the heels of this agreement, I believe that we should now move forward, propelled by its positive energy in a new direction. We should make every effort to restore reason to the partisan fervor that has overtaken our country and this city. We must stop arguing and start legislating. Divisive agendas are not America’s goals. The right course lies someplace in the middle, and it is our job, the work of representatives of a reasonable people, to do what is right – regardless of threats from any of the angry groups that seem dedicated to intimidation. The sceptics, the cynics, the doubters, the pharisees, those who are intoxicated by the juice of sour grapes did not prevail. The fourteen rose above those who do not wish to see accord, but prefer discord.

Chaucer's ``Canterbury Tales,'' contains the ``Pardoner's Tale,'' which most, if not all, of you will remember having read in your school days. The story took place in Flanders, where, once, there sat drinking in a tavern three young men who were given to folly. As they sat, they heard a small bell clink before a corpse that was being carried to the grave, whereupon, one of them called to his knave and ordered him to go and find out the name of the corpse that was passing by.

The boy answered that he already knew, and that it was an old comrade of the roisterers who had been slain while drunk by an unseen thief called Death, who had slain others in recent days.

Out into the road the three young ruffians went in search of this monster called Death. They came upon an old man, and seized him and with rough language demanded that he tell them where they could find this cowardly adversary who was taking the lives of their good friends in the countryside.

The old man pointed to a great oak tree on a nearby knoll, saying, ``There, under that tree, you will find Death.'' In a drunken rage, the three roisterers set off in a run 'til they came to the tree, and there they found a pile of gold--eight basketfuls, of florins, newly minted, round coins. Forgotten was the monster called Death, as they pondered their good fortune, and they decided that they should remain with the gold until nightfall when they would divide it among themselves and take it to their homes. It would be unsafe, they thought, to attempt to do so in broad daylight, as they might be fallen upon by thieves who would take their treasure from them.

It was proposed that they draw straws, and the person who drew the shortest cut would go into the nearby village and purchase some bread and wine which they could enjoy as they whiled away the daylight hours. Off towards the village the young man went. When he was out of sight, the remaining two decided that there was no good reason why this fortune should be divided among three individuals, so one of them said to the other: ``When he returns, you throw your arm around him as if in jest, and I will rive him with my dagger. And, with your dagger, you can do the same. Then, all of this gold will be divided just between you and me.''

Meanwhile, the youngest rogue, as he made its way into the town, thought what a shame it was that the gold would be divided among three, when it could so easily belong only to the ownership of one. Therefore, in town, the young man went directly to an apothecary and asked to be sold some poison for large rats and for a polecat that had been killing his chickens. The apothecary quickly provided some poison, saying that as much as equaled only a grain of wheat would result in sudden death for the creature that drank the mixture.

Having purchased the poison, the young villain crossed the street to a winery where he purchased three bottles--two for his friends, one for himself. After he left the village, he sat down, opened two bottles and deposited an equal portion in each, and then returned to the oak tree, where the two older men did as they had planned. One threw his arm playfully around the shoulders of the third, they buried their daggers in him, and he fell dead on the pile of gold. The other two then sat down, cut the bread and opened the wine. Each took a good, deep swallow, and, suffering a most excruciating pain, both fell upon the body of the third, across the pile of gold. All three were dead.

###

Reaction of Senator Patrick Leahy

On The Bipartisan Agreement to Avert Vote on the Nuclear Option

May 23, 2005

“With this agreement, the Senate remains a viable check against an abuse of power and the Republican majority’s bid for one-party rule. The nuclear option has been averted, preserving the crucial rights of the minority that have been a hallmark of the Senate for more than 200 years. I appreciate the hard work of the bipartisan group of 14 Senators who prevented the Republican majority leader from pulling the trigger on the nuclear option and forever changing the Senate’s constitutional advice and consent role.

“I hope the White House will heed this message from the Senate and consult with us in a meaningful way on judicial nominations. This process starts with the President. If he would work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to identify and nominate consensus choices, we will easily add to the tally of 208 confirmations. If the White House will consult with us on important vacancies we can make significant progress, and I hope we can achieve that.”

# # # # #

For Immediate Release

Date: Monday, May 23, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939

REID CALLS SENATE AGREEMENT A VICTORY FOR DEMOCRACY

Checks and Balances are Preserved

“There is good news for every American in this agreement. The so-called “nuclear option” is off the table. This is a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans. Checks and balances in our government have been preserved.

“The integrity of future Supreme Courts has been protected from the undue influences of a vocal, radical faction of the right that is completely out of step with mainstream America. That was the intent of the Republican “nuclear option” from the beginning. Tonight, the Senate has worked its will on behalf of reason, responsibility and the greater good.

“Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over. We are a separate and equal branch of government. That is our founding fathers’ vision, and one we hold dear.

“I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside their differences and work from the center. I do not support several of the judges that have been agreed to because their views and records display judicial activism that jeopardize individual rights and freedoms. But other troublesome nominees have been turned down. And, most importantly, the U.S. Senate retains the checks and balances to ensure all voices are heard in our democracy.

“I am grateful to my colleagues who worked so hard to achieve this agreement. I am hopeful that we can quickly turn to work on the people’s business. We need to ensure our troops have the resources they need to fight in Iraq and that Americans are free from terrorism. We need to protect retiree’s pensions and long-term retirement security. We need to expand health care opportunities for all families. We need to address rising gasoline prices and energy independence. And we need to restore fiscal responsibility and rebuild our economy so that it lifts up all American workers. That is our reform agenda, the people’s reform agenda. Together, we can get the job done.”

###

NEWS RELEASE

JEFF SESSIONS

United States Senator – Alabama

CONTACT: MICHAEL BRUMAS OR NANCY WALL

(202) 224-4124

For Immediate Release

May 23, 2005

Sessions Comments On Judicial Nominations Agreement

WASHINGTON – Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) issued the following statement Monday night on the judicial nominations agreement:

“I was very pleased to see that former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor was included in an agreement that should result in his obtaining an up or down vote and which should lead to his confirmation. The compromise also guarantees votes on the nominations of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and California Supreme Court Justice and Alabama native Janice Rogers Brown.

“I am disappointed that this agreement did not provide the other nominees the right to a vote. I was prepared to support the Constitutional option, because these systematic filibusters amounted to an affront to the Constitution and could not be allowed to stand. I hope that all nominees will now receive fair treatment in this body and that the character assassinations and filibusters will disappear.

“I have been particularly proud of the work of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist whose strong and sustained leadership is the reason these filibusters were broken.”

-30-

Michael Brumas

Communications Director

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL)

335 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

(202) 224-4124 -- office

(202 224-3149 -- fax

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Reporters and Editors

RE: Deal reached on filibusters

DA: May 24, 2005

Sen. Chuck Grassley made the following comment after 12 senators reached a compromise on judicial nominations.

“It doesn’t seem fair that 12 senators should be able to decide what 88 other senators can advise and consent on, especially since nobody knows what ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are under the agreement. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that some of these nominees will finally be getting up or down votes. However, I stand by my position that all judicial nominees with clear majority support should get an up or down vote in the Senate. For more than 200 years, Senators agreed that the proper way to oppose a judicial nominee is to vote no. What’s the harm in giving all of these nominees a fair up or down vote?”

For immediate release: Monday, May 23, 2005

Contact: Jennifer Reed or Tom Gavin, 202-224-3904; http://byrd.senate.gov

Statement by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd

Applauding Compromise, Not Confrontation, in the Senate

WASHINGTON, D.C.... U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., applauded the bipartisan compromise that short-circuits the so-called “nuclear option” that would have ended freedom of speech in the United States Senate. Byrd, who played a key role in the bipartisan discussions, issued the following statement about the agreement reached Monday night.

“From the bottom of my heart, I thank my Republican colleagues and my Democratic colleagues for agreeing to find common ground in this all-too-partisan confrontation on judicial nominations. We have agreed to step away from partisan priorities and place the priorities of the Senate and of the American people at center stage.

“This agreement is truly a historic event. We have kept the faith with the Founding Fathers and the Constitution’s Framers whose collective vision gave us this marvelous piece of work, the Constitution of the United States. We have lifted ourselves above politics. And we have signed

this agreement in the interest of United States Senate, in the interest of freedom of speech, and in the interest of the American people.

“I am pleased that this agreement reinforces a principle that has, all too often, been allowed to languish in recent years. This agreement encourages the Executive Branch to consult with Senators, both Democratic and Republican, before submitting a nomination for the Senate to consider. ‘Advice and Consent’ is a shared responsibility between the President and the Senate. This bipartisan agreement not only kept that construct alive, but it also helps to make it real. Our agreement encourages the Administration to consult with the Senate in a bipartisan fashion. In recent times, there hasn’t been all that much consultation with the Senate. Here, we’re saying to the Chief Executive, consult with us. You don’t have to take our advice, but here it is. And by considering that advice, any president can be more assured that his nominees are going to be met with a kinder reception.

“This bipartisan agreement is so refreshing and so gratifying. I have literally prayed about this. I am grateful to the Heavenly Father for giving us this result, the result of men and women sitting down together, Democrats and Republicans working together, giving a little, taking a little, and coming out with a product saving the Senate as a forum for dissent, as a forum for minority views, as a forum where freedom of speech and freedom of debate will live on. We can give this treasure to our posterity.”

###

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator - Texas
CONTACT: DON STEWART
(202) 224-0704 office (202) 365-6702 cell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 23, 2005

CORNYN COMMENTS ON JUDICIAL AGREEMENT

They should never have been filibustered in the first place

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement Monday regarding the “deal” reached on judicial filibusters:

“After enduring years of harsh, unjustified attacks, Justice Priscilla Owen, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, and Judge William Pryor will finally get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. The signatories have also agreed not to filibuster judicial nominations in the future except under ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ But Owen, Brown, and Pryor are highly qualified nominees who are firmly committed to the rule of law. They should never have been filibustered in the first place, and I expect the signatories to hold firm to their agreement not to filibuster similarly qualified nominees in the future. Otherwise, the spirit of the deal will be broken, and signatories will be and should feel free to take action to restore the 214-year Senate tradition of majority vote.

“The Senate judicial confirmation process has been at times emotional and politically divisive, and that is unfortunate. But all Americans of good faith should at least agree that we need a fair process for selecting judges – with full investigation, full questioning, full debate, and then an up-or-down vote. And all Americans should agree that, although nobody likes to lose, the rules should always be the same, regardless of whether the president is Republican or Democrat. President after President after President have seen their judicial nominees confirmed by majority vote, not supermajority vote. Senators should uphold and restore that 214-year tradition.

“I will continue to advocate for up-or-down votes on all of the President’s judicial nominees.”

Sen. Cornyn served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.

-30-

http://cornyn.senate.gov/namethatspeaker

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Adam Elggren (202) 224-3370

May 19, 2005

HATCH: AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT THE SENATE TO DEBATE AND VOTE UP-OR-DOWN

Washington – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) took to the Senate floor today to address the Democrat filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominations. Following are his remarks:

Statement of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch

before the

United States Senate

May 19, 2005

SEN. HATCH. Mr. President, last week, when the Judiciary Committee considered the asbestos bill, one of our Democratic colleagues referred to proposed amendments to that bill and said something very important: Let’s debate them and vote them up or down.

He said it the way the American people believe it, that debating and voting is what legislators do. Let us debate them, and vote them up or down.

The Senator offering that idea was my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. He was speaking then about legislation, but he and other Democrats once insisted that the Senate should follow the same principle as we evaluate the President’s judicial nominations.

In October 1997, for example, he said here on the Senate floor: “I hope we might reach a point where we as a Senate will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. Bring the names here. If we want to vote against them, vote against them.”

It is always refreshing to see our fellow citizens, from all over this great country, coming here to sit up in the gallery and observe their United States Senate at work. Some of them with us today might actually be asking, why is the Senator from Utah making such a big deal about something that seems so obvious?

Mr. President, many of our fellow citizens might be surprised to learn that the Senators they elect and send to Washington are refusing to vote on judicial nominations. They might share the sentiment of former Democratic Leader Senator Tom Daschle, when he said in 1999: “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.”

Those Senators are blocking votes because they know they will lose those votes. If we debate these nominees, America will better understand why we need judges who will interpret, not make, the law.

America will see how these highly qualified judicial nominees meet that standard. And America will see that these nominees have bipartisan majority support.

The political forces promoting an activist, politicized judiciary naturally oppose many of these nominees, and their strategy is simple. The Senate cannot confirm nominees if Senators cannot vote on them. We cannot vote if we cannot end debate.

These filibusters use Senate rules to prevent ending debate, prevent taking a vote, and prevent confirmation. That is not only baffling, it is unprecedented.

This is not a tangent, an academic issue, or a question that will one day be found in the game Trivial Pursuit: Senate Edition. This issue is central to this debate, and our Democratic colleagues know it. Some are so desperate to claim even one, single, solitary precedent for what they are doing that they stretch, twist, and morph the word filibuster beyond all recognition.

They want the word filibuster to mean so many things, that it ultimately means virtually nothing at all.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, these mischaracterizations of Senate history, tradition, and rules cynically exploit the fact that many of our fellow citizens have not mastered the particulars of Senate history, the peculiarities of Senate procedure, or the idiosyncrasies of the confirmation process. Misleading, confusing, and patently false claims can easily take on a life of their own, echoed and repeated through the media, cybserspace, and here on the Senate floor.

We all know that it can take a long time for what is true to catch up with what is false. Judicial filibuster defenders have claimed that when the Senate voted to end debate on past judicial nominations, we were actually filibustering those nominations.

They want Americans to believe that ending debate then justifies refusing to end debate now. Or they claimed that when the Senate voted to confirm judicial nominations in the past, we were actually filibustering those nominations. They want Americans to believe that confirming nominations then justifies refusing to confirm them now.

Those bizarre claims focus on what happens here on the Senate floor, at the end of the judicial confirmation process. Sometimes, judicial filibuster defenders have focused instead on what happens in the Judiciary Committee, an earlier phase in the process. Some appear willing to try anything to create a precedent for their filibusters.

Some even claim that any nomination which is not ultimately confirmed, no matter what the reason, no matter what the step in the process, has been filibustered.

Giving a word any meaning you want may help make any argument you want to make, but it does not make that argument legitimate.

This gimmick may have some public relations punch. It leads to clichés such as pocket veto or one-man filibuster and creates villains like, well, like me. What kind of campaign would this be without a bogeyman? After all, I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for six years under President Clinton.

Never mind that the Republican Senate confirmed 377 judges for President Clinton, just five short of the all-time confirmation record set by President Reagan. Never mind that President Reagan had his own party controlling the Senate for six years, while President Clinton had the other party the controlling the Senate for six years.

Never mind facts like that. The Assistant Minority Leader yesterday claimed that every Clinton nomination that was not ultimately confirmed was filibustered, and that I personally buried them. My hand alone held back a confirmation wave of apparently mythic proportions.

Look for a moment at what it takes to believe that every unconfirmed nominee is a filibustered nominee. It requires believing that the dozen nominees President Clinton himself withdrew were filibustered.

President Clinton, for example, withdrew one appeals court nominee fewer than six months after her nomination because of health concerns. Her nomination did not get out of the Judiciary Committee, did not receive a floor vote, and was not confirmed. But was she filibustered? Is her situation the same as Justice Priscilla Owen, who has been waiting for more than four years and cannot get a floor vote because of a filibuster?

This line that all unconfirmed nominees are filibustered nominees requires you to believe ill-founded arguments like that. It also requires believing that the 28 nominations sent too late to be considered, or which President Clinton chose not to re-submit, were filibustered.

It requires believing that nominations not given hearings because of opposition by their home-state Senators were filibustered. The Judiciary Committee system that gives extra weight to the views of Senators from the nominee’s home state has been in place, in various forms, for nearly a century. Democrats as well as Republicans use it. I do not hear the Democrats who now want to call those situations filibusters also calling to abolish that system of home-state senatorial courtesy.

They cannot have it both ways.

The Majority Leader, Senator Frist, recently offered a proposal that would not only address our concerns about the floor by ensuring up or down votes, but address Democrats’ concerns about the committee by guaranteeing reporting of nominees. Democrats rejected that offer. Either they think treatment of judicial nominees in the Judiciary Committee is a problem needing a remedy or they do not.

They cannot have it both ways.

Democrats know that many factors determining whether a nomination is approved by the Judiciary Committee are not simply up to the Chairman’s unilateral discretion. Democrats know that there are procedures in the Judiciary Committee, and here on the floor, for forcing a committee chairman to act if Senators believe the chairman is dragging his feet and that those procedures were never used.

Democrats know those things, and they also know that many of our fellow citizens do not. So the spin machine cooks up this tale that all unconfirmed nominees are filibustered nominees, attempting to make people believe there is some precedent, even a totally fictional precedent, for their current filibusters.

Saying that ending debate is the same as not ending debate did not work. Saying that confirming nominations is the same as not confirming nominations did not work. Saying that President Clinton’s near-record confirmation total is evidence of unfair treatment by Republicans will not work either.

On Tuesday, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, was here making a few other arguments. He pointed out that the text of the Constitution does not require an up or down confirmation vote for judicial nominations. Many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle attack judicial nominees when they take the Constitution’s text this seriously, but I am glad the Senator from Wisconsin is doing so.

The word filibuster is not found in the Constitution either. Nor are phrases such as unlimited debate, minority rights, or even checks and balances. None of the phrases used by some to try to give these judicial filibusters a constitutional anchor are in the charter’s text. What the Constitution does say, however, is that the President has the power to nominate and appoint judges. Not the Senate, the President.

Our role of advice and consent is a check on the President’s power to appoint. When the filibuster turns our check on the President’s power into a weapon that highjacks the President’s power then, yes, it has indeed violated the design that is most certainly in the text of the Constitution.

The Senator from Wisconsin also said that the procedure the Majority Leader may use to prohibit judicial filibusters will mean changing Senate rules by fiat. That is a variation on the Democratic mantra that this would break the rules to change the rules. That is a catchy little phrase, but neither of its catchy little parts is true.

The Senate operates not only by its written rules, but also by parliamentary precedents established when the presiding officer rules on questions of procedure asked by Senators.

What we call the constitutional option would seek such a ruling from the presiding officer. After sufficient debate, the Senate should vote on a judicial nomination. Senate precedents and procedures would change, but Senate rules would remain untouched. No breaking of the rules, no changing of the rules.

Senators use the word fiat because it sounds bad and fits with the abuse of power theme probably born in a focus group somewhere. The word attempts to give people a bad impression, but it should give them an even worse impression to know that it is patently false.

The Constitution gives authority over Senate rules and procedures to the Senate – not to the parliamentarian, or to the presiding officer, but to the Senate. If the presiding officer rules on a question of procedure, it will not actually change Senate procedure until a majority of Senators vote to do so. Just as American self-government is radically different than monarchy, Senate self-government is radically different than fiat.

The Senator from Wisconsin said that whenever the Senate merely takes a cloture vote, or a vote to end debate, a filibuster is always underway. That too is patently false. Mr. President, the Congressional Research Service states it clearly: “it is erroneous to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are always the same as those in which a filibuster occurs.” Let me repeat that: “it is erroneous to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are always the same as those in which a filibuster occurs.”

Let me use two examples.

Among President Clinton’s most controversial nominees were Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Our colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, in November 2003 called these nominees “very liberal” and “quite far to the left.” That is quite something, coming from a Senator who has never been called even a little to the right.

On November 10, 1999, the Majority Leader at the time, Senator Lott, promised that he would bring these controversial nominations up for a confirmation vote no later than March 15, 2000. He correctly said that I agreed with using a cloture vote to ensure that a confirmation vote occurred.

On March 8, 2000, that is exactly what we did. The first two names on the petition for a cloture vote were Senator Lott and myself. We took that cloture vote to prevent a filibuster and ensure an up or down vote. We prevented a filibuster, that vote occurred, and the Senate confirmed both nominees. They are today sitting federal judges.

The Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, said on Tuesday that the constitutional option, which would use a parliamentary ruling to prohibit judicial filibusters, would “use majority power to override the rights of the minority.”

I have called this parliamentary approach the Byrd option because, when he was Majority Leader, Senator Byrd used it to change Senate procedures. He did so regarding legislation, and also regarding nomination-related filibusters.

In 1980, for example, Majority Leader Byrd wanted to prohibit filibusters of the motion to proceed to nominations. Just as a confirmation vote cannot happen if debate does not end, debate cannot start if the Senate cannot vote to proceed to that debate.

Today, we hear that any limitation on debate, any restriction of the filibuster, strikes at the very heart and essence of this institution. Maybe it was a different story back then. When the presiding officer ruled against what Majority Leader Byrd was trying to do, he appealed that ruling and the Senate voted to overturn it, effectively terminating those nomination-related filibusters.

Let me remind you what my good Democratic friend from West Virginia said when he used the procedure to change the filibuster rule: “I have seen filibusters. I have helped to break them. There are few Senators in this body who were here [in 1977] when I broke the filibuster on the natural gas bill….I asked Mr. Mondale, the Vice President, to go please sit in the chair; I wanted to make some points of order and create some new precedents that would break these filibusters. And the filibuster was broken – back, neck, legs, and arms….So I know something about filibusters. I helped to set a great many of the precedents that are in the books here.”

On at least three other occasions, Majority Leader Byrd used a ruling by the presiding officer to change Senate procedures without changing the underlying Senate rules. The Senator from Vermont says that using this very same mechanism today would be an outrageous trashing of minority rights. Yet he voted every time to support Majority Leader Byrd’s use of that mechanism, including to eliminate nomination-related filibusters.

Yesterday, the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, claimed that Senate rules, in his words, from the very beginning, required an extraordinary majority to end debate.

Now that is factual claim, and it is factually false.

The Senate adopted its first rules in 1789. Rule eight allowed a simple majority to proceed to a vote. The men who founded this Republic designed this Senate without the minority’s ability to filibuster anything.

Over the last few days, many excuses have been offered why some refuse to debate and vote on judicial nominations that reach the Senate floor.

Let me correct that. While these may be their reasons, there are no valid excuses.

When procedural obstructive devices such as the filibuster are kept where they belong, in the legislative process, the debate can properly focus on the merits of these nominees. That is what debating and voting should ultimately be about, the President’s nominees.

The debate we have seen here on the Senate floor regarding nominees such as Justices Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown is typical of what we will see in the future regarding other nominees.

Many of our fellow citizens may know little of the Senate’s Byzantine procedures, they may know little about judicial rulings, they may not speak legalese, but I hope they will not be afraid to participate in this process. Let me offer a few pointers, a few tips, for the road ahead.

Politics is often about results, about winners and losers, and involves politicians asserting their will. Law is about the process of reaching results, about what the law requires, and involves judges using judgment.

Politics and law are two very different things, and our liberty depends on preserving that difference. So if you hear critics of judicial nominees talking only in the language of politics, you know something is wrong. In the last day or two, for example, critics of the nominees before us have reduced them to soundbites, checklists, and litmus tests. Senators begin sentences with phrases such as she ruled that…… or she ruled for…….

Mentioning only those results, without exploring how a judge reached those results, amounts to applying political criteria to a judicial nominee, and that is fundamentally wrong. Sometimes the law requires results we may not like, results that may even sound dramatic. Mentioning the political results without the judicial process leading to those results misleads people about what judges do and how to choose the rights ones.

Or the critics will characterize what a judge said rather than tell us what she actually said. Or if they do quote the judge, critics will often pluck out only a phrase, or use lots of ellipses. These are signs that spin may be in the air.

Or the critics will quote other critics. Imagine if the only thing someone knew about you came from what your critics or enemies said about you. That picture would be distorted, incomplete, and just plain false.

So our fellow citizens should not be worried that they do not know the language of lawyers, that they have not read a judicial nominee’s writings or rulings, or are not well-versed in the fine points of legal argument. I hope they will listen critically to the debate here in the Senate about these nominees, their qualifications, and their records. I hope our fellow citizens will be very skeptical of critics who make a political case against a judicial nominee, skeptical if the case against a nominee is limited to soundbites about results or characterizations by third parties.

Mr. President, let me conclude my remarks by noting that in September 2000, the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, said that the Constitution each of us has sworn to protect and defend requires that we debate and vote on judicial nominations reaching the floor.

I agreed with that principle then, and I agree with it today. For more than two centuries, we kept the filibuster out of the judicial confirmation process. It is surely not a good sign about our political culture that we must today formalize by parliamentary ruling a standard we once observed by principle and self-restraint.

But that self-restraint has broken down, and maintaining our tradition of up or down votes for judicial nominations is worth defending. Once we take unprecedented obstruction tactics like the filibuster off the table, we can focus where we should, on the merits and qualifications of nominees.

Mr. President, we must have a standard that binds both political parties. That standard must be fair, it must respect the separation of powers, and it must be consistent with our own Senate tradition. Between 1789 and 2003, we had a strong consistent tradition of voting on judicial nominations once they reach the Senate floor. We should return to that principle and practice.

Unfortunately, in 2003, the Democratic leadership broke with this longstanding Senate tradition and took an ill-founded turn down a partisan political path and unwisely changed the confirmation process in an unprecedented fashion.

We must turn back from that path. Once a judicial nomination reaches us here, our course should be clear. Let us debate and then let us vote.

I yield the floor.

# # #

May 19, 2005

Burns To Support Judicial Nominations

They Deserve An Up Or Down Vote

Washington, D.C. – At a press conference from the U.S. Capitol today, Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) commented on the debate surrounding judicial confirmations in the U.S. Senate. Burns indicated his support for President Bush’s nominees to the federal court system, and chided Democratic detractors for their misleading rhetoric and delaying tactics. Burns was joined by Senators Stevens (R-AK), Domenici (R-NM), Grassley (R-IA) and Cochran (R-MS) to comment on this ongoing debate.

The facts stand unchallenged,” said Burns. “The use of the filibuster to logjam judicial nominations in this Congress and the last is unprecedented. We have supremely qualified candidates that are being denied an opportunity to have an up or down vote because a minority of Senators are caving to the special interest cries from the far left of their party. Up until 2003, if a judicial nominee, regardless of the party in power or the party of the Administration nominating them, made it to the Senate floor, they received an up or down vote. Even recently, with Senator Bob Dole leading the Republican minority, President Clinton’s judicial nominees got their up or down vote. Senator Byrd’s minority leadership in the Reagan administration, the judicial nominees got their up or down vote.

Burns continued, “Senator Mike Mansfield said in 1975, as Senate Majority leader that ‘We cannot allow a minority, a small group of members, to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there.’ In this instance of obstructionism by the Democratic minority to, for the first time in history, filibuster judicial nominations, Senator Mansfield’s words ring true. The backlog of cases in our federal courts is appalling, and we owe it to those who elected us to get those positions filled so we can not only adhere to Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution, but uphold the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees a speedy trial.”

“I would also propose we bring back the nature of the filibuster to one that actually requires an effort put forth on the part of all Senators. Those who would filibuster should have to hold the floor continually to maintain the debate, and those who would end the filibuster can set up cots in the cloakroom like it used to be. If we as a body are going to delay the people’s business, we should at least have the intestinal fortitude to do it right.”

Montana’s delegates have a history of encouraging adherence to the Constitution in terms of promoting the business of the Congress, and keeping the body doing the business of the people. Not only did Senator Mansfield (D-MT) speak out against the abuse of the filibuster in 1975, Senator Thomas J. Walsh (D-MT) was the first Senator to advocate usage of the Constitutional option, in 1917 (55 Congr. Rec. 45, Sen. Walsh citing U.S. Const. Art I §5).

###

__________________________

Jennifer O'Shea

Press Secretary

Office of Senator Conrad Burns

Dirksen 187

Washington, DC 20510

202.224.2644

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Joan Kirchner or Sheridan Watson, 202-224-7777

Thursday, May 19, 2005 joan_kirchner@isakson.senate.gov

sheridan_watson@isakson.senate.gov

Isakson: Senate Has Constitutional Duty

To Give All Judicial Nominees A Vote

Joins Six Other GOP Freshmen in Calling for End to Obstructionism

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) today joined with his six fellow Republican freshmen in calling for the Senate to carry out its Constitutional responsibility to give all judicial nominees an up-or-down vote.

Isakson and the six other freshmen senators who were elected last fall said voters made it clear they want an end to the obstructionism from Senate Democrats, who have spent two years blocking 10 of the President’s judicial nominees from getting an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

“The American people expect us to do what the Constitution requires us to do – advise and consent on the President’s judicial nominees with a simple majority vote,” Isakson said at a news conference outside the Capitol with the six other GOP freshmen. “I will cast my vote to ensure every nominee gets an up-or-down vote.”

The seven freshmen pledged to support Majority Leader Bill Frist in his effort to clarify the rules of the Senate and to restore a 214-year Senate tradition whereby judicial nominees are confirmed by a simple majority – 51 votes out of 100. Frist has not set a date for such a vote.

The U.S. Constitution specifies those few times when the Senate must have a two-thirds vote, such as to ratify treaties or to override a presidential veto. But when it comes to confirming the President’s judicial nominees, the Constitution does not require a two-thirds vote for confirmation nor does it pave the way for the minority to stage a filibuster that can only be stopped with 60 votes. The Constitution simply states that it is the Senate’s responsibility to advise and consent with a majority vote of the body.

Isakson said the Democrats have made it clear they care less about the qualifications of the nominees than about winning the issue politically.

“For the Democrats, this is about finding a way to obstruct the process,” Isakson said.

###

For Immediate Release

May 19, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley (202) 224-2939

REID WELCOMES POZEN CALL TO REJECT PRIVATE ACCOUNTS

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement welcoming Robert Pozen’s call for the president to reject private accounts in the Social Security debate:

“I am pleased that the inventor of the President’s benefit cut proposal for Social Security has joined Democrats in calling on the President to reject private accounts. These accounts, with their deep benefit cuts and massive new debt, would weaken Social Security and leave American workers worse off.

“Democrats remain committed to strengthening Social Security and working to make retirement more secure for all Americans. Once we can put privatization aside, Democrats stand ready to work in a bipartisan way to save Social Security.”

###

EVEN THE CREATOR OF THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN SAYS PRIVATE ACCOUNTS SHOULD GO

Pozen Called on the President to “Say that Carve-Out Accounts are no Longer Required.” Yesterday, Robert Pozen, the inventor of the President’s benefit cut plan, often referred to somewhat misleadingly as “progressive price indexing,” called on the president to take private accounts off the table. “I would advise the president to say that carve-out accounts are no longer required…[Bush should indicate he is] willing to have a package that, if otherwise satisfactory, does not have carve-out accounts.” [CQ Today, 5/19/05]

For Immediate Release

Thursday, May 19, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

REID CALLS ON REPUBLICANS TO STOP THIS PARTISAN POWER GRAB AND FOCUS ON THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement:

“While the Senate Republicans continue to distract from the American people’s business with this partisan power grab, the Senate remains distracted from the crucial work we must do to address skyrocketing health care costs, soaring gas prices and a pension crisis that are facing the American people today. Instead of continuing the bipartisan progress that we have completed so far this year, the Republican majority has instead decided to abuse their power and seek to break the traditions of the United States Senate.

“Democrats continue to stand with the American people in our efforts to address the issues that American families are facing. Instead of engaging in a partisan fight on the floor of the United States Senate, Democrats are prepared to do the work we were sent here to do and address rising health care costs, make retirement more secure, and address the needs of our troops, military families and veterans. I call on my Republican colleagues to stop this partisan power grab and focus on the people’s business. ”

###

REPUBLICANS DISTRACT THE SENATE FROM THE REAL WORK TO BE DONE

McConnell is Misguided in his Remarks. Senator McConnell claimed today that “what we have here is a further effort to make it impossible to do the peoples' business here in the Senate…the normal way we do business around here is for action to be going on on the floor and additional action in committees at the same time.” [Congressional Record, 5/19/05]

But it is Republicans Who Refuse to do the People’s Business. Democrats are eager to confirm four circuit court judges but it is the Republican majority who has focused instead on a partisan power grab and divisive judges outside the mainstream. Democrats have called on the Senate to confirm Thomas Griffith, David McKeague, Susan Bieke-Neilson and Richard Griffin.

Democrats are Eager to Focus on the People’s Business. Democrats stand ready to focus on the people’s business. Democrats have key pieces of legislation on the Senate calendar to address a range of issues facing American families today. Instead of continuing to abuse their power, Republicans should join Democrats in addressing these issues.

Women’s Health Care. “The Prevention First Act of 2005” will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing funding for family planning and ending health insurance discrimination against women. [S. 844]

Veterans’ Benefits. “The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005” will assist disabled veterans who, under current law, must choose to either receive their retirement pay or disability compensation. [S. 845]

Fiscal Responsibility. Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement. [S. 851]

Relief at the Pump. Democrats plan to halt the diversion of oil from the markets to the strategic petroleum reserve. By releasing oil from the reserve through a swap program, the plan will bring down prices at the pump. [S. 847]

Education. Democrats have a bill that will: strengthen head start and child care programs, improve elementary and secondary education, provide a roadmap for first generation and low-income college students, provide college tuition relief for students and their families, address the need for math, science and special education teachers, and make college affordable for all students. [S. 848]

Jobs. Democrats will work in support of legislation that guarantees overtime pay for workers and sets a fair minimum wage. [S. 846]

Energy Markets. Democrats work to prevent Enron-style market manipulation of electricity. [S. 870]

Corporate Taxation. Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas. [S. 872]

Standing with our troops. Democrats believe that putting America’s security first means standing up for our troops and their families. [S. 11]

For Immediate Release

May 17, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, (202) 224-2939

SENATOR HARRY REID’S REMARKS AT STAKEOUT

Reid emphasizes need for Checks & Balances and the work of the American people

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

The Republican leadership reminds me a little of the Roman Emperor Nero, who is famously accused of fiddling in the hills over Rome while the city burned.

We have gas prices well-above two-dollars, and a need for a real energy plan. But instead of coming up with one, the President continues to do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil

We have a pension system that faces financial challenges today. But instead of focusing on that, Republican leaders insist on a Social Security privatization plan that will actually make the situation worse.

We have troops serving in Iraq, and the Defense Authorization bill before the Senate. But instead of focusing on this critical legislation, the Majority Leader wants to go to judges.

There are so many issues before the American people, yet the Republican leadership wants to focus our time on radical judges like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rodgers Brown. These judges don’t deserve our attention, the American people do.

The Republican leaders’ refusal to focus on the issues of the American people represents the abuse of power at its worse. The American people have entrusted us with power so that we can tackle the challenges facing this country – not so that we can advance our own political agendas.

It’s now clear that the Republican leadership in the Senate is caving to the right-wing. They’ve put a radical agenda ahead of the American people, and they won’t rest until they have the ability to pack the courts – including the Supreme Court – with whoever they want.

Well, Democrats are united in an effort to stop them. And let me be clear: we’re not fighting for some “gimmick.” We’re fighting for checks and balances and limited government and the right to free speech in the United States Senate.

Each day, I’m encouraged by the number of responsible Republicans I’ve heard from. As the moment of truth draws near, I hope they have the courage to stand with us.

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

Message to Republicans’ New Revise and Invent Committee: GOP Daily History Lessons on Judges

This is your daily look at Republicans’ shifting views on the judicial filibuster

SENATOR FRIST IS INCREASINGLY ISOLATED

IN HIS VIEW OF THE FILIBUSTER’S

ROLE IN SENATE HISTORY

Senator Frist thinks the filibuster is a “gimmick.” Frist: "Republicans believe in the regular order of fair up and down votes and letting the Senate decide yes or no on judicial confirmations free from procedural gimmicks like the filibuster, and I hope Senator Reid and others knows our door is always open to reasonable proposals for fair up or down votes for judicial nominees." [Washington Post, 5/17/05]

Frist’s cavalier dismissal of the importance of the filibuster is not in-line with conservative opinion. Prominent conservatives support the filibuster for its role in protecting the rights of minorities. Frist could use a history lesson on the value of the filibuster from prominent conservatives.

Former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker called the filibuster a pillar of American Democracy. Howard Baker wrote in 1993 that destroying the right to filibuster "would topple one of the pillars of American Democracy: the protection of minority rights from majority rule. The Senate is the only body in the federal government where these minority rights are fully and specifically protected." [Legal Times, 3/7/05]

Senator Lugar is opposed to eliminating the filibuster. Lugar: "I'm opposed to trying to eliminate filibusters simply because I think they protect minority rights, whether they're Republicans, Democrats or other people.” [CNN's "Late Edition,” 5/15/05]

Former Republican Senator Charles Mathias says the nuclear option is the wrong option: “The Senate is not a parliamentary speedway. Nor should it be. It is an institution where any senator can demand to be heard . . . and can require a vote on his or her ideas.

“Make no mistake about it: If the Senate ever creates the precedent that, at any time, its rules are what 51 senators say they are -- without debate -- then the value of a senator's voice, vote and views, and the clout of his state, will be diminished.” [Washington Post, 5/12/05]

George Will praises the filibuster. Will: “The filibuster is an important defense of minority rights, enabling democratic government to measure and respect not merely numbers but also intensity in public controversies. Filibusters enable intense minorities to slow the governmental juggernaut. Conservatives, who do not think government is sufficiently inhibited, should cherish this blocking mechanism. And someone should puncture Republicans' current triumphalism by reminding them that someday they will again be in the minority.” [Newsweek 12/6/04]

Stephen Moore, President, Free Enterprise Fund, Founder and Past-President, Club for Growth says eviscerating the filibuster would violate the spirit of the Constitution. Moore: “Eviscerating the filibuster would violate the spirit of the Constitution and endanger our rights as individuals against excessive governmental power.” [Washington Post (with Wade Henderson, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights) 4/17/05]

If Senator Frist thinks the filibuster is just a “gimmick,” why should he be believed when he promises to only exercise the nuclear option for judicial nominees?

###

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939

***UPDATED***

REID FLOOR STATEMENT ON NUCLEAR OPTION

Washington, DC – Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor today.

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

“Yesterday afternoon the Majority Leader and I met one last time trying to reach a compromise that would avert the so-called nuclear option. That effort was unsuccessful.

“It appears that the Majority Leader cannot accept any solution which does not guarantee all current and future judicial nominees an up-down vote. That result is unacceptable to me because it is inconsistent with constitutional checks and balances. It would essentially eliminate the role of the Senate minority in confirming judicial nominations and turn the Senate into a rubberstamp for the President’s choices.

“I can only conclude that the true purpose of the nuclear option is not to win confirmation of some or all of the small handful of nominees Democrats filibustered last year. Rather, the goal of the Republican leadership and their allies in the White House is to pave the way for a Supreme Court nominee who would only need 50 votes for confirmation rather than 60. They don’t want consensus, they want confrontation.

“Yesterday, after rejecting our last attempt at a compromise, the Majority Leader issued a statement. In this statement, the Majority Leader talked about the upcoming debate over judicial nominations and said he hoped the upcoming debate is free from “procedural gimmicks like the filibuster.”

“Mr. President, the filibuster is not a “procedural gimmick.” The filibuster is an important check on executive power and part of every Senator’s right to free speech in the United States Senate.

“Over the years, the filibuster has proven to be an important tool of moderation and consensus – which partly explains why Republicans today are so opposed to it. They aren’t interested in moderation. They’re only interested in advancing their right-wing political agenda.

“I was in the House gym this morning where I ran into Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey. Congressman Holt’s father served in this Chamber. In the 1930s, Senator Holt led a filibuster to protect wage and hour protections for American workers. He wasn’t using a “political gimmick.” He was using an important tool to stand up for working men and women in this country.

“Of course the filibuster has not always been used for good. Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make – such as Civil Rights legislation. But at these times, the people have spoken and public opinion has spurred this Chamber into action.

“So you see, the filibuster is not a “political gimmick.” It’s part of the fabric of this institution.

“Also this morning, I ran into another congressman, a Republican congressman. He came up to me and said – “I never thought I’d say this to the Democratic Leader, but I’m praying for you and for the Senate.”

“Mr. President, as the moment of truth draw near, I too am praying. I pray that cooler heads will prevail and that responsible Republicans – like this Congressman who spoke to me this morning - will join Democrats in standing up against this abuse of power.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Thursday, May 12, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Feinstein, Cornyn Introduce Homeland Security Funding Bill

-- Requires risk-analysis for grant allocation, reduces “small state minimum” to .25% --

Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) today introduced legislation to ensure that homeland security grants are allocated according to where the threat of terrorist attack is greatest.

This legislation is cosponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).

“Billions of dollars in homeland security funds to states and local communities are being distributed to areas that are not at the greatest risk of terrorist attack,” said Senator Feinstein, ranking member of the Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security subcommittee. “We need to adopt risk-analysis to determine who should receive homeland security funding. If we are to improve our nation’s security, we absolutely have to direct funding and resources to where there is the most risk.”

“We must guard the places across our nation where terrorists may strike and where such attacks could do the most damage to our people, our government, and our national economy,” said Senator Cornyn, Chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee. “This legislation will more effectively protect our most vulnerable population centers, and the critical infrastructure and vital components of our economy. I’ll work with Senator Feinstein and our colleagues in passing this important legislation to better ensure the safety of our citizens.”

The current system of allocating homeland security funds to state and local governments leaves some targets exposed to threats while sending resources to places where there is little chance of terrorist attack. This legislation ensures that homeland security priorities are set according to analysis of risk and threat.

Specifically the bill would:

· Direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate funding to homeland security grants based on risk analysis. This direction covers the four major first-responder grant programs administered by Department of Homeland Security in addition to some grants for seaport and airport security - called “covered grants” in the bill, including:

1. The State Homeland Security Grant Program;

2. The Urban Area Security Initiative;

3. The Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and

4. The Citizens Corps Program.

· Reduce the “small state minimum” to .25% per state. Current practice requires each state to get .75% of much of the grant funding. That means 37.5% of the funds are marked for distribution before any risk analysis.

· Require grants be designed to meet “essential capabilities.” Essential capabilities are what we get for the money spent – the ability to address the risk by reducing vulnerability to attack and by diminishing the consequences of such an attack by effective response.

· Ensure that States quickly and effectively pass on Federal funds to where they are needed so that Federal funds are not held back.

“This will not be easy,” Senator Feinstein said. “There are lots of vested interests who will oppose such efforts. But our nation’s safety is at stake. It is time to put aside pork-barrel politics and a Cold War mentality and get to work. We can not afford to wait until it is too late.”

###

MEDIA ADVISORY

Alexander and Blunt invite authors of “Democracy by Decree” to Capitol Hill
to discuss how the courts have come to control policy making

WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) will hold a pen and pad session on Monday, May 16 at 9:15 a.m. to discuss legislation they have introduced to restrain "democracy by decree" - the tendency of some federal courts to make decisions that elected state and local officials ought to be making.

Blunt and Alexander will be joined by New York Law Professors Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod who wrote the book, "Democracy by Decree," which played a key role in preparing the legislation.

"The Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act" would make it easier for state and local governments to amend federal court consent decrees - judicial orders based on the consent of parties engaged in a civil action.

WHO: Senator Lamar Alexander
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt
Ross Sandler
David Schoenbrod

WHAT: Pen and Pad on the "Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act"

WHEN: Monday, May 16
9:15 a.m.

WHERE: Majority Whip's conference room
H-326 in the Capitol

Federal consent decrees have often become a means to "lock in" policies for decades after the state or local official that agreed to the decree has left office. Newly elected officials find themselves restricted by the motions of plaintiffs' attorneys and policy choices of a federal court. The bill requires plaintiffs to justify the continued existence of consent decrees after four years have passed or six months after voters have elected a new administration.

###

For Planning Purposes

Thursday, May 12, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

PRINCETON STUDENTS CULMINATE “FRIST FILIBUSTER” WITH SPEECHES FROM SENATORS JON CORZINE AND CHUCK SCHUMER

WASHINGTON, DC – After more than 385 hours, Princeton University students culminated their mock “filibuster” of Bill Frist with speeches from Senators Jon Corzine and Chuck Schumer today. Students began their protests at Princeton University on April 26th and arrived at the Capitol at 9:00 am on Wednesday where they were joined by students from Georgetown, Howard, George Mason, and Trinity.

“In standing up for the filibuster, these students stand with precedent and they stand with history,” Corzine said. “The filibuster protects the rights of every American and is an important part of our check and balances. I applaud their energy and civic mindedness and I’m glad to have a chance to speak with them.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer said, "This campaign to protect checks and balances is a truly grassroots effort. The American people including college kids from around the country are keenly aware that extremists who are way out of the mainstream are in control of the Republican Party right now. We hope that a few more brave Senators from the other side of the aisle will stand with us to block this historic mistake from becoming a reality."

Since arriving in Washington, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Congressman Rush Holt, and Constitutional scholars Peter Rubin, Bob Weinberg, and Michael Seidman have also joined the students.

###

For Immediate Release

May 12, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley (202) 224-2939

REID FLOOR STATEMENT ON SIXTH CIRCUIT NOMINEES

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid issued the following statement on the Senate Floor today.

Mr. President, I want to try again to persuade my Republican colleagues that the nuclear option to break the Senate rules regarding judicial nominations is unnecessary and unwise.

Earlier this week, I came to the Senate floor and offered to enter into a unanimous consent agreement that would allow an up-down vote for Thomas Griffith, a controversial nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

We have confirmed 208 of President Bush’s nominees to the federal court. But, 95% isn’t good enough, and Republican leaders have brought us to the brink of a nuclear show down that is bad for the Senate and bad for the country.

As I said on the floor earlier this week, Democrats understand the meaning of checks and balances, and our constitutional role in ensuring a fair and independent judiciary. I said “we know the difference between opposing nominees and blocking nominees. We will oppose bad nominees, but we will only block unacceptable nominees.”

Unfortunately, my effort to demonstrate good faith was immediately rejected. The Majority Leader indicated that the Senate would not be allowed to vote on Mr. Griffith unless Senate Democrats agree to an up-down vote on all judicial nominees. What that means is that the Majority Leader won’t compromise unless Democrats agree to give up the last check in Washington against abuse of power – the right to filibuster. This isn’t about 7 radical judges, it’s about paving the way to put a right wing conservative on the Supreme Court.

Our position is clear: let’s find common ground and confirm some judges. Their position appears to be: let’s threaten to break the rules until we get everything we want. If we can’t find compromise, as I said on Tuesday, we are ready to vote. We will fight to protect the nation’s constitutional system of checks and balances. That’s what the people sent us here to do, and we will live up to our responsibility to the American people.

Today I want to try again to do what my Republican judges say they want to do: confirm federal judges. Today I am prepared to enter into a unanimous consent agreement with respect to two and possibly three nominees to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:

• David McKeague

• Richard Griffin and possibly

• Susan Neilson

The Sixth Circuit nominees from Michigan have been caught up in a dispute that began when the Republican Senate failed to vote on either of the two eminently qualified women who President Clinton had nominated to the Michigan seats on that court: Helene White and Kathleen McCree Lewis.

Helene White is a distinguished judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals. Her nomination was pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee for over four years. Kathleen McCree Lewis is a highly regarded appellate litigator at a prominent Detroit law firm. Her nomination was pending for over one year.

Despite their outstanding qualifications, both of these nominees, along with over 60 other Clinton nominees, were buried in the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee. They were never given the courtesy of consideration by the Judiciary Committee, much less the courtesy of an up-down vote by the full Senate.

It seems like every day around here, a Republican Senator comes to the floor and says that every judicial nominee is entitled to an up-down vote on the Senate floor. I challenge those Senators to explain why Helene White and Kathleen Lewis were denied up-down votes on the Senate floor.

The failure of the Senate to confirm these two outstanding Clinton nominees meant that there were vacancies on the Sixth Circuit when President Bush took office. President Bush nominated candidates to fill those unjustified vacancies. And as other judges have left the court, the President has eventually sent four Sixth Circuit nominees to the Senate.

In light of the shameful treatment of President Clinton’s Sixth Circuit nominees, Senators Levin and Stabenow objected to the Bush nominees to this court, and three of them were filibustered in the last Congress. They were determined that the GOP tactic of denying hearings and votes to qualified nominees should not succeed.

I want to be clear that I fully support the actions of the two Senators from Michigan. They have been fighting a grave injustice that was perpetrated on Helene White and Kathleen Lewis. They have been fighting for the principle of fair treatment. I and all Democrats have been proud to stand with them in that fight.

But now, with the Senate facing the threat of the nuclear option, we have to remember why we are here. We are here to govern, not endlessly engage in political bickering that brings us to the brink of a Republican shutdown. The American people face great challenges each and every day – escalating health care costs, record high gas prices, skyrocketing tuition, mounting debts that will be handed down to our children and our grandchildren. Under George Bush’s leadership, middle class Americans have gone backwards, not forwards. And, instead of helping them, we are bickering over 7 radical judges.

For the sake of the American people, and for the integrity of the United States Senate, Democrats have been and will be reasonable. Too much is at stake. Our very system of constitutional checks and balances are at stake in this dispute. If granting an up-down vote to two and possibly three of these Sixth Circuit judges might help to avert the Republican shutdown and destruction of the Senate as we know it, we would reluctantly agree to do that.

One of the three Sixth Circuit nominees who were previously filibustered – Henry Saad – would have been filibustered anyway because there are serious concerns about his suitability to be a federal judge. But the other two nominees – Richard Griffin and David McKeague -- would not have been filibustered but for the treatment of the Clinton nominees.

The fourth nominee, Susan Neilson, was not reported from the Committee last year because at that time she was in poor health. The Michigan Senators are prepared to promptly vet her nomination as they did the other Sixth Circuit nominees.

Accordingly, I want the Majority Leader to be aware that Democrats are prepared to enter into the following unanimous consent agreement. If the nominations of Richard Griffin, David McKeague and Susan Neilson are reported from the Judiciary Committee, we would agree to limit floor debate on all three nominees to a total of six hours, equally divided. Following the use or yielding back of that time, there would be a vote on each of these three nominations.

So once again I say to my Republicans colleagues: Do you want to confirm judges or do you want to provoke a fight?

We have confirmed all four of the judicial nominees the Majority Leader has brought to the floor this year. We are prepared to vote on the nomination of Thomas Griffith to the D.C. Circuit. We are prepared to vote on two and possibly three nominees to the Sixth Circuit. Why are we being denied the opportunity to confirm these judges?

We have already confirmed 208 of President Bush’s judicial nominations. If the Majority Leader would accept our offer to vote on Griffith and these Sixth Circuit nominees, we would have confirmed 212 of President Bush’s nominees and rejected only 5.

Is the Majority prepared to break the rules and violate 217 years of Senate tradition, all for 5 extreme judges? I hope not.

In a New York Times Op-Ed two days ago, former Senator George Mitchell quoted from a famous speech delivered by one of his predecessors in this body, former Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith. In her famous "Declaration of Conscience" against the terrible McCarthyism then practiced by members of her own party, Senator Smith said the following:

“I don’t believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren’t that desperate for victory. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one party system.”

Today the Senate is not plagued by McCarthyism but by an abuse of power. Still, Senator Smith’s words ring true. I hope there are enough modern day Senator Smiths who will be guided by the interests of the nation.

NEWS RELEASE

JEFF SESSIONS

United States Senator – Alabama

CONTACT: MICHAEL BRUMAS OR NANCY WALL

(202) 224-4124

For Immediate Release

May 11, 2005

Bush Signs $82 Billion War Funding Bill That Includes Sessions’ Enhanced Military Death Benefits Proposal

WASHINGTON — President Bush today signed an $82 billion supplemental war spending bill that includes Sen. Jeff Sessions’ proposal to pay up to $500,000 for military personnel killed in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As part of the spending package to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the death gratuity rises to $100,000 from $12,420 for military personnel killed in combat and combat-related training. The Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance maximum benefit increases to $400,000 from $250,000. The enhanced benefits are retroactive to October 7, 2001, the day that combat operations began in Afghanistan.

“There is no amount of compensation that can replace the loss of a loved one,” Sessions said. “However, our military service members volunteer to leave their families and engage in a very difficult and dangerous campaign to defeat terrorists and secure peace and prosperity not only for America but for countless millions around the world. The enhanced death gratuity and life insurance benefit reflect the risks and dangers faced by our service men and women as they serve us around the world.”

According to the emergency war spending bill, military personnel who have died in combat or while conducting combat related training since October 7, 2001, will receive a one-time lump sum payment of $238,000, replicating the increased SGLI coverage of $150,000 and additional death gratuity of $88,000.

The supplemental bill also requires the military to provide written notification to a spouse of a service member who elects less than the maximum SGLI coverage of $400,000. Single service personnel will have such elections forwarded to their designated beneficiaries.

“It is too much to ask a young widow or grieving family to have to endure the dual tragedy of losing a husband, wife, son or daughter and then have to be concerned about facing financial hardship as they attempt to replace the income earned by the soldier, sailor, airman or marine,” Sessions said.

Sessions’ original proposal had included the increased death gratuity and life insurance benefits for military personnel killed in combat and training, but it was expanded during floor debate to include all military personnel. However, Senate and House conferees reconciling the two chambers’ bills restored the legislation to Sessions’ original language.

The Defense Department has estimated the cost of the enhanced benefits at about $460 million the first year, though that figure would be expected to drop in future years by more than half once retroactive benefits are paid.

Michael Brumas

Communications Director

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL)

335 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

(202) 224-4124 -- office

(202 224-3149 -- fax

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Allison Dobson (Harkin) 202-224-3254

May 12, 2005 Dan Pfeiffer (Bayh) 202-224-6807

Harkin, Bayh Urge Ethanol Relief for High Gas Prices

Senators Call on Department of Energy to Investigate Oil Companies’

Avoidance of Low-Cost Ethanol

Washington, DC – In a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman today, Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) requested the Department of Energy investigate the continued refusal by oil companies to blend low-priced, domestically produced ethanol into the nation’s gasoline supplies. The letter comes on the heels of a Consumer Federation report which concluded that gasoline prices could be significantly reduced if more ethanol were used in the nation’s fuel supply. Though gas prices are soaring, oil companies have refused to blend lower-priced ethanol into a larger share of the fuel supply.

“Skyrocketing gasoline prices continue to burden our economy and strain the family budget,” Harkin said. “Blending more ethanol into our fuel supply could lower these costs immediately. Yet oil companies refuse to budge. Americans deserves to know why oil companies making record profits insist that families pay top dollar at the pump when prices could be reduced by blending more lower-priced ethanol into our fuel supply. I intend to find out.”

“American families are literally paying the price for our dependence on places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia every time they fill up at the pump,” Bayh said. “There is no reason they should be in this situation, when relief for high gas prices can be found in our own country. We need to make the most of this opportunity by substituting ethanol for oil to cut the cost at the pump.”

Ethanol, a product derived from corn and produced here in the United States, can be blended into gasoline and used in cars for fuel. Domestic production of ethanol is expected to reach four billion gallons this year. And as oil prices have soared, ethanol prices remain comparatively low. By substituting some ethanol for gasoline derived from oil in our national fuel supply, gasoline prices could be reduced, saving families at the pump.

In fact, a Consumer Federation study released last week found that U.S. consumers could be paying as much as 8 cents a gallon less for gasoline if oil companies used lower-priced ethanol rather than higher priced petroleum components. At this rate, blending more ethanol into gasoline could save a typical family more than $85 at the pump each year.

Yet oil companies are deliberately keeping oil supplies tight and prices high, even though domestically-produced ethanol supplies are plentiful and have dropped as much as 50 cents per gallon since the beginning of the year. Oil companies, petroleum refiners and distributors continue to refuse to blend more into the fuel supply, preferring to use more oil-derived products instead.

“Oil companies are posting record profits while saying they can’t use ethanol,” said Harkin. “That’s passing the buck, quite literally, to America’s families and businesses that need reasonably priced gasoline. I urge the administration to investigate why more home-grown ethanol is not blended into gasoline even though it costs less.”

Currently, in the United States about ninety-seven percent of our transportation fuel comes from oil, with nearly two thirds of it imported from foreign sources. Harkin recently introduced legislation in the Senate co-sponsored by Bayh to establish a Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) that would require oil refiners to blend at least 8 billion gallons of and biodiesel ethanol into motor vehicle fuels a year by 2012 – more than doubling current levels. This is the most ambitious proposal currently in Congress.

“With gas prices easily topping two dollars a gallon, we need to begin looking into this problem immediately. We should insist that oil companies make full use of the ethanol blend to provide some measure of relief to families already paying unexpectedly high prices at the pump,” added Bayh. “If the Administration is serious about reducing the cost of gasoline, this investigation is the way to do it.”

###

For Immediate Release

Thursday, May 12, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

Message to Republicans’ New Revise and Invent Committee: GOP Daily History Lessons on Judges

This is your daily look at Republicans’ shifting views on the judicial filibuster

AS RADICAL REPUBLICANS CALL FOR A NUCLEAR WINTER, RATIONAL REPUBLICANS SPEAK OUT TO DEFEND THE SENATE:

Senator Frist Should Listen to Those Who Know Better

As Senator Frist pushes ahead with his plans to trample Senate rules, former Republican Senators speak out to defend the institution. Instead of pandering to radicals, Senator Frist should listen to the voices of reason and experience in his own party and back away from the nuclear option.

Mathias joins former Republicans Senators who have called on Senator Frist to respect the Senate.
Former Senators Jim McClure (R-ID) and Malcolm Wallop (R-WY):“Conservatives, in and out of the Senate, are now being assured that this extraordinary approach will not be applied to the legislative filibuster, which, in the not-so-distant past, was our only defense against the excesses of a bipartisan liberalism. There are several problems with that argument. [Wall Street Journal, 3/15/05]

Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY): “But there isn’t a question in my mind that when the Republicans go out of power and they, they’re looking for a protection of minority rights, they’re going to be alarmed and saddened. So when they pull the trigger, the boomerang may not come back for a few years but when it does it will get them right in the back of the neck.”
[NPR, 4/26/05]

Former Senator Bill Armstrong (R-CO): “Having served in the majority and in the minority, I know that it’s worthwhile to have the minority empowered. As a conservative, I think there is a value to having a constraint on the majority.”
[Roll Call, 4/25/05]

###

[Source: Congressional Research]

NEWS RELEASE

JEFF SESSIONS

United States Senator – Alabama

CONTACT: MICHAEL BRUMAS OR NANCY WALL

(202) 224-4124

For Immediate Release

May 10, 2005

Sen. Jeff Sessions Introduces Bill That Would Immediately Repeal The Estate Tax

WASHINGTON – Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) today introduced legislation that would immediately repeal the federal estate tax.

“The death tax is one of the IRS’s least efficient and most painful taxes,” said Sessions. “It places a huge burden on family farms and businesses, destroys thousands of jobs and hits grieving families with a massive tax bill just as they’ve lost a beloved family member.”

Sessions unveiled his bill at a news conference in the U.S. Capitol. He was joined by Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Wayne Allard (R-CO), two of the 23 co-sponsors of the legislation.

The Jobs Protection and Estate Tax Reform Act of 2005 would permanently repeal the estate tax beginning this year.

“It’s wrong to tax families for the same income twice, and it’s wrong to tax the death of a loved one,” Sessions said.

The estate tax, which this year stands at 47 percent on estates worth more than $1.5 million, is slated for a one-year complete repeal in 2010. Under current law, the top tax rate would rise to 55 percent in 2011 on estates worth more than $1 million. Sessions’ bill would permanently repeal the tax retroactive to January 1, 2005.

The House of Representatives passed a similar estate tax repeal bill last month. The difference between the two proposals is that Sessions’ bill would repeal the tax five years earlier than the House-passed measure.

-30-

Michael Brumas

Communications Director

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL)

335 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

(202) 224-4124 -- office

(202 224-3149 -- fax

***Copy of letter included in text***
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release

May 10, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley (202) 224-2939

Senator Harry Reid’s Remarks at Media Availability

Reid responds to Frist’s proposal

As Prepared for Delivery:

Two weeks ago, Bill Frist and I exchanged proposals in an attempt to avert a vote on the nuclear option.

One proposal allowed for up or down votes on all but four judges – which many of us on both sides of the aisle considered to be the goal of this hyped battle over judicial nominations.

It also took the “nuclear option” off the table, which even Ken Starr said yesterday was damaging to the Senate as an institution and “amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.” This compromise would break the gridlock over these seven judges, and allow us to get back to doing the people’s business.

Senator Frist’s proposal does nothing to end the judicial impasse, as it would wipe away the very checks and balances that have prevented an abuse of power for more than 200 years.

That result is unacceptable.

I still consider this confrontation entirely unnecessary and irresponsible. The White House manufactured this crisis. Since Bush took office, the Senate confirmed 208 of his judicial nominations and turned back only 10, a 95% confirmation rate. Instead of accepting that success and avoiding further divisiveness and partisanship in Washington, the President chose to pick fights instead of judges by resubmitting the names of the rejected nominees.

This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it’s about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O’Connor or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter. George Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical judges. That’s not how America works.

I believe there are two options for avoiding the nuclear showdown, which so many of us believe is bad for the Senate, and bad for America.

But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option. Democrats will join responsible Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

If it does come to a vote, I asked Senator Frist to allow his Republican colleagues to follow their consciences. Senator Specter recently said that Senators should be bound by Senate loyalty rather than party loyalty on a question of this magnitude. But right wing activists are threatening primary challenges against Republicans who vote against the nuclear option. Senators should not face this or any other form of retribution based on their support for the Constitution. In return, I pledge that I will place no such pressure on Democratic Senators and I urge Senator Frist to refrain from placing such pressure on Republican Senators.

I also suggest two reasonable ways to avert this constitutional crisis.

First, allow up or down votes on additional nominees, as I addressed in my proposal to Frist two weeks ago. If this is about getting judges on the courts, let’s get them on the courts.

Second, allow the Senate to consider changing the rules without breaking the rules. Every one of us knows that there is a right way and a wrong way to change the rules of the Senate; the nuclear option is the wrong way. Senator Dodd will go to the floor this afternoon to expand on the way the Senate changes its rules.

I suggest that Senator Frist introduce his proposal as a resolution. If he does, we commit to moving it through the Rules Committee expeditiously and allow for a vote on the floor. It takes 67 votes to change the rules. If Senator Frist can’t achieve 67 votes, then clearly the nuclear option is not in the best interest of the Senate or the nation.

Either of these options offers a path away from the precipice of the nuclear option. But if neither of these options is acceptable to you, let’s vote.

Below is a copy of Senator Reid’s response to Senator Frist’s letter from 4/28:

May 10, 2005

The Honorable William Frist

Majority Leader

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Bill:

I have reviewed your April 28 letter to me regarding the current impasse over judicial nominations. In essence, you propose to eliminate the role of the Senate minority in considering judicial nominees. The rules changes you suggest would hand the President the power to make lifetime appointments to the federal courts without the check of meaningful Senate review. That result is unacceptable.

I still consider this confrontation entirely unnecessary and in this letter will suggest two options for avoiding it. But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option. Democrats will join responsible Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

I call on you to allow your Republican colleagues to follow their consciences on this historic question – as Senator Specter recently said, Senators should be bound by Senate loyalty rather than party loyalty on a question of this magnitude. But at least one right-wing activist has threatened to sponsor primary challenges against Republicans who vote against the nuclear option. Senators should not face this or any other form of retribution based on their support for the Constitution and the integrity of the Senate. I pledge that I will place no such pressure on Democratic Senators and I ask for your commitment not to place such pressure on Republican Senators.

Turning to your April 28 letter, I want to thank you for recognizing that “some of President Clinton’s nominees were blocked in committee” and therefore “both parties have significant complaints about the process by which the Senate exercises its responsibility to advise and consent.” It is disingenuous for Republican Senators to insist that every judicial nominee is entitled to the courtesy of an up-down vote when 69 Clinton nominees were denied that very courtesy by the Republican-controlled Senate. Historians can debate whether President Hayes’s 1881 nomination of Stanley Matthews to the Supreme Court was filibustered (it was), but you and I don’t need to debate whether dozens of Clinton nominees were rejected by the Senate’s inaction – we served in the Senate during those years and we know that they were.

You now propose two changes to Senate procedure that would eliminate Democratic influence over President Bush’s judicial nominees by abolishing the same senatorial prerogatives that Republicans used to exert influence over President Clinton’s judicial nominees. Aside from the merits, your proposal is objectionable because it would enable the Republican majority to profit from its own overreaching during the Clinton years. The Senate rules should only be changed to improve the institution, not to achieve momentary partisan advantage. Neither of your proposed rules changes meets that standard.

First, you propose to streamline consideration of nominees in the Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, this reform is unnecessary. Over the course of President Bush’s first term Chairman Hatch unilaterally eliminated each of the tools, such as the blue-slip process, by which the Senate minority traditionally exerted influence over judicial nominations. Your proposal would merely codify the current unfair practices.

These now-discarded Judiciary Committee procedures had the beneficial effect of encouraging White House consultation with the Senate minority and with home-state Senators in order to resolve disputes before nominations are presented to the Senate. Over the last four years President Bush too often failed to seek the advice of the Senate before making unwise nominations, and Democrats lacked any means short of a filibuster to carry out our duty under the Advice and Consent Clause of the Constitution. Consensus nominations are good for the Senate and good for the judiciary. If anything, we should reestablish the blue-slip process rather than formalize its demise.

Second, you propose to abolish minority rights on the floor of the Senate, replacing the 60 vote threshold established by Rule XXII with a new 51 vote threshold following 100 hours of floor debate. I cannot agree to this proposal because it denies the Senate minority a meaningful voice in confirming nominees and is therefore inconsistent with constitutional checks and balances. The principle at stake here is not the length of debate -- it is the role of the Senate minority to serve as a check on executive power. Your proposal simply places a delayed fuse on the nuclear option.

Incidentally, I am baffled by your suggestion that minority rights be terminated with respect to circuit court and Supreme Court nominations but not district court nominations. Surely appellate court nominees deserve greater scrutiny than trial court nominees, and in any event all nominations are governed by the same Advice and Consent Clause of the Constitution. I can only conclude that your real goal is not to vindicate a constitutional principle but to establish a 51 vote threshold for President Bush’s nominations to the Supreme Court.

Your proposal would embolden the President to nominate an extreme Supreme Court nominee, the last thing our country needs. The best thing for our country would be a consensus Supreme Court nominee of great stature who could command the support of a vast majority of Senators.

Even though your April 28 letter does not present an acceptable resolution of our current dispute, we should not stop trying. Our colleagues have implored us to work this out, and we owe them, the Senate itself and the American people our best efforts to negotiate a settlement. Let me summarize two ways to avoid a showdown:

Option 1: Up-Down Votes for Additional Nominees

The Senate has already confirmed 208 of President Bush’s nominees and yesterday I proposed that the Senate take up a 209th nominee -- controversial D.C. Circuit nominee Thomas Griffith -- under procedures that would guarantee him an up-down vote. In addition, as I have previously discussed with you, the Democratic caucus would be willing to debate and vote on four of the disputed court of appeals nominees -- the three Sixth Circuit nominees other than Henry Saad and one of the other four nominees who were previously filibustered. This additional concession would be contingent on your commitment to abandon the nuclear option for the remainder of the 109th Congress and reinstatement of the blue-slip process in the Judiciary Committee.

I have been faulted by some of my allies for making this offer because it would amount to Democrats yielding on our principled opposition to each of these nominations. I have responded to these critics by saying that Senate leaders must sometimes compromise, even on matters of principle, for the good of the Senate and the country.

Option 2: Allow the Senate to Consider Changing the Rules without Breaking the Rules

There is a right way and a wrong way to change the rules of the Senate; the nuclear option is the wrong way. While I personally oppose the rules changes you propose in your April 28 letter, I am willing to facilitate their consideration by the Senate under the well-established procedures for amending the Senate rules. I suggest that you introduce your April 28 proposal in the form of a Senate resolution, or reintroduce your similar proposal (S. Res. 138) from last Congress. When that resolution is referred to the Rules Committee, I would work with Ranking Member Dodd to ensure its full, fair and expedited consideration. And if the resolution is referred to the full Senate as I expect it would, I pledge that Democrats would approach it in good faith through the ordinary legislative process.

While Rule XXII establishes a 67-vote threshold for amendments to the Senate rules, I don’t think that is an insurmountable obstacle for some improvements in the process by which the Senate considers judicial nominees. I assure you that Democrats would be more receptive to rules changes presented in this way than in the form of the nuclear option, in which the Senate majority would break the rules to change them.

Either of these options offers a path away from the precipice of the nuclear option. Either would avert this confrontation and instead allow the Senate to continue working in a bipartisan way on matters of real concern to the American people. But if neither of these options is acceptable to you, let’s vote.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID

Democratic Leader

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Grassley Announces $3.2 Million in Grants for Brownfields Projects in Iowa

Ten Communities Receive Assistance to Revitalize Former Industrial and Commercial Sites

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley today announced that ten communities in Iowa will receive a total of $3,250,000 from the Brownfields program within the Environmental Protection Agency.

“Redeveloping industrial areas is an important investment in the future of Iowa. Rejuvenating these areas will improve the quality of life and promote economic development in these communities,” Grassley said.

The grants are directed toward site assessments and clean up. Assessment grants help communities evaluate and plan for eventual cleanup of sites, and clean up grants help communities revitalize land they already own.

“It makes a lot of sense to clean up these brownfields sites. Rehabilitation improves the environment and sets the stage for renewed economic activity,” Grassley said. “It’s important for the federal government to support the local commitment to turn these areas around.”

The Brownfields Program promotes the redevelopment of America’s estimated 450,000 abandoned and contaminated waste sites. Since its inception in 1995, the program has awarded 709 assessment grants totaling over $190 million and 150 cleanup grants totaling $26.8 million.

A list of the communities and a description of the project follows:

Cedar Rapids: $200,000 assessment grant for community-wide hazardous substances

Clinton: Total $400,000 – $200,000 assessment grant for community-wide hazardous substances and $200,000 assessment grant for community wide petroleum

Council Bluffs: Total $400,000 – $200,000 assessment grant for community-wide hazardous substances and $200,000 assessment grant for community wide petroleum

Davenport: Total $600,000 – $200,000 assessment grant for hazardous substances, $200,000 cleanup grant for Meyer Property at 2400 River Drive, and $200,000 cleanup grant for the Zenith Property

Des Moines: $200,000 assessment grant for community-wide petroleum

Marion: $200,000 cleanup grant for the Central Corridor Revitalization Project Area

Oelwein: Total $400,000 – $200,000 assessment grant for community-wide hazardous substances and $200,000 assessment grant for community wide petroleum

Perry: $200,000 assessment grant for community-wide petroleum

Sioux City: Total $400,000 – $200,000 assessment grant for community-wide hazardous substances and $200,000 assessment grant for community wide petroleum

Waterloo: Total $250,000 – $50,000 assessment grant for the former Chamberlain Manufacturing Complex and $200,000 cleanup grant for the Construction Machinery Company Site

-30-

For Immediate Release

May 10, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley (202) 224-2939

REID STATEMENT ON BUSH’S RISKY PRIVATIZATION SCHEME

Benefit Cuts for Middle-Class Seniors While Making the Problem Worse is a Bad Plan

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement today:

“Today we have compelling new evidence that the President’s risky privatization scheme is a bad deal for American workers. Not only will the President’s plan drastically slash guaranteed benefits for middle-class seniors, eliminating these benefits entirely for some, but it will make Social Security’s financial challenge worse. Even with his endorsement of the largest benefit cuts in the history of Social Security, the President’s insistence on private accounts means his plan would drive Social Security into insolvency 11 years earlier. This so-called cure is worse than the disease.”

“The President wants to replace Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with a gamble. But American seniors and workers will not accept historic benefit cuts. Not only does the president’s plan make the system’s problem worse, it will require trillions in new debt, largely borrowed from foreign countries like China and Saudi Arabia.”

“The President’s privatization plan doesn’t strengthen Social Security, it weakens it. Democrats are committed to strengthening the program and will work to find ways to address Social Security’s long term financial challenge while also encouraging Americans to save and taking other steps to enhance retirement security.”

BUSH’S BENFIT CUTS AND DEBT ARE A BAD PLAN FOR AMERICA

The President’s Plan Will Make Social Security Insolvent Eleven Years Earlier. “The President’s private accounts…would accelerate the date on which Social Security begins to have a cash-flow deficit, as well as the date of insolvency, because establishing the accounts requires diverting large sums from Social Security to the accounts. When the sliding-scale benefit reductions and the private accounts are considered together, the plan is found to move forward the year in which Social Security would become insolvent from 2041 to 2030. This result could be averted only by large cash transfers from the Treasury or additional benefit reductions or tax increases. The plan also would accelerate the year in which the program begins to run cash-flow deficits from 2017 to 2011.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/10/05]

The Bush Benefit Cut Would be the Largest in History for Middle-Class Seniors. “The 1983 Social Security reform, for example, lowered benefits for average workers by 17 percent, with the reduction phased in over 46 years.” Under the president’s proposal, two benefit cuts will impact middle-class seniors – the indexing cut and the privatization tax for those who contribute to a private account. “The combined effect of progressive price indexing and the President’s private accounts would be to reduce Social Security defined benefits by 73 percent for medium earners and 97 percent for the so-called ‘high earners’ [whose earnings today average about $59,000].” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/4/05; 5/2/05]

Despite These Record Benefit Cuts, the President’s Plan Closes Only 30 Percent of Social Security’s Solvency Gap. “The President’s sliding-scale benefit reductions, by themselves, would close 59 percent of Social Security’s long-term funding shortfall…When the private accounts are added in, however, the President’s plan as a whole is found to close only 30 percent of the 75-year gap. More than two-thirds of the gap would remain.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/10/05]

The Bush Plan Will Create $5 Trillion in New Debt. “[T]he President’s plan, including both the private accounts and the sliding-scale benefit reductions, would add about $5 trillion to the debt (i.e., the ‘debt held by the public’) over the first 20 years the plan was in effect”. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/10/05]

From: Senate Finance Committee Staff

Date: May 10, 2005

Subject: Revenue Offsets in SAFETEA

________________________________________________________________________

The Substitute Amendment, No. 605, offered by Chairman Inhofe to H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA) includes the Finance Committee title with the following revenue offsets:

A. Modify the tax treatment of contingent payment convertible debt instruments. The provision creates a consistent “apples to apples” approach to value contingent convertible debt for purposes of computing original issue discount (OID). A “comparable rate” for a contingent, convertible debt instrument would be based on a noncontingent, convertible debt instrument (and not a non-convertible debt instrument, as the IRS now applies the law). Raises $462 million over ten years.

B. Frivolous tax submissions. The provision increases the penalty for filing frivolous tax returns or for filing frivolous tax submissions from $500 to $5,000 and expands the penalty to apply to all taxpayers and all types of Federal taxes. This provision applies to submissions for collection due process, installment agreements, offers-in-compromise and taxpayer assistance orders. This provision becomes effective for all submissions and issues raised after the date on which the Secretary first prescribes the required list of frivolous positions. Raises $30 million over ten years.

C. Increased criminal fines and penalties. The provision increases criminal fines and prison sentences for the three most common offenses: failure to file, filing a false or fraudulent return and tax evasion. These proposed changes are substantially similar to increased criminal penalty provisions passed by the Senate in last year’s JOBS Act. One notable change is the creation of a new aggravated failure to file offense. While retaining the current misdemeanor penalty for non-filers needed to address simple violations, the new provision creates an aggravated offense to address more serious noncompliant behavior (“aggravated” means failing to file for 3 or more years with an aggregate tax liability of $100,000 or more). Raises $5 million over ten years.

D. Doubled penalties for concealment of income using offshore accounts. The provision doubles penalties, interest and fines on taxpayers deliberately concealing taxable income by using offshore accounts, including credit cards. This provision applies to taxpayers who have an offshore account and have not signed a closing agreement in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Compliance Initiative (OVCI) or voluntarily disclosed participation in such arrangement to the IRS. This provision would become effective for taxpayers’ open tax years on or after date of enactment. Raises $10 million over ten years.

E. Modification of CFC-PFIC coordination rules. The provision limits the exception from passive foreign investment company (PFIC) rules for United States shareholders of controlled foreign corporations (CFC). Current law may enable a U.S. shareholder to claim exemption from the PFIC rules with respect to ownership of CFC stock on the basis of mere status as a U.S. shareholder, despite the fact that the U.S. shareholder may have implemented a structure intended to render it impossible for such shareholder to recognize any income under subpart F in connection with the stock. This provision would become effective for taxable years of foreign corporations beginning after March 2, 2005, and for taxable years of U.S. shareholders with or within which such taxable years of such foreign corporations end. Raises $119 million over ten years.

F. Declaration by CEO relating to federal annual corporate income tax return of a corporation. The provision requires that the annual federal income tax return of a corporation contain a declaration signed by the chief executive officer under penalties of perjury. The declaration would confirm that the corporation has in place processes and procedures that ensure the return is compliant and that the CEO was provided reasonable assurance of the accuracy of all material aspects of the return. The provision is effective for Federal tax returns for taxable years ending after the date of enactment. Negligible revenue effect.

G. Grant Treasury regulatory authority to address foreign tax credit transactions. The provision authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations to address abusive foreign tax credit (FTC) schemes that involve the inappropriate separation or stripping of foreign taxes from the related foreign income so taxpayers get the benefit of the FTC but don’t report the related income. The provision becomes effective for transactions entered into after the date of enactment. Raises $16 million over ten years.

H. Whistleblower reforms. This provision provides greater certainty and independent review for whistleblowers who are seeking a cash award for providing assistance to the IRS. The provision is focused on encouraging whistleblowers who provide information about corporations and wealthy individuals who have a significant unpaid tax liability. In addition, the provision creates a Whistleblower Office at the IRS that will be dedicated to working with whistleblowers who provide valuable information about tax violations. The IRS would be required to report annually to Congress on the program. The provision becomes effective for information provided after the date of enactment. Raises $407 million over ten years.

I. Denial of deduction for certain fines, penalties, and other amounts. This provision clarifies that amounts paid or incurred whether by suit, agreement or otherwise to, or at the direction of a government, in relation to a violation of any law or the governmental investigation or inquiry into the potential violation of any law are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes. The provision is effective for amounts paid or incurred on or after the date of enactment unless paid under a binding order or agreement entered before that date. Raises $200 million over ten years.

J. Freeze interest and suspension rules with respect to listed transactions (sec. 6404(g) modification). This provision is directed toward investors in abusive tax avoidance transactions that have been designated as “listed transactions” by the IRS. It eliminates the 18 month suspension of interest benefit that normally applies if the IRS does not notify the taxpayer of its tax liability within 18 months of the return due date. This provision becomes effective for transactions with open years on or after the date of enactment. Raises $396 million over ten years.

K. Repeal Section 470 exception for qualified transportation property (SILOs). The provision repeals an exceedingly generous transition rule permitting a leasing tax shelter abuse in the transportation sector called SILOs. SILO schemes allowed corporations to claim tax deductions for bridges, pipelines, and subways that are paid for with taxpayer dollars. Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act last fall and outlawed SILOs, but under that bill, SILO shelter promoters received more than a year to get their deals-in-process approved by the Department of Transportation. This provision will repeal that transition relief and will end abusive SILO tax shelters as of the enactment date of the American Jobs Creation Act. Raises $372 million over ten years.

L. Impose Mark-to-Market on individuals who expatriate. The provision generally subjects certain U.S. citizens who relinquish their U.S. citizenship and certain long-term U.S. residents who terminate their U.S. residence to tax on the net unrealized gain in their property as if such property were sold for fair market value on the day before the expatriation or residency termination. Gain from the deemed sale is taken into account at that time without regard to other tax code provisions; any loss from the deemed sale generally would be taken into account to the extent otherwise provided in the code. Any net gain on the deemed sale is recognized to the extent it exceeds $600,000 ($1.2 million in the case of married individuals filing a joint return, both of whom relinquish citizenship or terminate residency). This provision becomes effective for U.S. citizens who expatriate or long-term residents who terminate their residency on or after the date of enactment. Raises $493 million over ten years.

M. Deny deduction for punitive damages. The provision eliminates the deduction for punitive damages that are paid or incurred by the taxpayer as a result of a judgment or in settlement of a claim. If the liability for punitive damages is covered by insurance, any such punitive damages paid by the insurer are included in gross income of the insured person and the insurer is required to report such amounts to both the insured person and the IRS. The provision is effective for punitive damages that are paid or incurred on or after the date of enactment. Raises $350 million over ten years.

N. Application of earnings stripping rules to C corporations which are partners. Present law provides rules to limit the ability of U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations to reduce U.S. tax on their U.S.-source income through earnings-stripping transactions. The present law earnings-stripping provision does not apply to partnerships. Proposed Treasury regulations provide that a corporate partner’s proportionate share of a partnership’s liabilities is treated as debt of the corporation for purposes of applying the earnings-stripping limitation to the corporation’s own interest payments. This provision codifies a rule attributing partnership debt to the corporate partner for this earnings-stripping test. Raises $298 million over ten years.

O. Deferral of certain stock option and restricted stock option gains prohibited. This provision eliminates the ability of an executive to avoid or defer paying income tax on the value of stock options. Stock options transferred to a related party in exchange for deferred installment or lump sum payments are taxable to the executive in the year of the exchange with the related party. This provision becomes effective for any exchange on or after the date of enactment. Raises $64 million over ten years.

P. Clarification of the economic substance doctrine and related penalty provisions. This provision clarifies the application of the economic substance doctrine but does not change current law standards used by courts in determining when to utilize an economic substance analysis. The provision does not alter the court's ability to aggregate or disaggregate a transaction when applying the doctrine. The provision provides a uniform definition of economic substance, but does not alter court flexibility in other respects. This measure has been included in several Senate-passed bills. Specifically, in any case in which a court determines that the economic substance doctrine is relevant to a transaction, the economic substance doctrine would be satisfied only if (1) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax consequences) the taxpayer’s economic position, and (2) the taxpayer has a substantial non-tax purpose for entering into such transaction and the transaction is a reasonable means of accomplishing such purpose. The 20 percent penalty for transactions that lack economic substance is increased to 40 percent if the transaction is not disclosed to the IRS. This provision becomes effective for transactions entered into after the date of enactment. Raises $15.9 billion over ten years.

Q. Termination of installment agreements. This provision would terminate installment agreements for failure to file returns and failure to make tax deposits. Although a significant number of taxpayers violate the terms of their installment agreements by failing to timely file their tax returns or make required Federal tax deposits, the IRS is not permitted to terminate installment agreements for these reasons. This provision would be effective for failures occurring after the date of enactment. Negligible revenue effect.

R. Waiver of user fee for installment agreements using automated withdrawals. The IRS imposes a $43 user fee on taxpayers entering into an installment agreement. The provision would waive the user fee if the taxpayer agrees to automated withdrawal of installment payments from a bank account. This provision will help facilitate collection through automated withdrawals. Costs $35 million over ten years.

S. Offers-in-compromise. The provision requires that a taxpayer make a good faith down payment of 20 percent of any lump sum offer-in-compromise with any application for an offer. For periodic payment offers, the taxpayer is required to comply with their own payment schedule. The provision also repeals the $150 user fee, eliminates Chief Counsel review of certain offers, reduces the IRS time to accept an offer from 24 months to 12 months beginning in 2010, and creates a task force to review the entire OIC program and make recommendations. Raises $668 million over ten years.

T. Additional Revenue Provisions to Combat Fuel Fraud

1. Allow credit card companies to claim refunds for gas purchased by exempt users with fuel credit cards. This provision requires credit card companies who allow tax-exempt fuel purchases on their credit cards to register with the IRS and to be the party responsible for claiming refunds of the tax. This provision becomes effective for sales after the 12/31/05. Negligible revenue effect.

2. Additional requirements for exempt purchases. States, local governments and schools can purchase tax-exempt fuel. It is difficult for vendors to know whether some entities are in fact entitled to the exemption. The provision requires the states to certify whether an entity is part of the state or a local government. In addition, the provision clarifies the rule that it is schools that are exempt from fuel taxes and not all non-profit educational organizations, like trade associations. Raises $43 million over ten years.

3. Repeal of ultimate vendor claims with respect to farming. One area where IRS continues to see fuel tax evasion is the misuse of exempt fuel intended for farming purposes. The provision requires farmers who buy clear diesel to buy it tax paid. They can claim a refund for amounts used for farming purposes. Farmers may continue to buy tax free diesel if it is dyed. Raises less than $500,000 over ten years.

4. Coordinate Homeland Security information reporting with IRS reporting. Requires Department of Homeland Security and Treasury to provide for the transmission to the IRS of information pertaining to taxable fuels destined for importation into the U.S. Raises $41 million over ten years.

5. Require registration of large draft vessels. Present law requires registration of vessels (ships and barges) for tax-exempt bulk transfers of fuel. Treasury regulations have created an exemption for large draft vessels. The provision overturns the regulation. Raises $31 million over ten years.

6. Taxation of gasoline blendstocks and kerosene. The provision taxes gasoline blendstocks when they are removed from the bulk system. This will prevent untaxed blendstocks from being blended with taxed fuel. In addition, present law taxes kerosene, but Treasury regulations have exempted some kerosene. The provision partially overturns that regulation. Raises $1.18 billion over ten years.

7. Duty free gas. A retail fuel station continues to challenge IRS and Customs determinations that fuel may not be sold tax free at duty free zones. The provision clarifies that fuel purchased and placed into the fuel tank of a vehicle is not purchased for export. This will prevent the sale of gasoline tax free in duty free zones near the U.S. border. No revenue effect.

8. Removals of kerosene from terminals. Kerosene can be used as diesel or aviation fuel. The provision will tax all removals of kerosene other than into the wing of an airplane as diesel (24.4 cents per gallon). All receipts would go to the Highway Trust Fund. If the fuel is eventually used for aviation purposes a refund will be available to bring the tax down to the appropriate aviation fuel rate. The HTF will pay to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund the appropriate amount of tax paid on fuel used for aviation purposes. Raises $495 million over ten years.

9. Penalty for adulterated fuel. Compliance officers routinely find that diesel is being sold for highway use with sulfur content well above 500 ppm. This suggests that untaxed, non-compliant diesel is being blended with taxed fuel. The provision imposes a $10,000 penalty for anyone who knowingly sells diesel that does not comply with EPA low sulfur diesel regulations. Negligible revenue effect.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Adam Elggren (202) 224-3370

May 10, 2005

HATCH: TOP 10 MOST RIDICULOUS

JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER DEFENSES

Washington – Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) today took to the Senate floor to note some of the most specious arguments made by proponents of the unprecedented filibuster campaign against President Bush’s judicial nominees. Among the highlights:

On an up-or-down vote being a “rubberstamp”: “Being on the losing side does not make one a rubberstamp. For all these centuries of democratic government, have we seen only winners and rubberstamps? Was the famous tagline for ABC’s Wide World of Sports, the thrill of victory and the agony of rubberstamping? Democrats did not start filibustering judicial nominations until the 108th Congress. Imagine the American history books describing the previous 107 as the ‘Great Rubberstamp Senates.’”

On the Democrats’ contradictory opinions of judicial nomination filibusters: “In September 1999, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, ... said: ‘It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’’ Those were the words of our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy: give every Senator the opportunity to vote yes or no. That was then; this is now.”

On smearing nominees with the label “extremist”: “What our Democratic colleagues call extreme, the American Bar Association calls qualified. In fact, all three of the appeals court nominees chosen four years ago who have been denied confirmation received the ABA’s highest well qualified rating. The same Democrats who once called the ABA rating the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees now disregard it.”

On the claim that the Constitutional Option would be unprecedented: “In 1977, 1979, and 1987, the Majority Leader, Senator Byrd, secured a favorable parliamentary ruling through a point of order, and a majority of Senators voted to affirm it. He did this even when the result he sought was inconsistent with the text of our written rules.” Hatch pointed out that on one of those times, the maneuver was used to negate nomination-related filibusters.

The full text of Hatch’s speech follows:

Statement of Orrin G. Hatch

before the

United States Senate

May 10, 2005

SEN. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of President Bush’s first judicial nominations, a group of 11 highly qualified men and women nominated to the United States Court of Appeals. As I sat in the East Room at the White House on May 9, 2001, I hoped that the Senate would at least treat these nominees fairly.

But many of our Democratic colleagues instead chose to follow their Minority Leader’s order, issued days after President Bush took office, to use “whatever means necessary” to defeat judicial nominees the minority does not like. While the previous three presidents saw their first 11 appeals court nominees confirmed in an average of just 81 days, today, 1461 days later, three of those original nominees have not even received a vote, let alone been confirmed.

In 2003, the minority opened a new front in the confirmation conflict by using filibusters to defeat majority supported judicial nominees. Mr. President, this morning I will briefly address the Top 10 Most Ridiculous Judicial Filibuster Defenses. Time permits only brief treatment, but then it was difficult to limit the list to ten.

Number 10 is the claim that these filibusters are part of Senate tradition. Calling something a filibuster, even if you repeat it over and over, does not make it so. These filibusters block confirmation of majority supported judicial nominations by defeating votes to invoke cloture, or end debate. Either these filibusters happened before or they did not.

Let us take the evidence offered by filibuster proponents at face value.

These two charts list some representative examples of what Democrats repeatedly claim as filibuster precedents. As you can see, Mr. President, the Senate confirmed each of these nominations. As ridiculous as it sounds, filibuster proponents claim, with a straight face, that confirming these past nominations justifies refusing to confirm nominations today.

Some examples are more ridiculous than others.

Stephen Breyer is here on the Democrats’ list of filibusters, suggesting that the Senate treated his nomination the way Democrats are treating President Bush’s nominations today. The two situations could not be more different. Even though President Carter nominated Breyer in November 1980 after losing his bid for re-election and after Democrats lost control of the Senate, we voted to end debate and overwhelmingly confirmed Stephen Breyer just 26 days after his nomination.

The suggestion that confirming the Breyer nomination for the party losing its majority now justifies filibustering nominations for the party keeping its majority is, well, just plain ridiculous.

Number 9 on the list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is that they are necessary to prevent one-party rule from stacking the federal bench. If you win elections, you say the country has chosen its leadership; if you lose, you complain about one-party rule. When your party controls the White House, the president appoints judges. When the other party controls the White House, the president stacks the bench.

Our Democratic colleagues say we should be guided by how the Democratic Senate handled President Franklin Roosevelt’s effort to pack the Supreme Court. It is true that FDR’s legislative proposal to create new Supreme Court seats failed – and without a filibuster, I might add. But as it turned out, packing the Supreme Court required only filling the existing seats. President Roosevelt packed the Court all right, by appointing no less than eight Justices in six years, more than any President except George Washington himself.

As this chart shows, during the 75th, 76th, and 77th Congresses, when President Roosevelt made those nominations, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by an average of 70 to 20. Now that is one-party rule, and yet the Senate confirmed those Supreme Court nominees in an average of just 13 days, one of them the very day it was made, and six of them without even a roll call vote.

That is not because filibustering judicial nominations was difficult. In fact, our cloture rule did not then apply to nominations. A single member of that tiny beleaguered Republican minority could have filibustered these nominations and attempted to stop President Roosevelt from packing the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, the most important number on this chart is the number right here at the bottom, the number of filibusters against President Roosevelt’s nominees. Zero.

Number 8 is the claim that, without the filibuster, the Senate would be a patsy, nothing but a rubberstamp for the President’s judicial nominations.

To paraphrase a great Supreme Court Justice, if simply stating this argument does not suffice to refute it, our debate about these issues has achieved terminal silliness. Being on the losing side does not make one a rubberstamp.

For all these centuries of democratic government, have we seen only winners and rubberstamps?

Was the famous tagline for ABC’s Wide World of Sports, the thrill of victory and the agony of rubberstamping?

Democrats did not start filibustering judicial nominations until the 108th Congress. Imagine the American history books describing the previous 107 as the Great Rubberstamp Senates.

Did Democrats rubberstamp the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991 since they did not use the filibuster? That conflict lasting several months and concluding with that 52-48 confirmation vote did not look like a rubberstamp to me.

Some modify this ridiculous argument by saying it applies when the same party controls both the White House and the Senate. They make the stunning observation that Senators of the president’s party are likely to vote for his nominees. The Assistant Minority Leader, Senator Durbin, recently said, for example, that Republican Senators are nothing but lapdogs for President Bush.

Pointing at others can be dangerous because you have a few fingers pointing back at yourself. Counting both unanimous consent and roll call votes, more than 37,500 votes were cast here on the Senate floor on President Clinton’s judicial nominations. Only 11 of them, just a teeny tiny three one-hundredths of one percent, were NO votes from Democrats. Were they just rubberstamping lapdogs?

The Constitution assigns the same roles to the president and the Senate no matter which party the American people puts in charge of which end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

In the 1960s, the Democrats were in charge, yet Minority Leader Everett Dirksen refused to filibuster judicial nominees of Presidents Kennedy or Johnson. Was he a rubberstamp?

In the 1970s, the Democrats were in charge, yet Minority Leader Howard Baker refused to filibuster President Carter’s judicial nominees. Was he a rubberstamp?

In the 1980s, the Republicans were in charge, yet Minority Leader Robert Byrd did not filibuster President Reagan’s judicial nominees. Was he a rubberstamp?

And a decade ago, the Democrats were again in charge, yet Minority Leader Bob Dole refused to filibuster President Clinton’s judicial nominees. Was he a rubberstamp?

To avoid being a rubberstamp, one need only fight the good fight, win or lose.

Number 7 on the list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is that these filibusters are necessary to preserve our system of checks and balances.

Mr. President, any civics textbook explains that what we call checks and balances regulate the relationship between the branches of government. The Senate’s role of advice and consent checks the president’s power to appoint judges, and we exercise that check when we vote on his judicial nominations.

The filibuster is about the relationship between the majority and minority in the Senate, not about the relationship between the Senate and the president. It actually interferes with being a check on the president’s power by preventing the Senate from exercising its role of advice and consent at all.

Former Majority Leader Mike Mansfield once explained that by filibustering judicial nominations, individual Senators presume what he called “great personal privilege at the expense of the responsibilities of the Senate as a whole, and at the expense of the constitutional structure of the federal government.”

In September 1999, the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, expressed the same view when he said: “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’” Those were the words of our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, give every Senator the opportunity to vote yes or no.

That was then; this is now.

Mr. President, in case anyone needs further clarification on this point, I ask unanimous consent that the definition of checks and balances from two sources, congressforkids.net and socialstudieshelp.com, be entered into the record at this point.

Number 6 on the list is that these filibusters are necessary to prevent appointment of extremists.

What our Democratic colleagues call extreme, the American Bar Association calls qualified. In fact, all three of the appeals court nominees chosen four years ago who have been denied confirmation received the ABA’s highest well qualified rating. The same Democrats who once called the ABA rating the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees now disregard it.

Did 76 percent of Californians vote to keep an extremist on their Supreme Court when they voted to retain Justice Janice Rogers Brown? Did 84 percent of Texans and every major newspaper in the state support an extremist when they re-elected Justice Priscilla Owen to the Texas Supreme Court?

Mr. President, the Associated Press reported last Friday that the Minority Leader reserves the right to filibuster what he calls extreme Supreme Court nominees. That is quite an escape hatch, if you will, since the minority already defines any nominee it does not like as extreme. This is simply a re-packaged status quo masquerading as reform.

If Senators want to dismiss as an extremist any judicial nominee who does not think exactly as they do, that is their right. That is, however, a reason for voting against confirmation, not for refusing to vote at all. As our former colleague Tom Daschle said: “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nominee.”

Number 5 on the list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is the claim that these filibusters are about free speech and debate. If Senators cannot filibuster judicial nominations, some say, the Senate will cease to exist and we will be literally unable to represent our constituents.

The same men who founded this Republic designed this Senate without the ability to filibuster anything at all. A simple majority could proceed to vote on something after sufficient debate. Among those first Senators were Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, who later served on the Supreme Court, as well as Charles Carroll of Maryland and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who had signed the Declaration of Independence.

When they ran for office, did they know they would be unable to represent their states because they would be unable to filibuster?

Mr. President, these filibusters are about defeating judicial nominations, not debating them. The minority rejects every proposal for debating and voting on nominations it targets for defeat.

In April 2003, my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, asked the current Minority Leader how many hours Democrats would need to debate a particular nomination. His response spoke volumes: “[T]here is not a number in the universe that would be sufficient.”

Later that year, he said: “We would not agree to a time agreement…of any duration.” And just two weeks ago, the Minority Leader summed up what has really been the Democrats’ position all along: “This has never been about the length of the debate.”

He is right about that, this has always been about defeating nominations, not debating them.

If our Democratic colleagues want to debate, then let us debate. Let us do what Democrats once said was the purpose of debating judicial nominations. As my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, put it in January 1998, “let these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote.”

Number 4 on the list is that returning to Senate tradition regarding floor votes on judicial nominations would amount to breaking the rules to change the rules. As any consultant worth even a little salt will tell you, that is a catchy little phrase. The problem is that neither of its catchy little parts is true.

The constitutional option – which would change judicial confirmation procedure through the Senate voting to affirm a parliamentary ruling – would neither break nor change Senate rules.

While the constitutional option has not been used to break our rules, it has been used to break filibusters.

On January 4, 1995, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, described how in 1977, when he was Majority Leader, he used this procedure to break a filibuster on a natural gas bill.

I have genuine affection and great respect for the Senator from West Virginia. Since I would not want to describe his repeated use of the constitutional option in a pejorative way, let me use his own words:

“I have seen filibusters. I have helped to break them. There are few Senators in this body who were here [in 1977] when I broke the filibuster on the natural gas bill….I asked Mr. Mondale, the Vice President, to go please sit in the chair; I wanted to make some points of order and create some new precedents that would break these filibusters. And the filibuster was broken – back, neck, legs, and arms….So I know something about filibusters. I helped to set a great many of the precedents that are on the books here.”

He certainly did, and using the constitutional option today to return to Senate tradition regarding judicial nominations would simply use the precedents he put on the books.

Number 3 on the list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is that the constitutional option is unprecedented.

In 1977, 1979, and 1987, the Majority Leader, Senator Byrd, secured a favorable parliamentary ruling through a point of order, and a majority of Senators voted to affirm it. He did this even when the result he sought was inconsistent with the text of our written rules.

In 1980, he used a version of the same procedure to limit nomination-related filibusters. Majority Leader Byrd made a motion for the Senate to both go into executive session and proceed to consider a specific nomination.

At the time, the first step was not debatable, but the second step was debatable. A majority of Senators voted to overturn a parliamentary ruling disallowing the procedural change Majority Leader Byrd wanted. Seven of those Senators serve with us today and their names appear here on this chart. They can explain for themselves how voting against restricting nomination-related filibusters today is consistent with voting to restrict them in 1980.

Number 2 on the list is that preventing judicial filibusters will doom legislative filibusters. Our own Senate history shows how ridiculous this argument really is.

Filibusters became possible by dropping the rule allowing a simple majority to proceed to a vote. The legislative filibuster developed, the judicial filibuster did not. What we must today limit by rule or ruling we once limited by principle or self-restraint.

The filibuster is an inappropriate obstacle to the president’s judicial appointment power, but an appropriate tool for exercising our own legislative power. I cannot fathom how returning to our tradition regarding judicial nominations will somehow threaten our tradition regarding legislation.

The only threat to the legislative filibuster, and the only votes to abolish it, have come from the other side of the aisle.

In 1995, 19 Senators, all Democrats, voted against tabling an amendment to our cloture rule that would prohibit all filibusters, of legislation as well as nominations. Nine of those Senators serve with us still, and their names are here on this chart.

I voted then against the Democrats’ proposal to eliminate the legislative filibuster and I oppose eliminating it today. The Majority Leader, Senator Frist, also voted against the Democrats’ proposal to eliminate the legislative filibuster. In fact, that was his first vote as a new member of this body. I join him in re-committing ourselves to protecting the legislative filibuster.

I urge Democrats to follow the example of our colleague from California, Senator Boxer, who recently said she has changed her position, that she no longer wants to eliminate the legislative filibuster.

In 1995, USA Today condemned the filibuster as “a pedestrian tool of partisans and gridlock-meisters.” The New York Times said the filibuster is “the tool of the sore loser.” I hope these papers will reconsider their position and support the legislative filibuster.

Mr. President, the Number 1 most ridiculous judicial filibuster defense is that those wanting to filibuster Republican nominees today opposed filibustering Democratic nominees only a few years ago.

In a letter dated February 4, 1998, for example, left-wing groups urged confirmation of Margaret Morrow to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They urged us to “bring the nomination to the Senate, ensure that it received prompt, full and fair consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is scheduled as soon as possible.” Groups signing this letter included the Alliance for Justice, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and People for the American Way.

As we all know, these left-wing groups today lead the grassroots campaign behind these filibusters that would deny this same treatment to President Bush’s nominees. Their position has changed as the party controlling the White House has changed.

Let me make it easy for the hypocrite patrol to check out my position on the Morrow nomination.

In the February 11, 1998, Congressional Record, on page S640, three pages before that letter from the left-wing groups appears, I opened the debate on the Morrow nomination by strongly urging my fellow Senators to support it. We did, and she is today a sitting federal judge.

The same Democrats who today call for filibusters called for up or down votes when a Democrat was in the White House. In 1999, my good friend from California, Senator Feinstein, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said of the Senate: “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” She said: “A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down.”

Another committee member, Senator Schumer, properly said in March 2000 that “the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees.”
I have already quoted the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, once, but in 2000 she said that filibustering judicial nominees “would be such a twisting of what cloture really means in these cases. It has never been done before for a judge, as far as we know – ever.” She was right, it had never been done before.

I appreciate what another member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Kohl, said in 1997: “Let’s breathe life back into the confirmation process. Let’s vote on the nominees who have already been approved by the Judiciary Committee.”

The Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who fought so strongly against the legislative filibuster in 1995, said five years later about the judicial filibuster: “If they want to vote against them, let them vote against them….But at least have a vote.”

The same view comes from three former Judiciary Committee chairmen and members of the Democratic leadership. A former committee chairman, Senator Biden, said in 1997 that every judicial nominee is entitled “to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”

Former chairman Senator Edward Kennedy said in 1998: “If [Senators] don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”

And my immediate predecessor as chairman, Senator Leahy, said a year later that judicial nominees “are entitled to a vote, aye or nay.” In his own practical way, he said: “Vote them up or down.”

The Assistant Minority Leader, Senator Durbin, had urged the same thing in September 1998: “Vote the person up or down.”

Finally, Mr. President, the Minority Leader, Senator Reid, expressed in March 2000 the standard that I hope we can re-establish: “Once they get out of committee, bring them down here and vote up or down on them.”

The Majority Leader, Senator Frist, recently proposed a plan to accomplish precisely this result, but the Minority Leader dismissed it as, I want to quote this accurately now, “a big fat wet kiss to the far right.” I never thought voting on judicial nominations was a far right thing to do.

These statements speak for themselves. Do you see a pattern here? The message, at one time, seemed to be: let us debate, and let us vote. That should be the standard no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate.

Mr. President, as I close, let me summarize these Top 10 Most Ridiculous Judicial Filibuster Defenses in this way. Blocking confirmation of majority supported judicial nominations by defeating cloture votes is unprecedented. In the words of the current Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Specter, “what Democrats are doing here is really seeking a constitutional revolution.”

We must turn back that revolution.

No matter which party controls the White House or Senate, we should return to our tradition of giving judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor an up or down vote. Full, fair, vigorous debate is one of the hallmarks of this body, and it should drive how we evaluate a president’s judicial nominations.

Honoring the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, requires that our check on the president’s appointment power not highjack that power altogether. This means debate must be a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Senators are free to vote against nominees they feel are extreme, but they should not be free to prevent other Senators from expressing a contrary view.

In this body, we govern ourselves through parliamentary rulings as well as by written rules. The procedure of a majority of Senators voting to sustain a parliamentary ruling has repeatedly been used to change Senate procedure without changing Senate rules, even to limit nomination-related filibusters.

Mr. President, I have tried here to deal with the substance of filibuster proponents’ arguments, albeit with some humor and a touch of sarcasm.

A few days ago, as the Salt Lake Tribune reported, the Minority Leader was in my home state “stopping just short of calling Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch a hypocrite.” That is at least how the newspaper described it.

That is not what I consider a substantive argument. Perhaps those who dismiss their opponents as liars, losers, or lapdogs have nothing else to offer in this debate.

Yet debate we must, and then we must vote.

I yield the floor.

# # #

The Senate is considering the highway bill on the Senate floor this week. Several DeWine-authored provisions were included in the Committee mark, including “Stars on Cars” crash-test labeling initiative, as well as significant portions of our child safety, anti-drunk driving, and driver licensing and education language. Senator DeWine likely will speak on the Senate floor about the bill. The Senate has not earmarked the bill yet. The Leader’s office would like to finish the bill this week, but it could go into next week because a break was taken for final passage of the Supplemental Appropriations conference report. Senator DeWine also has a number of items in the Supplemental and he will likely speak on the floor about the bill.

Senator DeWine is attending the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids’ awards ceremony tonight where he will receive their Champion Award for his work on youth smoking prevention.

Rumors are flying, and we’re trying to figure out the BRAC timeline for this week just like you are. According to our staff, the BRAC process is supposed to proceed as follows (NOTE: This could change….the following list is based on information gathered by our staff and it is intended to assist you in your planning):

1.) 9:15 Friday, May 13 - email will be sent to designated person (as determined by each office) with the list. List will contain a summary of closures and realignments by STATE. Some indication (+/-) will be made as to the overall outcome for jobs by state. Again, it will be a summary list.

2.) 9:15, Friday, May 13 - simultaneous delivery run to all Congressional Offices on the Hill of the Executive Summary of the report. Delivery will be executed by 100 Honor Guard (25 from each service). Report must be signed for by staff. Actions by state, report on CD, pocket card summarizing report will be included.

3.) TBD, May 13 - Press conference will begin at Pentagon. Expected to be made approximately 1 hour after the last notification on the Hill. Available for viewing by going to www.pentagonchannel.mil.

4.) Follow-up Resources and BRAC Commission information for points of contact will be given on line at www.defenselink.mil/brac. Full report can also be found on this web site. A BRAC clearinghouse w/resources and points of contact will be made available as well which will contain all the certified data used to make up the list. BRAC Commission will issue instructions and protocols regarding correspondence and materials which will be made available.

5.) List and entire report will be made available, by law, in the Federal Register no later than May 16, 2005.

NOTES:

Dry run of the notification process will be made on Tuesday, My 10th, and briefing materials/slides will be delivered from today's notification process briefing will be given. Must be signed for.

Congress will get more than 1 hour advance notice and before press and all installation/base commanders.

Summary list will provide installation closures and realignments, but additional analysis will be necessary once full report is made available to ascertain impacts from other states and if bases in CA are recipient of alignments of bases or tenant commands.

Decisions regarding National Guard facilities in all states will be made as thought the current court case is not in process. The case is ongoing in the courts which challenges the authority of DoD to close a National Guard facility without the approval of the state governors.

If there is a change to any of the above timelines by DoD, there will be advanced notification.

Amanda Flaig

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)

140 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Work: 202-224-7997

Mobile: 202-841-1603

Fax: 202-228-0549

For Immediate Release

Monday, May 09, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

Message to Republicans’ New Revise and Invent Committee: GOP Daily History Lessons on Judges

This is your daily look at Republicans’ shifting views on the judicial filibuster

Republicans continue to make the same tired claims about judicial nominations. Today, Senator Cornyn held a press conference where he once again misrepresented Senate tradition on the confirmation of judges. Instead of attempting to make it seem that one extremist nominee, Priscilla Owen, is being mistreated by the Senate, Senator Cornyn should listen to his colleague, Senator Hagel, who yesterday put the question of judicial nominations in context.

Senator Hagel acknowledges that Clinton judges were routinely denied up-or-down votes. Hagel: "The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees about 62 of them we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up.” [ABC News This Week, AP 5/8/05]

Democrats have helped confirm 95 percent of all President Bush’s judicial nominees -- 208 of 218 brought up for a vote have been confirmed by the Senate.

Democrats helped confirm 80 percent of Bush’s Circuit Court nominees. While Republicans choose to fixate on one extremist nominee, Priscilla Owen, they fail to recognize that 8 of President Bush’s initial group of nominees were confirmed. Since one of Bush’s nominations was withdrawn, this means that Democrats have helped to confirm 8 out of 10 of Bush’s Circuit Court nominations – or 80 percent.

Republican Senator blocked Clinton’s nominees for the seat now sought by Owen. Senator Hutchinson blocked two Circuit Court nominees to the 5th Circuit, leaving open the seat Republicans are now trying to hand to Priscilla Owen. Hutchinson blocked Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno, both of whom were nominated for the 5th Circuit. [Fulton County Daily Report, (Georgia) 2/5/02]

###

For Immediate Release

May 9, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley (202) 224-2939

REID OFFERS UNANIMOUS CONSENT ON CONFIRMATION OF THOMAS GRIFFITH

Prepared for Delivery:

There is great concern among both Democrats and Republicans about the path Senator Frist is leading the Senate down. It’s becoming increasingly clear that Senator Frist is under enormous pressure from right wing groups to trigger the nuclear option this week.

So many of our colleagues want to avert this damaging confrontation. It will be bad for the Senate and bad for the country, and we have a responsibility to the American people to take every possible step to avoid it.

I have put a real compromise on the table to break the Republican gridlock over seven radical judges, so Washington can get back to doing the people’s business. But, we will not accept anything that destroys the checks and balances that have protected the American people for 217 years.

The White House manufactured this crisis. Since Bush took office, the Senate confirmed 208 of his judicial nominations and turned back only 10, a 95% confirmation rate. Instead of accepting that success and avoiding further divisiveness and partisanship in Washington, the President chose to pick fights instead of judges by resubmitting the names of the rejected nominees, including Priscilla Owen, William Meyers, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown and Henry Saad.

Meanwhile the President has failed to send us new nominations. In more than 4 months since he was sworn in to a second term, the President has sent the Senate only one new judicial nomination. Other than that one nominee to the district court in Nevada, every single one of the President’s judicial nominees has been here before.

One reason why the White House won’t send new judges to the Senate is that they don’t want to give Senate Democrats a chance to continue to demonstrate that we are reasonable. They don’t want the confirmation rate to increase from 95% to 96% or 98%. They want to paint us as obstructionists in an attempt to convince the American people that their abuse of power is somehow warranted.

I suspect that the White House wants to force the nuclear option on the Senate because it wants to clear the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes instead of one who needs 60 votes.

They don’t want a David Souter, or an Anthony Kennedy, or a Sandra Day O’Connor, or a Ruth Bader Ginsberg, or a Stephen Breyer, all of whom were confirmed with near unanimous bipartisan support. They want a Clarence Thomas. who was confirmed with only 52 votes and has since proven to be an extremist on the Court. George Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical judges.

That’s not how America works. While Republicans corrupt our government, Democrats will fight to protect our constitutional checks and balances and basic fairness for the American people.

It’s important that we continue to meet our responsibilities to the American people. Senate Democrats came to Washington to govern, not pick political battles. There is a nominee on the executive calendar named Thomas Griffith, who is a controversial nominee to an important appellate court. But if he is brought before the Senate I believe he will be confirmed.

Mr. Griffith is the former Senate Legal Counsel. His nomination to the DC Circuit was reported from the Judiciary Committee on a 14-4 vote. A number of Democrats will vote against confirmation on the floor. But we know the difference between opposing nominees and blocking nominees. We will oppose bad nominees, but we will only block unacceptable nominees.

Democrats will use the filibuster responsibly, and there is no cause for the majority to break the rules and 217 years of Senate traditions to take away that right.

I want to emphasize that Mr. Griffith is nominated to the D.C. Circuit. This is the most important appellate court after the Supreme Court. Republicans say that our 95% confirmation rate is irrelevant because many of the 208 judges we have confirmed are district court nominees. Well here is a nominee to the most important federal court of appeals in the country, and we are prepared to move forward.

This same courtesy was not extended to President Clinton’s nominees to the D.C. Circuit. Republicans held up the nomination of Justice Department official Merrick Garland for two years before finally confirming him in 1997. President Clinton then nominated two distinguished lawyers to the court: Elena Kagan, who is now the Dean of Harvard Law School, and Allen Snyder, a partner in the law firm of Hogan & Hartson and a former clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist. Both of those nominations were buried in the Judiciary Committee and were never given an up-down vote on the floor of the Senate.

I have heard my Republican friends say so many times this year that nominees are entitled to an up-down vote. I defy them to explain why Elena Kagan and Allen Snyder were denied votes on the Senate floor.

But we want to move forward. And to demonstrate our good will, we want to move forward on a controversial nominee to the D.C. Circuit.

Today, I told the Majority Leader that Democrats are prepared to enter into a unanimous consent agreement to move to the Griffith nomination.

Under this unanimous consent agreement, we would proceed to the Griffith nomination immediately following disposition of the supplemental appropriations bill. We would then have up to 10 hours of debate on that nomination, equally divided. Following that debate we are willing to have an up-down vote on this controversial nominee to the D.C. Circuit.

And if the Majority Leader is unwilling to take up the Griffith nomination right after the appropriations bill, I urge that the Majority Leader proceed to the Griffith nomination before he implements the nuclear option. Give us a chance to do the people’s business.

Let’s try cooperation instead of confrontation.

The American people deserve better.

If Senator Frist continues on Democrats will do the nation’s business and work to reduce gas prices, make health care more affordable, create new and better jobs, and give the veterans the support they need and deserve.

STATEMENT

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

ASBESTOS BILL MARK-UP

U.S. SENATOR MIKE DEWINE

APRIL 28, 2005

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this mark-up today and congratulations on getting to this point. You have put in an extraordinary amount of time on this asbestos issue, and without your efforts, we would not be here today. I know that Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy and in fact all of the members of this Committee have spent a great deal of time on this issue also, and that is time well spent, because this is an issue of tremendous importance to people and businesses all throughout our country.

We all know that our justice system has failed to deal with the asbestos crisis. The system is not adequately protecting the rights of victims or defendants. As things stand now, some victims are successful in getting jury verdicts that compensate them fairly; but many victims have no one to sue and receive less than five percent of the value of their claims from asbestos bankruptcy trusts. On the other extreme, some victims receive huge awards or settlements that are out of proportion to their injuries.

The bottom line is that more and more victims face a risk of never being compensated for asbestos-related illnesses. Meanwhile, more and more businesses are facing the prospect of long, expensive court battles despite the fact that their connection to asbestos is really very remote. Businesses are going bankrupt, employees are losing jobs, and victims are not being fairly compensated. The system we have now is a mess, and we must fix it.

The bill in front of us today is by no means perfect, but the status quo is intolerable. It is our responsibility to deal with this crisis, and we must not wait any longer to act. We have to get the best bill we can -- one that deals as fairly and effectively as possible with as many of the complicated issues as possible. And then, we need to move it forward. I’ve been a long-time supporter of this legislation, and I am going to continue to support it and do everything I can today to help move it out of Committee and to the Floor.

Amanda Flaig

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)

140 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Work: 202-224-7997

Mobile: 202-841-1603

Fax: 202-228-0549

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Joan Kirchner or Sheridan Watson, 202-224-7777

Thursday, April 28, 2005 joan_kirchner@isakson.senate.gov

sheridan_watson@isakson.senate.gov

Isakson: ‘Every Judge Nominated Deserves

An Up Or Down Vote’

Calls on Senators to Fulfill Their Constitutional Responsibility

WASHINGTON – Holding up a copy of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) today urged the Senate to carry out its Constitutional responsibility to give all judicial nominees an up or down vote.

“The question is simple and our responsibility is clear. Every judge nominated by this president – or any president – deserves an up or down vote, one way or another. It is the responsibility of the Senate. It is the direction of the Constitution,” Isakson said in a speech on the Senate floor this morning.

Democrats in the U.S. Senate have used the filibuster to block 10 of the President’s judicial nominees, refusing to let the full Senate vote to confirm them. Isakson, who was elected to the Senate last fall, said the Democrats’ obstructionist tactics on judges was a top issue in Georgia during his Senate campaign last year.

“As a candidate for the Senate, I was asked by members of the media, by constituents, by Rotary Clubs and Kiwanis Clubs, ‘Mr. Isakson, if you are elected, what do you think the Senate ought to do?’ My answer was I think every judge ought to get an up-or-down vote because the way I understand it, that’s the responsibility of the United States Senate,” Isakson said.

Isakson held up a copy of the U.S. Constitution during his speech and urged his colleagues to heed its words about the responsibility of senators when it comes to voting on the President’s judicial nominees.

“This document is substance. It is the thing that has made the difference in the United States of America and any other country that has ever been formed since the creation of this earth. While it may not be perfect, it’s the best man ever did. And it is specific in what our responsibilities are. And in no way does it say maybe, sometimes, or whatever,” Isakson said.

“I go back to a quote my Dad used to always tell me as a young man. He loved Mark Twain and when we had one of those difficult decisions to make, he said, ‘Son, remember what Mark Twain said. When confronted with a difficult decision, do what’s right. You’ll surprise a few. You’ll amaze the rest.’ A decision that basically is really pretty simple has become for this Senate very complex. But in the end, I think we should peel back the arguments and look back to the foundation under which all of us operate, and that is our Constitution.”

###

For Planning Purposes

Date: Wednesday, April 27, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

***Media Advisory***

STANDING AT JEFFERSON MEMORIAL, SENATE DEMOCRATS SPEAK UP FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE

Washington, DC -- Standing in the shadow of one of the nation’s great presidents, Democratic Senators will stand united in protection of the Constitution and against the Republican abuse of power. At the event, Senate Democrats will urge Republicans to end their partisan bickering over seven radical judges and get back to the people’s business, including the need to pass a budget that meets the needs of average Americans.

Senate Democrats will speak from the stairs of the Jefferson Memorial tomorrow morning at 11:15 AM.

President Jefferson, the father of the Democratic Party, urged the House of Representatives to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase so that he could stack the Court with his own political allies. Senators of Jefferson’s own party fought against this abuse of power, and acquitted Chase. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, this profile in courage by the Senate established the principle of judicial independence.

Tomorrow, Senate Democrats will call on Republicans to stand up against President Bush and protect the checks and balances in our democracy and independence of our judiciary.

WHO: Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Hillary Clinton , Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Barbara Boxer, and others

WHAT: Presentation of Democratic Agenda

WHEN: 11:15 AM

Thursday, April 28, 2005

WHERE: Thomas Jefferson Memorial at the Tidal Basin

# # #

For Immediate Release

Date: Thursday, April 28, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

Message to Republicans’ New Revise and Invent Committee: GOP Daily History Lessons on Judges

This is your daily look at Republicans’ shifting views on the judicial filibuster

Republicans like to talk as if William Pryor has the judicial temperament of King Solomon, but the facts tell the story of a right wing Zealot committed to overturning the Civil Right Act of 1964, the Clean Water Act and even the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Republican Rhetoric:

“His impressive record demonstrates his devotion to the rule of law and to treating all people equally under the law.”

-George Bush (February 20, 2004)

“Pryor is a man of integrity committed to the rule of law.”

-Bill Frist (February 20, 2004)

What Others Say:

"Right-wing Zealot is Unfit to Judge"

Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 6, 2003)

"Unfit to Judge... Mr. Pryor's speeches display a disturbingly politicized view of the role of courts."

Washington Post (Apr. 11, 2003)

The Facts:

Under William Pryor’s tenure as Alabama Attorney General, Alabama was the only state to challenge the constitutionality of a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (United States v. Morrison).

In the past, he has argued that the Supreme Court should cut back on the protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Clean Water Act.

In addition, William Pryor has received the lowest qualified rating from the ABA Standing Committee on the Judiciary.

###

http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=237019

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator - Texas
CONTACT: DON STEWART
(202) 224-0704 office (202) 365-6702 cell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 28, 2005

‘THE VOICE OF THE MAJORITY DECIDES’

-Thomas Jefferson

Sen. Democrats visit Jefferson Memorial, perhaps they’ll recall what Jefferson actually said

WASHINGTON—Senate Democrats on Thursday held a rally at the Jefferson Memorial to discuss their continued obstruction of the President’s judicial nominees. They are searching, apparently, for some historical justification for their efforts. But as U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee points out, “Thomas Jefferson himself recognized that the Senate had the power to confirm judges by majority vote.”

“Today’s event at the Jefferson Memorial provides a helpful reminder to the nation that our Founders firmly believed that judicial nominees are confirmed by majority vote,” Cornyn said. “This tradition that has consistently been followed throughout our nation’s history and enforced by both parties—until the last Congress.”

As Vice President, Thomas Jefferson served as President of the Senate, and he wrote his Manual of Parliamentary Procedure to assist him in those duties. Section 41 of Jefferson’s Manual states that “[t]he voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, &c. where not otherwise expressly provided.” A link to the document is provided at: http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/doc_archive/ThomasJefferson.pdf

Jefferson specifically believed that a majority of either house of Congress has the power to make rules and precedents. He famously declared in a letter to James Madison that “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” And he worked together with Madison on the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which specifically acknowledges that “this assembly elected by the people for ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law.”

These views were certainly shared by our other leading Founders. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 22, “the fundamental maxim of republican government ... requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.” Similarly, Madison stated in Federalist No. 58 that “the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed” if supermajority voting requirements were the norm. “It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.”

The Founders did not use filibusters. In fact, for the first several Congresses (from 1789 to 1806), a majority of Senators always had the power to bring debate to a close through majority vote (through the motion for the previous question, under Senate Rule IX). As Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) has noted, “[i]t is apparent that the Senate in the First Congress disapproved of unlimited debate.” (The Senate 1789-1989, vol. II, p. 115)

http://cornyn.senate.gov

http://cornyn.senate.gov/namethatspeaker

Earlier today in the Senate, Senator Byrd provided another example of the dangers of the nuclear option. If the majority is able to break the rules in order to change the rules with regard to extended debate on judicial nominations, there is absolutely no road block to their doing so with regard to Social Security or other legislative issues.

For immediate release: Thursday, April 28, 2005
Contact: Jennifer Reed or Tom Gavin, 202-224-3904; http://byrd.senate.gov

Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd
"Protecting Social Security for Generations to Come"

Senator Byrd delivered the following remarks as the Senate Finance Committee continued its work on proposals to reform Social Security and as the President continued to call on Congress to pass his yet-to-be-defined plan for the retirement security net.

From the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, Verses 25-27, of the King James Bible, I read:

"And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock. And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it."

Seventy years ago, the Social Security program was founded upon a rock. It was designed to shelter workers in their old-age, and to withstand the storms that can wipe away their savings. For seventy years, the Social Security program has stood as a protector of workers and families. It is their safeguard against economic peril.

Social Security provides essential support for 405,000 West Virginians. In counties across the state, men and women, workers and retirees, their spouses and children rely on their monthly Social Security check.

And so it is with great trepidation that they listen to apocalyptic tales about Social Security’s future. It is difficult to understand, and perhaps impossible to comprehend, how workers could spend their lifetime contributing to the Social Security program only to find that the benefits promised to them may not be available when they retire. Demographic projections show that the next generation of workers cannot support the retirement and disability benefits promised to this generation of workers. The Social Security trustees warn that this demographic storm will erode the rock upon which the retirement security of workers’ has been built. Soon the rains will descend, the floods will come, and the winds will blow. Our challenge to keep that house from falling is great.

It is within this context that President Bush has proposed changing the scope of the Social Security program, adding personal accounts to wean workers from the traditional program. He offers the opportunity for higher returns in the financial markets in exchange for workers relinquishing a portion of the benefits guaranteed under the current system. Needless to say, the outcry to such a proposal has been deafening. In the state of West Virginia, thousands and thousands of constituents are contacting my office -- phone calls, e-mails, letters -- in opposition to the President’s Social Security plan.

They fear that personal accounts are a scheme to take away their Social Security benefits. They fear it is an effort to crack open Social Security and break it apart, piece by piece. I too fear such efforts, and feeding that fear is the secrecy that permeates the Administration’s plans. The X factors are multifarious, impacting every worker and employer who pays into the Social Security program, and every future retiree or disabled worker who expects, one day, to receive benefits.

My constituents are right to be leery of schemes to privatize Social Security, particularly when efforts to learn more about so-called Social Security reforms are being stonewalled. If we knew the answers, if we knew for certain that the retirement security of our constituents would be protected, that would be one thing. But this proposal for personal accounts feels a lot like the kind of telephone scams you hear of when folks are told they have won a prize and then asked for their bank account number. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Hold on here. We are all enticed by the idea of ensuring the solvency of Social Security, but what are workers being asked to give up? No one in the Administration is willing to tell.

Here me when I say that I will oppose this plan, as well as any plan, where the costs are undefined and the benefit cuts so uncertain.

Four months of high publicity tours and photo-ops across America by President Bush and members of his Cabinet, including stops in West Virginia, have yielded little new information about how the President’s plan will affect workers’ benefits. What level of benefit cuts is the President advocating, and how much of their guaranteed benefits is the President asking workers to relinquish? On this subject, the White House has been evasive and equivocating.

And what of the volatility of the financial markets? Recent news reports serve as a vivid reminder that the stock market has severe ups and downs. What happens when it comes time to retire, and a worker discovers that he or she does not have enough saved to ensure a decent, respectable living? What guarantee would the Administration support to ensure a minimum benefit from each individual account? The White House will not respond to this question.

And what of the cost of the President’s Social Security plan? The White House budget office says $754 billion, but the Vice President says trillions of dollars. How can this Administration reconcile mounting debt, and its own warnings about the need to limit the further growth of deficits, with a plan that requires borrowing trillions of dollars more? Again, the White House has no response to that question.

This week, the Senate Finance Committee began hearings on the President’s plan. I hope these hearings will yield more information. Our senior citizens need answers to these questions.

I sent a letter to the President earlier this year urging him to send a detailed legislative proposal to the Congress. I have asked questions of the Treasury Secretary at Appropriations Committee hearings. The Congress and the people have been patient in waiting for answers, but still no answers come forth.

Honesty and candor are now required. We cannot legislate on rumors and guesses. The ducking and dodgings on the part of the Administration serves only to fuel speculation that it is hiding something from the American public, or worse, seeking to cut benefits surreptitiously.

Fortunately, any legislation submitted by the President to change Social Security will require sixty votes to pass the Senate. The danger of the nuclear option becomes crystal clear as we contemplate the momentous debate on social security which looms ahead. Only the Senate has the ability to insist on its right to unlimited debate. No social security legislation will fly through the Senate without thorough scrutiny. Senators can and will insist on the time they need to probe the details of the President’s plan and to extract answers to their questions. The Senate will have the opportunity to amend, to debate, and then, if it desires, to amend and debate some more. The threat of a filibuster means that no legislation will be enacted into law without bipartisan support in the Senate, which means that no benefits will be cut, no taxes will be increased, and no radical changes codified, without adequate debate. The Senate will require compromise if and when Social Security reforms are ever enacted, fulfilling its role exactly as the Founding Fathers envisioned.

That is why we have a Senate, with its rules for unlimited debate – to forge compromise, and to ensure moderation in the laws enacted. To those who advocate chipping away at that role, limiting a Senator’s right to debate in regard to judicial nominees, hear me when I say the crucial need for keeping those rules strong in order to encourage compromise and moderation is right before us as the Senate prepares to debate changes to Social Security.

We ought to engage in a genuine effort to end the rumors, and help the public understand exactly what is being asked of them with regard to their Social Security benefits.

I urge this Administration to lay its case before the American public. The last thing we need at this late point, with the Social Security storm looming on the horizon, is to find that another house has been built upon sand.

###

For Immediate Release CONTACT: Jim Manley, 202-224-2939
April 27, 2005

REID CALLS ON BUSH TO TAKE REAL STEPS TOWARDS PRICE RELIEF AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement:

“Today’s announcement from President Bush amounts to little more than half measures and wrongheaded policies that will do nothing to address the current energy crisis or break the stranglehold that foreign oil has on our nation. Instead, the president has clearly chosen to continue our dependence on foreign oil by failing to make the real investments we need to develop renewable energy sources and biofuels that will benefit our economy, create jobs, free us from this national security threat our dependence creates and protect our environment.

“I agree that we must do more to increase our capacity to create energy but we also must take action today to provide relief to American consumers who are struggling under burdensome prices. The President has suggested there is nothing he can do to provide immediate price relief. That is simply untrue. We can and should do more to lower the price of gas today.

“As the energy debate moves to the Senate, Democrats are committed to working in the interests of American families, not big oil or foreign governments. We will be guided by our commitment to using American know-how to move towards energy independence.”

THE DEMOCRATIC COMMITMENT TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

As the energy debate comes to the Senate, Democrats remain fully committed to working to pass an energy bill that will break our dependence on foreign oil and provide relief to American families who have continued to struggle under skyrocketing prices. These principles will guide Democrats as the issue is debated.

Renewable Electricity Standard: Numerous studies have demonstrated that a national standard would save consumers money on their energy bill, create jobs and help clear our air. We urge you to include a strong renewable electricity standard which would require 10 percent of our electricity to come from geothermal, solar, wind and biomass by 2015.

Oil Savings: To make our nation more secure and move us towards energy independence requires that we take rapid but reasonable steps to reduce our consumption of oil. We urge you to include a provision to reduce oil consumption by at least 1.75 million barrels of oil per day or greater by 2015.

Electricity Reliability: The Senate bill should require mandatory and enforceable electricity reliability standards and ban on Enron-type market manipulation.

Energy Efficiency: The bill and conference report should include strong energy efficiency standards for the residential and commercial building sector and the industrial sector, require appliance standards, expand the Energy Star program, and reauthorize the federal government building efficiency program. Energy efficiency is the quickest, cheapest and cleanest way to meet our energy demand.

Biofuels: The bill and conference report should require a significant increase in home-grown biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. We can reduce our use of gasoline, create a new domestic industry with thousands of jobs, and gain secure supplies of fuel.

Climate Change: The Senate bill and conference report should require a comprehensive climate change title that put our nation on a path to stabilize and eventually reduce greenhouse gas emissions to fight the problem of global warming.

Tax Incentives: The Senate bill and conference report should include an appropriate, equitable, and diversified mixture of at least $16 billion in targeted energy tax incentives (including a production tax credit for geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass) over the next ten years, with offsets so that this can be done in a fiscally sound way.

Protect the Environment: Neither the bill and the conference report should not include any type of liability waiver for methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) producers; allow for oil and natural gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; or detrimental changes to the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws.

For Immediate Release CONTACT: Jim Manley, 202-224-2939
April 27, 2005

DEMOCRATS ASK THEIR QUESTION OF THE DAY ON SOCIAL SECURITY

Is the President More Interested in Private Accounts or Solving the Long Term Challenge Facing Social Security?”

The President Told Congressman Rangel, “Private Accounts are not Coming Off the Table Even if it’s the Last Day I Spend in the Presidency.” Although the president has admitted that “personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution,” he continues to pursue them. The president told Congressman Charlie Rangel, “Congressman, I am the president. And private accounts are not coming off the table even if it's the last day I spend in the presidency.” [President's Press Conference, 3/15/05; New York Times, 3/27/05]

For Immediate Release Tuesday, April 26, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley (202)224-2939

Floor Statement of Senator Reid on Nuclear Option

April 26, 2005

For the past several months, the Senate has operated under a nuclear cloud. As a result of the Senate’s decision to reject a small number of President Bush’s judicial nominees, the Republican majority has threatened to break the Senate rules, violate over 200 years of Senate tradition and impair the ability of Democrats and Republicans to work together on issues of real concern to the American people.

It is astounding that Republicans would precipitate this destructive confrontation, especially since this President has a better confirmation rate than any of his recent predecessors. The Senate has confirmed 205 of President Bush’s judicial candidates and turned back only ten, a 95% confirmation rate. Ten rejected judges – only seven of whom are currently before the Senate – does not seem reason enough for Republicans to break the Senate rules.

My Republican colleagues claim that nominees are entitled to an up-down vote. That claim ignores history, including recent history. Throughout the years, many judicial nominees have been denied up-down votes. For example, according to the Senate Historian, Republicans filibustered Lyndon Johnson’s nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice.

During the Clinton Administration, almost 70 judicial nominees were bottled up in the Judiciary Committee and never received floor votes. In addition, Republicans engaged in explicit filibusters on the floor against a number of Clinton judges, and defeated a number of President Clinton’s executive branch nominees by filibuster. Some of the loudest proponents of the nuclear option opposed cloture on those nominees.

America is paying attention to this hypocrisy. Our citizens are alarmed at what the Republican majority is planning to do. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released yesterday, Americans oppose by 2 to 1 changing the rules to make it easier for the President to stack the courts with radical judges.

The American people have rejected the nuclear option because they see it for what it is -- an unconstitutional abuse of power.

Regardless of political affiliation, Americans understand that this is a partisan power grab. Nearly half of the Republicans polled opposed any rules changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 independents.

Over the last several months, I have spent a lot of time reaching across the aisle and talking with my colleagues about how to avoid this nuclear catastrophe. My door has always been open to responsible Republicans who do not want the Senate to head down this unproductive path.

I wrote to the Majority Leader on March 15 and expressed a willingness to find a way out. The Majority Leader replied two days later that he would offer a compromise for resolving this issue. One month later Democrats still await that proposal.

Now it appears that Republican leaders are not interested in compromise. The Majority Leader stated earlier today that he will not accept any compromise that does not provide for the confirmation of all of President Bush’s controversial nominations – including those that were previously rejected by the Senate.

Karl Rove, currently the Deputy White House Chief of Staff, has stated that the President will settle for nothing less than a 100 percent confirmation rate.

These are not positions that allow for compromise.

These are not positions that allow the Senate to proceed with the work of the American people.

There are positions that force a confrontation. These are positions that divert attention from the problems real Americans face – high gas prices, poor schools, inadequate health care coverage.

These positions demonstrate that Republican leaders are fiddling while Rome is burning.

Republican leaders don’t want compromise. Republican leaders don’t want Democrats to have a voice in this debate. Republican leaders don’t want any check on their quest for absolute power. They want total victory.

95% of President Bush’s nominees have been confirmed, but that isn’t good enough. The Majority Leader wants to break the rules and turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for the President. Ultimately this is about removing the last check in Washington against complete abuse of power -- the right to extended debate.

Once that last check is gone, the radical right will be able to place one of their own on the Supreme Court. This is all about the Supreme Court. The radical right is angry with the decisions of Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor, both of whom were appointed by Ronald Reagan. The radical right wants a different kind of Supreme Court – one that would roll back equality, liberty and the rights of all Americans.

Many of us understand who elected us to this body – the people sent us here, not Karl Rove, not James Dobson and not radical elements of our society.

There is a way to avoid the nuclear shutdown. I have outlined a proposal to my Republican colleagues in an effort to protect our independent judiciary and to preserve the Founding Fathers’ vision of the Senate.

I will keep the details of my conversations with other Senators private, but I want to talk about why compromise is necessary.

Democrats stand united against the unconstitutional nuclear option. We have a responsibility to protect checks and balances, not violate them. My offer protects those checks and balances.

My offer also renews procedures to allow home state Senators to have a meaningful say in who sits on the federal courts in their states. Those procedures encourage consultation and leads to the nomination of consensus judges, judges who can be confirmed unanimously in most cases.

Democrats have confirmed 95% of the President’s judicial nominees. The ten that were denied confirmation previously lack a commitment to the fundamental rights and liberties we hold so dear. But, to ensure that the Senate remains a check on the President’s power, especially for the Supreme Court, we are willing to compromise on this subject.

I believe my proposal strikes the right balance – it protects our democracy and the independence of our federal courts, it protects the American people and lets us do their business, and it breaks a partisan stalemate that is unnecessary and divisive.

I want to emphasize that any potential compromise is contingent on a commitment that the nuclear option will not be exercised in any form during this Congress. The threat to break the Senate rules must end.

For Immediate Release

Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner (202) 224-2939

REPUBLICANS WORK OVERTIME TO PAINT JANICE ROGERS BROWN AS A SYMPATHETIC AND MAINSTREAM NOMINEE

Unfortunately, Brown didn’t get their talking points.

SENATORS BROWNBACK AND SESSIONS HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE AIMED AT OBFUSCATING JANICE ROGERS BROWN’S RECORD THROUGH CHARGES THAT THOSE OPPOSING HER ARE AGAINST RELIGION

SESSIONS RUSHED TO BROWN’S DEFENSE:

Sessions Claims Brown “An Open Mind.” Senator Jeff Sessions claims that Janice Rogers Brown has “an open mind" and "a lot of common sense." [Chattanooga Times Free Press, 4/22/05]

BUT BROWN’S TOO FAR OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM:

Brown Said There Was a “War” Between Religious People and the Rest of America. According to Janice Rogers Brown – speaking just this Sunday -- there is a “war” on between religious people and the rest of America. “There seems to have been no time since the Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided. It’s not a shooting war, but it is a war.” Atheistic humanism, according to Brown, has, “handed human destiny over to the great god, autonomy, and this is quite a different idea of freedom…These are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud.” [The Stamford Advocate, 4/25/05]

Brown says Seniors are Cannibalizing their Grandchildren. Brown wrote, “Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much ‘free’ stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.” [pfaw.org; Dissenting opinion in Stevenson v. Superior Court, 941 P.2d 1157,1177, 1187 (Cal. 1997)]

Brown Called the Creation of Social Security “the Triumph of our Own Socialist Revolution.” Justice Brown’s antipathy to the New Deal and Social Security is so strong, that she stated, “..1937 [the year in which much of President Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation took effect]..marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution...” [Speech to the Federalist Society, 4/20/00]

Brown Argued that the New Deal “Cut Away the Very Ground on Which hthe Constitution Rests.” Justice Brown argued that the effect of the New Deal “was not simply to repudiate, both philosophically and in legal doctrine, the framers’ conception of humanity, but to cut away the very ground on which the Constitution rests.” [Speech to the Federalist Society, 4/20/00]

Brown Called the New Deal “Fundamentally Incompatible” with the Founding of the Nation. In a 2000 speech to the right-wing Federalist Society, Justice Brown stated that the New Deal, which included Social Security, “was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with the vision that under girded this country’s founding. The New Deal, however, inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document.” [Speech to the Federalist Society, 4/20/00]

HUNDREDS OF ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSE BROWN’S CONFIRMATION:

ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights, Advocates for the West, AFL-CIO,
Alabama Environmental Council, Alliance for Justice, Alliance for Retired Americans,
American Association of University Women, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Lands Alliance, American Planning Association, American Rivers, Americans for Democratic Action, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Amigos Bravos, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Black Women Lawyers of Los Angeles, Buckeye Forest Council, California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, California Association of Black Lawyers, California Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, California League of Conservation Voters, California National Organization for Women, California Women's Law Center, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Center for Medicare Advocacy Corporation, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Citizens Coal Council, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Clean Water Action Council, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Coast Alliance, Committee for Judicial Independence, Committee for the Preservation of the Lake Purdy Area, AL, Community Rights Counsel, Congressional Black Caucus, Defenders of Wildlife, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Earthjustice, EarthWINS, Endangered Species Coalition, Environmental Defense Center, Environmental Law Foundation, Equal Justice Society, Equality California, Families USA, Feminist Majority, Friends of Hurricane Creek, AL, Friends of the Earth, Georgia Center for the Law in the Public Interest, Gray Panthers, Great Rivers Environmental Law Center, Hurricane Creekkeeper, John Muir Project, Kentucky Resources Council, Inc., Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the Bay Area, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Legal Momentum, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Mineral Policy Center, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Abortion Federation, National Association of Women Business Owners - San Francisco Chapter, National Bar Association, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Jewish Women – California, National Council of Jewish Women - Los Angeles, National Council of Women's Organizations, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, National Health Law Program, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Urban League, National Women's Law Center, National Women's Political Caucus – California, Natural Heritage Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Mexico Environmental Law Center, Northwest Environmental Advocates, Oilfield Waste Policy Institute, Omni Center for Peace, Justice and Ecology, Pacific Institute for Women's Health, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, San Francisco La Raza Lawyers Association, SEIU Local 99, Service Employees International Union, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, Sierra Club, Sierra Club Southern California, Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Stonewall Democratic Club, Los Angeles, Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Project Freedom of Religion, Valley Watch, Inc, Washington Environmental Council, Western Land Exchange Project, Western Law Center for Disability Rights, Wild Alabama, WildLaw, Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project [Source: Alliance for Justice]

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Grassley Welcomes Release of GAO Report on Agricultural Trade, NAFTA

WASHINGTON – The Government Accountability Office (GAO) yesterday released a report titled “U.S. Agencies Need Greater Focus to Support Mexico’s Successful Transition to Liberalized Agricultural Trade under NAFTA.” This report was written in response to the request of Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, that the GAO lay out the achievements and difficulties encountered by the United States in gaining access to Mexican markets for agricultural products. Grassley made the following comments regarding the report:

“The report reaffirms that NAFTA has benefited U.S. agricultural producers, including farmers in Iowa. GAO notes that NAFTA helped Mexico become one of the largest and fastest growing markets for U.S. agricultural products. Indeed, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico increased under NAFTA from $4.1 billion in 1993 to $7.9 billion in 2003. That’s an annual increase in U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico of 17.4 percent. In contrast, the average annual rate of growth of U.S. agricultural exports to the world was only 2.3 percent over this same period.

“Likewise, NAFTA has been good for Mexican farmers, with Mexican agricultural exports to the United States growing from $2.9 billion in 1993 to $6.3 billion in 2003.

“Despite overall gains from NAFTA, some problems remain. GAO’s report discusses significant market access problems for U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico. The report contains case studies of seven U.S. agricultural commodities that have confronted market access problems in Mexico, including high fructose corn syrup, a product that is currently blocked from entry into Mexico due to Mexico’s discriminatory tax on sweetened beverages not containing sugar.

“The report also discusses steps that we can take to ensure better implementation of trade agreements. For example, technical assistance can be an important tool to ensure the effective implementation of trade agreements. It is interesting to note that the United States has provided trade capacity building assistance to Central American countries and the Dominican Republic in anticipation of the United States-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement.

“This report is a useful analysis of NAFTA, and I would like to thank GAO for its fine job in writing it.”

-30-

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Senator Feinstein Welcomes National Academies of Science

Stem Cell Research Report

Washington, DC – The National Academies of Science today issued a report that provides an ethical framework for human embryonic stem cell research that is consistent with legislation introduced last week by U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

Following is the statement of Senator Feinstein:

“I am pleased with the National Academies of Science new report on embryonic stem cell research. I believe its recommendations will lend support for Congress to act on legislation to establish federal oversight through the National Institutes of Health.

The National Academies’ report concluded that human embryonic stem cell research offers great promise for future improvements in health care, but that there is a need for a common set of standards for this research. I couldn’t agree more.

Stem cell research presents an amazing new frontier of medicine that has great potential to conquer devastating and catastrophic disease such as cancer, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s. We should be doing all that we can to encourage this pioneering research to go forward.

This report also notes that some standard ethical protections may be lacking because of the absence of federal funding for most human embryonic stem cell research being conducted today, and that the implementation of protections is almost certainly not uniform throughout the country. In fact, the absence of federal policy has led States to create a patchwork of laws under varying ethical frameworks. The legislation we introduced last week will fill this void.

Consistent with the recommendations in the National Academies’ report, our legislation:

· Requires that research involving Somatic Cell Nuclear Transplantation be overseen by the National Institutes of Health;

· Prohibits any research on an unfertilized blastocyst after 14 days;

· Mandates informed consent of the donor;

· Requires that all egg donations are voluntary, and that there are no financial or other incentives for egg donations; and

· Separates assisted reproductive technology treatments or procedures from embryonic stem cell research.

The recommendations of the National Academies call for federal action. The fact is that embryonic stem cell research is going forward, with or without the federal government. We should ensure that it has a firm ethical framework to guide it. I urge Congress to take swift action to pass our legislation and create national standards for this important research to continue.”

###

MEDIA ADVISORY

April 26, 2005

Grassley, Dodd to Hold News Conference on New Drug Safety Legislation

Event –

News conference to mark introduction of legislation to establish independent drug safety office within the Food and Drug Administration

Participants –

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT)

Date/Time –

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

12 noon

Location –

S-325, the Senate Radio-TV Gallery

Description –

Sens. Grassley and Dodd have developed legislation to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs and biological products once they are on the market by establishing a new Center for Post-market Drug Evaluation and Research (CPDER) within the Food and Drug Administration. The senators will discuss their proposal during a news conference at noon on Wednesday.

In February, Sens. Dodd and Grassley introduced a separate bill that would require drug makers to register clinical trials of medicines and medical devices. This “Fair Access to Clinical Trials” or FACT Act (S. 470) is similar to legislation sponsored by Sen. Dodd in the last Congress.

Sen. Grassley is chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, which is responsible for Medicare and Medicaid legislation and oversight. Medicaid has spent more than $1 billion on the drug Vioxx, and Medicare is about to cover prescription drugs for the first time. The performance of the Food and Drug Administration affects the integrity and effectiveness of these important health care programs.

Sen. Dodd is a senior member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which has jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration. He has worked throughout his career to ensure that drugs are safe and effective for all Americans, including children.

Staff Contacts –

Jill Kozeny, for Sen. Grassley, 202/224-1308

Sean Oblack, for Sen. Dodd, 202/224-5372

-30-

Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

U.S. Senate Committee on Finance

Hearing on Social Security

Proposals to Achieve Sustainable Solvency: With and Without Accounts

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Today’s hearing is the second this year on the future of Social Security. Today we will examine specific proposals that achieve sustainable solvency for Social Security, which is probably the most popular government program ever created. Sustainable solvency means that there’s a positive trust fund balance throughout the traditional 75-year projection period for Social Security, and a level or a rising balance at the end of the period. Sustainable solvency ultimately means that taxes and benefits must be roughly equal.

Achieving sustainable solvency is important for a number of reasons. No one wants Social Security to be unsustainable. Beneficiaries should not have to worry their benefits will be cut. Workers should not have to worry their payroll taxes will go up. The longer Social Security’s future remains in doubt, the more people will worry about their own future prospects. A sustainable Social Security program will give everyone additional peace of mind. No one should take comfort in the fact that Social Security has been on an unsustainable path for nearly three decades. Given the programmatic linkages between workers and beneficiaries, and wages and benefits, there is no plausible set of assumptions under which Social Security will be able to pay 100 percent of currently scheduled benefits. Policymakers of the past had the luxury of time. They could afford to wait and see. After all, things might have turned out differently – births rates might have gone up, mortality rates might not have declined, real wages might have been higher, and inflation might have been lower – but it was not to be. Their future is now our present and time is running out. The retirement of the baby boomers is nearly upon us.

It has been more than 20 years since Congress enacted major Social Security reform. Despite the obvious need for additional reform, policymakers have refused to take further action. Instead, Social Security has become a political hot potato, tossed back and forth, producing motion, but no progress. If this Congress is going to muster the courage and accept the responsibility to address Social Security reform this year, we should do more than kick the can down the road. Achieving only 75-year solvency, like the 1983 reform, means we have failed to fully address the problem. That means we’re passing the buck to some future Congress.

Each of the proposals presented by our witnesses today will achieve the goal of sustainable solvency. They reach this goal in a variety of different ways. Our job on the Finance Committee is to evaluate the elements of each plan and determine the best approach overall. As chairman, I hope to engage this committee in a sincere debate about ensuring Social Security’s future solvency. I hope to bring members to the table to work in a bipartisan fashion. I feel strongly about the need to take legislative action this year.

President Bush has lent the power of the White House to the cause of saving Social Security, as did President Carter, President Reagan, and President Clinton when they were in office. We should not waste the opportunity provided us by such leadership. This opportunity isn’t likely to come again for another decade. Outside the hearing room today, we have political theater and dramatic attempts to polarize Social Security along partisan lines. I ask my fellow committee members to resist the temptation to allow such theatrics to pervade this hearing room. If there is ever going to be a bipartisan consensus for reform, the process must begin in this committee, and there’s no time like the present to get started.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 26, 2005

Contact: Mistique Cano, LCCR (202) 263-2882

Julie Bernstein, AFJ (202) 464-7356

Peter Montgomery, PFAW (202) 467-4999

Rachel Perrone, NARAL (202) 973-3084

Americans From Across the Country Travel to Washington to Save the Filibuster

People from ME, NE, OH, OR, PA & VA Urge Their Senators to Oppose Nuclear Option

Washington – Tomorrow, Wednesday, April 27th, everyday Americans will travel to our nation’s capital from Maine, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia to urge their senators to protect our system of checks and balances by opposing the nuclear option.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that nearly 7 in 10 Americans oppose Republican leaders breaking the more than 200-year old Senate rules to make it easier to ram through a handful of unfit judicial nominees, and now Americans from across the country are taking action.

These ordinary Americans are utilizing the democratic process to make their voices heard. They are traveling from across the country to meet personally with their senator’s offices, delivering the message that it is wrong to break the rules in order to change the rules. Preserving the filibuster preserves the Senate’s constitutional obligation to advise and consent on judicial appointments.

People from ME, NE, OH, OR, PA & VA To Urge Their Senators to Oppose Nuclear Option

Tomorrow, Wednesday April 27th

Press Availability: 11:00 AM to 11:45 AM

518 C Street, in the conference room

6th & C Streets, NE (off Stanton Park)

# # #

The Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary represents the country’s leading public interest and civil rights organizations

NEWS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERS

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

CONTACTS: Fabiola Rodríguez-Ciampoli, Jim Manley (Reid), 202-224-2939

Federico de Jesús, Brendan Daly (Pelosi), 202-226-7616

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

Reid, Pelosi, Congressional Democrats Fight for Equal Treatment in Health Care for All Families

Leaders Outline Principles to Eliminate Health Care Disparities

Washington, D.C.- Highlighting their commitment to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health care, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressional Native American Caucus will unveil Closing the Health Care Divide, a set of principles for addressing racial and ethnic health disparities.

WHO: Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

Rep. Mike Honda, (D-CA) Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ)

Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC), Congressional Black Caucus Chair

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)

Rep. Hilda Solis(D-CA), Congressional Hispanic Caucus Health Task Force Chair

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Native American Caucus Vice Chair, and House and Medicare Task Force Chair

WHAT: Press conference on “Closing The Health Care Divide, Principles for Addressing Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities”

WHEN: Wednesday, April 27

10:45 A.M. (EST)

WHERE: 138 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C.

###

***REMINDER – Advisory for Iowa Media

• A comment and/or b-roll footage from Sen. Grassley’s Finance Committee hearing on Social Security will be available tomorrow at 2:45 p.m. (CT) at the following coordinates: Galaxy 3, Transponder 7H, downlink 3840.

• An audio comment will also be available shortly following the hearing. Media can retrieve this comment by dialing 1-800-545-1267, then press 311 and follow the prompts. The comment will be available from Sen. Grassley’s website, http://grassley.senate.gov and clicking on “News” and then “radio actualities.”

Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

U.S. Senate Committee on Finance

Hearing on Social Security

Proposals to Achieve Sustainable Solvency: With and Without Accounts

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES CONTACT: Clinton Press Office

April 25, 2005 (202) 224-2243

Graham Press Office

(202) 224-5972

CLINTON, GRAHAM LAUD EXPANDED TRICARE BENEFITS FOR GUARD MEMBERS AND RESERVISTS, CALL FOR UNRESTRICTED ELIGIBILITY

WASHINGTON, DC – On the day the Pentagon launches expanded TRICARE eligibility for Guard and Reserve Members, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Lindsey Graham will underscore that this is an important first step, but that their current TRICARE legislation is needed to ensure that Guard members and Reservists and their families have access to the health benefits they need and deserve. Senators Clinton and Graham secured the expanded benefits being implemented today as part of the FY2005 Defense Authorization bill. These expanded benefits allow Guard members and Reservists to qualify for one year of TRICARE benefits for every 90 days of active duty. Senators Clinton and Graham have introduced legislation, the Guard and Reserve Readiness and Retention Act of 2005, that would extend TRICARE eligibility to additional members of the Guard and Reserve and their families regardless of their activation status.

WHO: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

WHAT: Senators Clinton and Graham will call for additional benefits for guardsmen and reservists under TRICARE

WHEN: Tuesday, April 26

11:15 am

WHERE: Senate Radio and TV Gallery

###

______________________________________________________________

Kevin D. Bishop

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)

Communications Director

101 E. Washington Street, Suite 220

Greenville, South Carolina 29601

(864) 250-1417 office / (864) 419-1811 cell / (864) 250-4322 fax

kevin_bishop@lgraham.senate.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Wes Hickman (Graham)

April 26, 2005 (202) 224-5972

Barbara Riley (Sununu)

(202) 224-2841

Adam Temple (DeMint)

(202) 224-6121

! Social Security Media Advisory !

WASHINGTON – Republican U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham, John Sununu, and Jim DeMint will hold a press conference tomorrow to discuss Social Security reform.

The Senators have been leaders in the effort to reform Social Security. They have introduced and discussed ideas and options for putting Social Security on solid financial footing. While others have shied away from the issue, these Senators have led.

They will encourage Democratic Leadership in Congress to bring forth real solutions when it comes to addressing the problems facing the system.

Who:

U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham, John Sununu, Jim DeMint and others.

What:

Hold Press Conference on Social Security Reform

When:

Tuesday, April 26

3:00 p.m.

Where:

Senate Radio TV Gallery

#####

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Reporters and Editors

FR: Beth Levine

The Ofc. Of Sen. Chuck Grassley, 202-224-6197

RE: Grassley Schedule for week of April 25, 2005

DA: Monday, April 25, 2005

Following is Sen. Grassley’s schedule for April 25 – 29.

• Sen. Grassley will meet with Iowans from the Siouxland Chamber; Sioux Valley; the Iowa Association of Nurse Anesthetists; the Keokuk Area Hospital; the Iowa Corn Growers Association; the Iowa Limestone Producers Association; Iowa State University, the University of Northern Iowa; the University of Iowa; the Iowa State Bar Association; Cedar Rapids; the American Health Care Association; the National Association of Counties; Garner; the Lyme Disease Association; the Upper Mississippi Illinois & Missouri Rivers Association; and Fort Dodge.

• On Tuesday, April 26 at 10 a.m. (ET), Sen. Grassley will lead the Senate Finance Committee in a hearing on “Proposals to Achieve Sustainable Solvency, With or Without Personal Accounts.” Witnesses at the hearing will present or comment on a series of proposals that have been analyzed by the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary and determined to achieve sustainable solvency. This is the second hearing on Social Security Sen. Grassley has convened in the Finance Committee this year.

• On Tuesday, April 26 between 4 & 6 p.m. (ET), Sen. Grassley will meet the Iowa recipients of the Milken National Educator Award. Two Iowans were selected to receive an unrestricted $25,000 prize and participation in ongoing professional development. The Iowans are from Dubuque and Cedar Rapids.

• On Tuesday, April 26 at 6:15 p.m. (ET), Sen. Grassley will host the “Capitalizing on Rural America: A Policy Forum.” The forum is a dialogue on the economic future of rural America that builds on a similar forum held in Des Moines last year.

• On Wednesday, April 27 at 10:30 a.m. (ET), Sen. Grassley will introduce Tom Dorr to the Senate Agriculture Committee. Dorr, of Marcus, has been nominated by the President to be the Undersecretary for Rural Development at the Department of Agriculture.

• On Wednesday, April 27 at noon (ET), Sen. Grassley will hold a press conference with Sen. Christopher Dodd to introduce their Drug Safety Office Independence Bill. Sen. Grassley has been conducting oversight of the Food and Drug Administration for more than a year. He has called on the Food and Drug Administration to do business in a way that's more open and transparent and to demonstrate a far stronger commitment to the scientific process and leadership in the area of drug safety. He has said that the agency needs to show that "its relationships with drug companies is arms length rather than arms locked."

• On Wednesday, April 28 at 3:45 p.m. (ET), Sen. Grassley will receive an award from the National Association of Spine Specialists. He is being honored as the Legislator of the Year for his efforts to promote sound public health care policy.

• On Thursday, April 29 at 4:40 p.m. (ET), Sen. Grassley will meet with the Iowa Small Business Person of the Year (West Des Moines). The Iowan is being honored by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

-30-

Specter-Leahy Bill A FAIR Compromise on Asbestos

...Judiciary Panel Considers Bipartisan Bill Creating $140B Trust Fund For Asbestos Claims

[(WASHINGTON, Tuesday, April 26 ) – The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday held a hearing on the bipartisan Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, or the FAIR Act. The bill is sponsored by the leading members of the panel, Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the chairman, and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democratic member. The Specter-Leahy bill would establish a $140 billion trust fund to fairly compensate victims suffering from asbestos-related disease, said Leahy, who described the legislation as a compromise that balances the interests of victims and businesses. The bill, co-sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and George Voinovich (R-Ohio), is the culmination of years of bipartisan discussion. The effort to stem the rising tide of asbestos litigation cases clogging the nation’s courts began more than three years ago. Below is Leahy’s statement from the hearing.]

CONTACT: Tracy Schmaler, 202-224-2154

David Carle, 202-224-3693

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy,

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Hearing on S. 852, the FAIR Act of 2005

April 26, 2005

I am pleased to join the Chairman at this hearing on our bipartisan legislation to address the serious problem of asbestos-related disease, the FAIR Act of 2005, (S. 852.)

This bipartisan bill is the product of years of difficult and conscientious craftsmanship and negotiation. Chairman Specter, with whom I have worked so hard on this legislation, rightly calls this one of the most complex issues we have ever tackled. It is not the bill that I would have written, were I alone responsible for its drafting, nor is it the bill that Senator Specter might have produced were he solely responsible for drafting a bill. Nor should anyone be surprised to hear that the interested groups – the labor organizations, the industrial participants in the trust fund, their insurers, the trial bar – are each less than pleased with some portion of the bill or another.

That is the essence of legislative compromise: We have worked hard to advance and protect the ultimate goal of fair compensation to victims as the lodestar of our efforts, and we have all had to make sacrifices on a variety of subsidiary issues as we worked together to resolve this emergency. What we have achieved is a significant step toward a better, more efficient method to compensate asbestos victims.

Asbestos is among the most lethal substances ever to be widely used in the workplace. Between 1940 and 1980, more than 27.5 million workers were exposed to asbestos on the job, and nearly 19 million of them had high levels of exposure over long periods of time. We even know of family members who have suffered asbestos-related disease from washing the clothes of loved ones. The ravages of disease caused by asbestos have affected tens of thousands of American families.

The economic harm caused by asbestos is also real, and the bankruptcies that have resulted are a different kind of tragedy for everyone -- for workers and retirees, for shareholders, and for the families that built these companies. In my home State of Vermont, the Rutland Fire Clay Company is among the more than 70 companies nationwide to have declared bankruptcy.

As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted several years ago, “the elephantine mass of asbestos cases cries out for a legislative solution.” In another Supreme Court opinion, Justice Ginsburg declared that “a nationwide administrative claims processing regime would provide the most secure, fair, and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure.” I agree, the Chairman agrees, Senator Feinstein agrees, Senator Hatch – who I worked with earlier in formulating some of the initial elements of this bill -- agrees, and we hope that many others in this Committee and in the Senate will agree.

We are encouraged by the favorable reception that this bill has already generated from a wide array of interested parties. In the past week, I have received letters of support from the United Automobile Workers (UAW), the Asbestos Workers Union, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), the Asbestos Study Group, Blinded Veterans Association and others. I ask unanimous consent that the texts of these letters be printed in the record.

The UAW notes in its April 13th letter, “[The Specter-Leahy Proposal] will provide more equitable, timely and certain compensation to the victims of asbestos-related disease.” I am pleased that Alan Reuther, the Legislative Director of the UAW, is testifying today.

The VFW letter of April 14 says this: “The national trust fund that you are proposing offers our members who are sick and dying the opportunity to secure timely and fair compensation for the injury they suffered in the course of serving their country.” I look forward to the testimony of Hershel Gober, the former Acting Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the current National Director of the Military Order of the Purple Heart on the benefits of our bipartisan legislation for veterans exposed to asbestos.

The National Association of Manufacturers also released a statement expressing their hope that this legislation will engender broad support. I thank Governor Engler for NAM’s support and look forward to his testimony today.

These statements in many ways tell the story of what we have already accomplished: the bipartisan efforts of the last two years have been productive. With the dedicated efforts of Judge Edward Becker and under the Chairman’s leadership, the disparate interests have reached consensus on many issues such as overall funding of $140 billion and a streamlined administrative process within the Department of Labor. I look forward to Judge Becker’s expert testimony today on our bipartisan legislation.

Last Congress I was disappointed by the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee and by the partisan bill, S.2290, that was subsequently introduced as a substitute for that legislation. As compared to those efforts, our bipartisan bill includes significant and necessary improvements: Our bill provides higher compensation awards for victims, with $1.1 million for victims of mesothelioma, $300,000 to $1.1 million for lung cancer victims, $200,000 for victims of other cancers caused by asbestos, $100,000 to $850,000 for asbestosis, and $25,000 for what we call “mixed disease cases.”

All unimpaired asbestos victims are eligible for medical monitoring, and, unlike last year’s bills, this bill provides for medical screening for high-risk workers, a relatively low-cost way to help make sure that those most likely to be harmed are properly diagnosed and treated. I want to thank the hard-working staff of the AFL-CIO for their expertise in drafting this medical screening program. I look forward to the testimony of Peg Seminario from the AFL-CIO on the improvements we have made and on their suggestions for further refinements to this bipartisan legislation.

Another essential improvement, and one strongly supported by organized labor, is the provision ensuring that victims’ awards under the new trust fund will not be subject to subrogation by insurance companies. This means that victims will not have to give up any of their much-deserved compensation just because they received workers’ compensation or other insurance benefits in the past.

The initial funding of this trust is both more realistic and more substantial than the partisan bill from the last Congress, providing for almost $43 billion of the total $140 billion in the first five years. And, unlike the earlier bill, this bill ensures that the contributors into the fund will be a matter of public record, as are their obligations to the fund.

Our bill also guarantees that court cases that have reached judgment or obtained verdicts will not be upset by the new trust fund, unlike last year’s legislation. Similarly, last year’s bill would also have overridden all civil settlements that had any remaining conduct outstanding. Our bipartisan asbestos bill protects those settlements between named defendants and named victims, and also protects settlements that provide for health insurance or health care.

In improving the way the asbestos legislation handles exigent claims -- those victims who are sickest and may not have long to live -- Senator Feinstein was instrumental in developing a creative solution. I thank the senior Senator from California for her tireless efforts on behalf of sick and dying asbestos victims. Under Senator Feinstein’s approach, which we adopted, exigent cases may receive an immediate lump-sum payment, and, if the fund is not operational in nine months, these sickest victims will be able to continue their cases in court.

The problems we are addressing are complex, this bill necessarily reflects these complexities, and its drafting was not easy. The compromises we forged were difficult but necessary to ensure that we created a trust fund that would provide adequate compensation to the thousands of workers who have suffered, and continue to suffer, the devastating health effect of asbestos.

The history of asbestos use in our country must come to an end. Under a provision authored by Senator Murray that we have included, this bill will ban its use. We must halt the harm asbestos creates, and ameliorate the harm it has already caused. The industrial and insurer participants in the trust fund will gain the benefits of financial certainty and relief from the stresses of litigation in the tort system, and the victims will have a quicker and more efficient path to recovery.

Through years of coping with and examining this problem, there now is general consensus that a remedy is needed. Those who have been coping directly with these complex problems know this, and those of us in Congress who have spent nearly three years examining these issues and forging solutions know it, as well. We also know that the legislative terrain that lies ahead for such a bold and complex initiative as this bill exemplifies is fraught with obstacles. As legislators with more than half a century of experience between us, Chairman Specter and I know that what we are attempting here rates off the charts in legislative degree of difficulty, and neither of us was born yesterday. But all of us who have worked long and hard in reaching this point also believe that this is not only worth doing, it also needs to be done.

I thank Chairman Specter, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and others for working so hard with me on this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to the testimony today on our compromise legislation which will, at long last, help solve the asbestos problem by providing fair compensation to victims of asbestos exposure.

# # # # #

Media Advisory Contact: David DiMartino (202)-224-8795

April 26, 2005 Jena Longo (202)-224-5765

*** NELSON CONFERENCE CALL ADVISORY ***

TODAY, Tuesday, April 26
at 10:15 a.m. CT/9:15 a.m. MT

WASHINGTON, DC B Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson will hold his weekly conference call with the Nebraska media Tuesday, April 26, 2005 at 10:15 a.m. CT, 9:15 a.m. MT). Participants are asked to call in at 10:05 a.m. CT (9:05 a.m. MT).

To Enter the Conference Call:

Dial 1-866-909-2663.
When prompted, press “1” to join a meeting.
Enter Meeting ID number “8739321”
When prompted, state name.
Enter call.

Senator Nelson will enter the call at 10:15 a.m. CT/9:15 a.m. MT.

For more information, please call David DiMartino at 202-224-8795, or Jena Longo at 202-224-5765.

-30-

Jena Longo

Deputy Press Secretary

Nebraska's Senator Ben Nelson

Direct Line: 202-224-5765

Cell: 202-236-7739

For Immediate Release

April 26, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley, 202-224-2939

MEDIA ADVISORY

TODAY @ 2:15 P.M.

Senator Reid to Lead Social Security Rally

Washington, DC – Democratic Leader Harry Reid will participate in a National Social Security rally sponsored by Americans United to Protect Social Security today, April 26, 2005 @ 2:15 P.M. The rally begins at 1:00 P.M. with members arriving at 2:15 P.M. Senate and House Democrats will declare their unity to strengthen Social Security and not to privatize the system. They will be joined by thousands of Americans from all across the country.

WHO: Sen. Reid, Sen. Durbin, Sen. Baucus, Rep. Pelosi, Rep. Hoyer, Rep. Rangel and Members of the Democratic Caucus

WHAT: National Social Security Unity Rally

WHEN: TODAY, April 26, 2005 @ 2:15 P.M.

WHERE: Upper Senate Park

-30-

ADVISORY: WYDEN, ALLEN, COX TO INTRODUCE

PERMANENT NET TAX MORATORIUM BILLS

Tuesday, April 19, 11:30 am ET

U.S. Senate Radio-TV Gallery

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES CONTACT: Carol Guthrie (Wyden) 202-224-3789

April 18, 2005 John Reid (Allen) 202-224-4746

James Freeman (Cox) 202-225-5611

Cox, Wyden, Allen to Introduce Legislation Making Net Tax Moratorium Permanent

Bills further extend ban on unfair, discriminatory Internet taxation

Washington, DC – On Tuesday, April 19, U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and George Allen (R-Va.) and U.S. Representative Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) will be in the Senate Radio-TV Gallery to unveil bipartisan, bicameral legislation that will make permanent the protections of the Internet Tax Freedom Act authored by Cox and Wyden in 1998. Allen joined efforts to extend the Act in 2003. The law is set to expire in November 2007.

The new legislation would permanently extend the ban on three types of taxes that unfairly single out the Internet, including taxes on Internet access, double taxation (for example, by two or more states) of a product or service bought over the Internet, and discriminatory taxes that treat Internet purchases differently from other types of sales.

WHO: U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

U.S. Senator George Allen (R-Va.)

U.S. Representative Christopher Cox (R-Calif.)

WHAT: Introduce legislation to make permanent

the Internet Tax Freedom Act

WHEN: Tuesday, April 19

11:30 am ET

WHERE: U.S. Senate Radio-TV Gallery

S-325

###

For Immediate Release

Monday, April 18, 2005

Grassley, Schumer Promote Greater Public Access to Federal Courtrooms

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley, of Iowa, and Sen. Charles Schumer, of New York, today introduced legislation to allow federal trial and appellate judges to permit cameras in the courtroom.

“The best way to maintain confidence and a better understanding of the judicial system is to let the sun shine in by opening up the courtroom to public scrutiny through broadcasting,” Grassley said. “Increased public awareness will bring greater accountability and help judges do a better job. Our bill is based on a well-founded confidence that it represents sound public policy."

"Thanks to C-SPAN, the American people are now more educated than ever on the workings of their elected representatives. This legislation could do for the courts what C-SPAN has done for Congress," said Schumer. "The federal courts can only gain in dignity and respect if we give the public easy access to their proceedings."

The bipartisan “Sunshine in the Courtroom” bill would allow federal trial and appellate judges, at their sole discretion, to permit cameras in their courtrooms. The bill would also direct the Judicial Conference, the principal policy-making entity for the federal courts, to draft nonbinding guidelines that judges can refer to in making a decision pertaining to the coverage of a particular case.

Forty-eight states currently permit some form of audio-video coverage in their courtrooms and at least 37 directly televise trials. Studies and surveys conducted in many of those states have confirmed that electronic media coverage of trials boosts public understanding of the court system without interfering with court proceedings. Fifteen states have conducted studies aimed specifically at the educational benefits that are derived from camera access to courtrooms. They all determined that camera coverage contributes to greater public understanding of the judicial system.

In order to provide a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent, a three-year sunset provision is included in the bill.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom bill does not require a federal judge in a federal court to allow camera access to judicial proceedings. The bill gives federal judges the discretion to allow cameras or other electronic media access if they see fit. The bill also protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured.

“Iowa has allowed cameras in the state courts for more than 20 years. It’s enhanced a better understanding and appreciation for the judicial system by Iowa taxpayers. Allowing cameras into federal courtrooms would bring the federal judiciary in the 21st century,” Grassley said.

- 30 -

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Monday, April 18, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

on the AgJOBS Bill

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced that she would oppose a motion to limit debate on the AgJOBS bill, saying that the bill, as it is currently drafted, would be a magnet for illegal immigration.

But because she supports efforts to help individuals who have worked in U.S. agriculture for many years and who have been upstanding members of society, she also announced plans to offer four amendments to the bill (if it receives 60 votes and debate is limited).

The amendments would:

· Increase the time necessary for eligibility to receive temporary residence status from 100 work days to three years;

· Increase the time necessary for eligibility to receive permanent residence status from 360 work days to five years;

· Prohibit those convicted of crimes from receiving benefits under the bill; and

· Prohibit those outside the United States from applying for benefits under the bill.

Feinstein said that if these amendments are approved that she would vote in favor of the bill.

The following is the statement Senator Feinstein inserted in the Congressional Record:

“Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the AgJOBS bill as it is currently drafted.

This is a very complicated bill. It is a magnet for illegal immigration. It hasn’t been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. We don’t know how many people would be affected by it. Rather, it has come to the floor as an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. This is not the place for this bill. I believe it is a mistake to pass this bill on an emergency supplemental that is designed to provide help for our military, fighting in extraordinary circumstances.

That’s why I co-sponsored an amendment with Senator Cornyn saying that the place to do these amendments is through the regular order, beginning in the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. This amendment passed by a vote of 61 –38. And that’s why I will vote against cloture on the AgJOBS bill and on the other complicated immigration amendment, the Chambliss/Kyl amendment.

If, however, cloture is invoked, then I plan on offering four amendments that I believe will improve the bill. If these amendments are approved by the full body, or are later incorporated into the bill through an appropriate Judiciary Committee markup, then I would be prepared to support the bill.

But otherwise it’s my intention to vote against the bill. I simply cannot support the bill in good conscience as it is.

I believe the bill as drafted is a huge magnet. The Judiciary Committee hasn’t had a chance to review it, amend it, mark it up. And it doesn’t belong on a supplemental appropriations bill.

We know that people come to this country illegally. They come for many different reasons.

Some out of fear of persecution. Some for work. All for opportunity.

In 2000, it was estimated that there 7 million unauthorized aliens in this country. And by 2002, this number had grown to 9.3 million. In agriculture, there are approximately 1.25 million (or about 50 percent of the agricultural work force) illegal workers – 600,000 of whom live and work in California. Many of these workers have been here for years, have worked hard, brought their families here, and have built their lives here.

With respect to agricultural work, I know that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to get Americans to work in agricultural labor. I didn’t believe it. Several years ago we contacted every welfare office in the state. And every welfare office in the State told us that once they put a sign up, no one responded. I think it is the right thing to do to give the workers who have been here for a substantial period of time, who have been working in agriculture, who have been good members of society, and who will continue to work in agriculture a way to adjust their status.

What I do not support is creating a magnet that draws large additional numbers of illegal immigration. Not only would this have a detrimental effect on our society, but it would harm the people we are trying to help through this bill. Here’s why: an influx in illegal immigrants would flood the labor market, make jobs more difficult to find, and drive down wages.

For those of you who doubt the magnet effect, you have only to examine what happened when President Bush announced his guest worker proposal early last year. Despite the fact that the President’s proposal had no path to legalization, the mere announcement of the proposal fueled a rush along the Southwest border.

The Los Angeles Times (5/16/04) reported: ‘detentions of illegal immigrants along the border … have risen 30% over the first seven months of the fiscal year, a period that includes the four months since Bush announced his plan.’

Similarly, the San Diego Union Tribune (1/27/04) reported: ‘U.S. Border Patrol officials report a 15 percent increase in the use of fraudulent documents at the world’s busiest land border crossing [San Ysidro]. And more than half of those caught using phony documents say the president’s offer of de facto amnesty motivated them to attempt to sneak into the United States.’

Does anyone doubt that this increase was related to anything but the President’s proposal? Of course not.

When I raised the concern that this legislation would be magnet that would attract large numbers with the authors of the legislation, they seemed to believe that the fact that the bill only applies to those who were in this country and working in agriculture as of December 31, 2004, would be sufficient to deter people from illegal entry.

I do not believe that is the case. I think people will see that they only need 100 days of work to

qualify for temporary residence; they will not be deterred by the operative date, and will say, ‘I’ll find a job, work 100 days, and then I’m legal and can bring my family.’

Length of Time Amendment

The first two of the four amendments I would like to offer would increase the time someone must demonstrate he or she has been in the United States working in agriculture in order to qualify for temporary and permanent residence.

This would discourage others from coming to this country, and help those who have been here for many years.

Here’s what the first amendment would do: In order to qualify for temporary residence, workers would have to demonstrate that they have worked for at least three years in agricultural work prior to December 31, 2004. For each of the three years, the worker would be required to show 100 work-days (or 575 hours) per year in agriculture.

Here’s what the second amendment would do: In order to qualify for permanent residence (a green card), workers would have to show that they have worked at least five years in agricultural work following enactment of the bill. For each of the five years, the worker would again have be required to show 100 work-days (or 575 hours) per year.

So, by extending the length of time a worker needs to have worked both in the past and the future, these amendments reduce the incentives for more illegal immigration.

Criminal Convictions

I have a third amendment that addresses another major concern that I have.

The bill currently allows someone with one or two (misdemeanor) criminal convictions in the United States to apply for temporary residence or a green card. I think this is a mistake. So the amendment I am offering strikes this language and ensures that those with criminal records do not qualify for benefits – if they have even one criminal conviction in the United States, or anywhere.

I believe that no one who has a criminal conviction should be the recipient of temporary residence or a green card under this program. Misdemeanors include petty theft, simple assault against persons, driving under the influence, certain drug offenses, and misdemeanor battery. In some states, they include cases of child abuse or domestic abuse, public assistance fraud, or abandonment of a child under the age of 10.

I do not believe we should allow anyone to apply for a benefit as significant as a green card under this bill if they have committed any crime, let alone the two misdemeanors that the bill currently allows.

Applications Outside the U.S.

The fourth amendment I am offering would prohibit workers who are living outside the United States from applying for temporary residence under this bill.

The bill allows those living in other countries to apply for benefits under this bill -- as long as they can demonstrate the appropriate time spent in agricultural work in the United States prior to their departure from this country. This means that someone could come to the United States illegally, work here illegally, return to their home country, and still apply for a green card under this bill. This simply makes no sense.

If we are going to give agricultural workers a way to adjust their status, let’s limit it to those who are living and working in this country.

Conclusion
California is the number one agriculture-producing state in the nation. I recognize that this status is based on the hard work of people who have been living on the edges of our society, living in fear, and constantly worried about being removed from this country.

It is time for the government to recognize that these people have made a substantial contribution to our country and offer them a way to adjust their status. Remember, there are already 1.25 million agricultural workers here illegally (600,000 in California).

These amendments would concentrate on their adjustment of status, thereby moving the workers and their families from the shadows and allowing them temporary, and subsequently, permanent legal status.

But I think that we have to be careful in how we proceed – if we do it the right way, we can help those who have been working in agriculture for many years and who have been good, upstanding members of society.

These are the people we should be trying to help: They have children, many of whom are born here and are U.S. citizens. They’ve paid taxes. Some have bought homes. They’ve worked hard for everything they’ve gotten. They’ve been good, productive members of society.

But if we do it the wrong way – we will actually cause great harm to the agriculture workers who have been here for years – we will create a magnet, flooding the borders, pushing down wages, and making it more difficult to find work. These are four simple, common-sense amendments.

As I said before, I would have preferred to do this in committee where we could have the time necessary to consider such complicated legislation. But if we are to pass an agricultural workers bill, let it be one that helps those who have contributed to our society and one that won’t cause great harm to our nation.”

###

For Immediate Release CONTACT: Jim Manley, 202-224-2939
April 18, 2005

DEMOCRATS ASK THEIR QUESTION OF THE DAY ON SOCIAL SECURITY:

“Are the private accounts President Bush highlighted in Ohio last week as profitable and as popular as the president implied?”

Only 5 Percent of Those Eligible Have Signed up for Private Accounts. “About 10,000 of those eligible for personal accounts — less than 5% — have signed up for the accounts since they became available at the start of 2003, according to Laurie Fiori Hacking, OPERS' executive director… OPERS records show that the "moderate" account lost money in two of the last four years and during the first three months of this year. It posted a five-year annualized return of 1.86%. That compares to the 1.8% that Bush said Friday was the rate of return for Social Security.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/16/05]

Dick Lugar
U.S. Senator for Indiana

Contact: Andy Fisher 202-224-2079 Date: 4/18/2005
http:// lugar.senate.gov • senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov • andy_fisher@lugar.senate.gov

Lugar statement on Bolton

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar has prepared the following opening statement for the committee’s business meeting to consider and vote on John R. Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The meeting will be Tuesday, April 19, at 2:15 p.m. in Room S-116 of the U.S. Capitol. Seating is limited and the press galleries are arranging pool media coverage of the meeting, which will also be on the Senate’s closed-circuit television.

Lugar’s statement below is not embargoed:

The Foreign Relations Committee meets today to vote on the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In this capacity, he would play an important role in securing greater international support for the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States.

The Foreign Relations Committee has reviewed Secretary Bolton’s actions with respect to allegations that he attempted to alter the professional conclusions of intelligence analysts with whom he disagreed and that he subsequently sought to disadvantage the careers of those analysts. Secretary Bolton has denied any impropriety and urged that all information related to these events be made public by the State Department.

In conjunction with this review, the Committee has interviewed witnesses and examined hundreds of documents. We asked the nominee more than 7 hours of questions and he has answered additional questions for the record. By almost any standard, the Foreign Relations Committee has done due diligence on this nominee, particularly given that he has been confirmed twice by the Senate already and that most of us have had personal experiences with him.

John Bolton has served the last four years in an important policymaking job within a competitive and sometimes contentious national security bureaucracy. In that position he will have had thousands of encounters with officials of all ranks and political persuasions. He also will have used intelligence resources virtually every day of his tenure. The charge that he improperly sought to influence intelligence conclusions is a serious one, and it is reasonable to assess his conduct in these encounters. But no one should be surprised to find that episodes of conflict have occurred in this environment over the course of a four-year tenure.

-more-

-2nd and final page-

As Chairman, I have to make a judgment about when an investigation of this type moves from being diligent and thorough to being unfair or dilatory. Thus far, the examination of Mr. Bolton’s record has been undertaken within the bounds of comity and fairness, and I thank members on both sides of the aisle for that. We have sought the facts surrounding several questionable incidents and we have made those facts available to Committee members and their staffs. But it is now time to make a decision. Senators have a wealth of information on which to base their judgment. My impression is that members of the Committee have made up their minds about the nomination.

The President has made it clear that this is not a casual appointment. He wants a specific person to do a specific job. We should recognize that the UN Ambassador always is closely associated with the President and the Secretary of State. They are responsible for what the Ambassador says and does, and they can dismiss the Ambassador if he does not follow their directives. I do not think the concerns raised about Secretary Bolton warrant our rejection of the President’s selection for his own representative to the UN.

We have spent a good deal of time scrutinizing individual conversations and incidents that happened several years ago. Regardless of how each Senator plans to vote today, we should not lose sight of the larger national security issues concerning UN reform and international diplomacy that are central to this nomination.

We should recall that UN reform is an imperative mission of the next ambassador. In 2005, we may have a unique opportunity to improve the operations of the UN. The revelations of the Oil-For-Food scandal and the urgency of strengthening global cooperation to address terrorism, the AIDS crisis, nuclear proliferation, and many other international problems have created momentum in favor of constructive reforms at the UN. Secretary General Kofi Annan has proposed a substantial reform plan that will provide a platform for further reform initiatives and discussions.

The United States must be a leader in the effort to improve the United Nations, particularly its accountability. At a time when the United States is appealing for greater international help in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in trouble spots around the world, a diminishment of UN credibility because of scandal reduces U.S. options and increases our own burdens.

The President has tapped Secretary Bolton to undertake this urgent mission. Secretary Bolton has affirmed his commitment to fostering a strong United Nations. He has expressed his intent to work hard to secure greater international support at the UN for the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States. He has stated his belief in decisive American leadership at the UN, and underscored that an effective United Nations is very much in the interest of U.S. national security. I believe that the President deserves to have his nominee represent him at the United Nations.

I thank all Senators for their flexibility and patience during this process.

# # #

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy

Ranking Democratic Member, Judiciary Committee

Senate Floor Remarks

On Republicans’ Exploitation of Faith in Judicial Nominations

April 18, 2005

Religious McCarthyism

We have learned that those who are intent on forcing confrontation, breaking the Senate’s rules and undercutting our democratic checks and balances plan to take their previous outrageous allegations of religious McCarthyism one step further and accuse Democrats of being “against people of faith” because we object to seven of the President’s more than 200 judicial nominees. By the logic of this venom, the 205 judicial nominees forwarded by President Bush who Democratic senators have helped to confirm would seem not to be people of faith, though that is as false and ridiculous on its face as is the predicate charge leveled at Democratic senators.

This disgusting spectacle, this smear of good men and women as “against faith” is expected to happen in, of all places, a house of worship, according to a front page article last week in The New York Times. It will involve twisting history as well as religion, because, according to the report, those involved will claim that Democratic Senators are using the filibuster rule to keep people of faith off of the federal bench.

This slander is so laden with falsehoods, so permeated by the smoke and mirrors of partisan politics, and so intertwined with one man’s personal political aspirations that it should collapse of its own weight. But too many who should speak out against it remain silent.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee began blatantly to invoke obscene accusations like this one earlier in the Bush Administration. They hurled false charges claiming Senators were anti-Hispanic, anti-African American, anti-woman, anti-religion, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian for opposing certain judicial nominees. They never stopped to mention that the same Senators they were slandering had supported hundreds of nominees including Hispanics, African Americans, women, and people of faith -- Catholic, Christian, and Jewish. They never hesitated to stoke the flames of bigotry, and to encourage their supporters to continue the smear in cyberspace, or in the pages of the nation’s newspapers or through direct mail. To the contrary, they liked the way it sounded. Maybe it tested well in their political polls. Now they have decided to up the ante on such “religious McCarthyism,” as I called it last year, as a way to help them tear down the Senate and do away with the last bastion against this President’s most extreme judicial nominees. It is crass demagoguery, fueled by the arrogance of power.

They now seek to make a connection between the dark days of the struggle for civil rights, when some used the filibuster to try to defeat equal rights laws, and the situation we find ourselves in today when the voice of the minority struggles to be heard above the cacophony of daily lies and misrepresentations. This tactical shift follows on the rhetorical attacks aimed at the judiciary over the past few weeks in which federal judges were likened to the KKK and “the focus of evil.” In the last few weeks we have heard calls for Stalinist solutions to problems and for mass impeachments. Last week the Senate Democratic leadership called upon the President and the Republican leadership of Congress to denounce these inflammatory statements against judges. This week I renew my call to Republican leaders and, in particular, to Republican moderates, to denounce the religious McCarthyism that is again pervading their side of this debate.

I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to follow the brave example of one of Vermont’s greatest Senators, Republican Ralph Flanders. Senator Flanders recognized a ruthless political opportunist when he saw one, and he knew that Senator Joe McCarthy had exploited his position of power in the Senate to smear hundreds of innocent people and win headlines and followers with his false charges and innuendo, without regard to facts, rules, or human decency. Senator Flanders spoke out during this dark chapter in the history of this great institution, and he offered a resolution of censure condemning the conduct of Senator McCarthy. Now, in our time, a line has again been crossed by some seeking to influence this body, and I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to follow Senator Flanders’ lead in condemning the crossing of that line.

I have served with many fair-minded Republican Senators. I am saddened to see Republican Senators stay silent when they are invited to disavow these abuses. Where are the voices of reason of the more moderate Members of this body? Will they not heed the clarion call that Senator Danforth sounded a few weeks ago? What has silenced these Senators who otherwise have taken moderate and independent stands in the past? Why are they allowing this religious McCarthyism to take place unchallenged? The demagoguery that is so cynically and corrosively being used by supporters of the President's most extreme judicial nominees needs to stop.

Not only must this bogus religious test end, but Senators should denounce the launching of the nuclear option, the Republicans’ precedent-shattering proposal to destroy the Senate in one stroke, while shifting more power over the Senate to the White House. I would like to keep the Senate safe and secure and in a “nuclear free” zone. The partisan power play Senate Republicans are discussing and now likely to employ will undermine the checks and balances established by the Founders in the Constitution. It is a giant leap toward an unfettered Executive controlling all three branches of the Federal Government. It not only will demean the Senate and destroy the comity on which it depends; it also will undermine the strong, independent federal judiciary that has protected the rights and liberties of all Americans against the overreaching of the political branches.

Even our current parliamentarian's office and our Congressional Research Service have said that the so-called “nuclear option” would go against Senate precedent and require the chair to overrule the parliamentarian. Is this how we want to govern the Senate? Do Republicans want to blatantly break the rules for short term political gain?

Just as the Constitution provides in Article V for a method of amendment, so, too, the Senate Rules provide for their own amendment. Sadly, the current crop of zealot partisans who are seeking to limit debate and minority rights in the Senate have no respect for the Senate, its role in our government as a check on the executive or its Rules. Republicans are in the majority in the Senate and chair all of its Committees, including the Rules Committee. If Republicans have a serious proposal to change the Senate Rules, they should introduce it. The Rules Committee should hold serious hearings on it and consider it and create a full and fair record so that the Senate itself would be in position to consider it. That is what we used to call “regular order.” That is how the Senate is intended to operate, through deliberative processes and with all points of view being protected and being able to be heard.

That is not how the “nuclear option” will work. It is intended to work outside established precedents and procedures as explained by the Congressional Research Service report from last month. Use of the “nuclear option” in the Senate is akin to amending the Constitution not by following the procedures required by Article V but by proclaiming that 51 Republican Senators have determined that every copy of the Constitution shall contain a new section or different words -- or not contain some of those troublesome amendments that Americans like to call the Bill or Rights. That is wrong. It is a kind of lawlessness that each of us should oppose. It is rule by the parliamentary equivalent of brute force.

The recently constituted Iraqi National Assembly was elected in January. In April it acted pursuant to its governing law to select a presidency council by the required vote of two-thirds of the Assembly, a supermajority. That same governing law says that it can only be amended by a three-quarters vote of the National Assembly. Use of the “nuclear option” in the Senate is akin to Iraqis in the majority political party of the Assembly saying that they have decided to change the law to allow them to pick only members of their party for the government and to do so by a simple majority vote. They might feel justified in acting contrary to law because the Kurds and the Sunni were driving a hard bargain and because governing through consensus is not as easy as ruling unilaterally. It is not supposed to be, that is why our system of government is the world’s example.

If Iraqi Shiites, Sunni and Kurds can cooperate in their new government to make democratic decisions, so can Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate. If the Iraqi law and Assembly can protect minority rights and participation, so can the rules and United States Senate. That has been the defining characteristic of the Senate and one of the principal ways in which it was designed to be distinct from the House or Representatives.

This week, the Senate is debating an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The justification for these billions of dollars being spent each week is that we are seeking to establish democracies. How ironic that at the same time we are undertaking these efforts at great cost to so many American families, some are seeking to undermine the protection of minority rights and checks and balances represented by the Senate through our own history. Yet that is what I see happening.

President Bush emphasized in his discussions earlier this year with President Putin of Russia that the essentials of a democracy include protecting minority rights and an independent judiciary. The Republican “nuclear option” will undermine our values here at the same time we are preaching our values to others abroad.

I urge Senate Republicans to listen carefully to what their leaders are saying, here in the Senate, and out across the country to their most extreme supporters. Consider what it is they are about to do and the language they use to justify it. Both are wrong. It would steer the Senate and the country away from democracy, away from the protections of the minority and away from the checks and balances that ensure the freedoms of all Americans.

(Leahy’s extended floor remarks follow)

I’d also like to talk for a moment about the independence of the judiciary. I have expressed my concern that members of Congress have suggested judges be impeached if they disagree with the judges’ decisions. Republicans rushed through legislation telling federal judges what to do in the Schiavo case, and then criticized the judges when they acted independently, judges appointed by President Reagan, by former President Bush, and by President Clinton. They were all criticized for that, although there are still those who are saying we should impeach the judges, or as I mentioned earlier in my speech, one speaker at a recent conference, to the cheers of some suggested Joseph Stalin's famous “No man. No problem” solution, because he killed those who disagreed.

I remember a group of Russian parliamentarians came to see me to talk about a federal judiciary, and they asked, “Is it true that in the United States the government might be a party in a lawsuit and that the government could lose?” I said, “Absolutely right.” They said, “People would dare to sue the government?” I said, “We have an independent judiciary, yes, they could.” They said, “Well, if the government lost, you fire the judges, of course?” I said, “No, they are an independent judiciary.” And I remember the discussion around the conference room in my office. This was the most amazing thing to them; that the people who disagreed with the government could actually go to a federal court or a state court, bring a suit there and seek redress even if it meant the government lost. Sometimes it wins, sometimes it loses. I was a government prosecutor. I know how that works. I think they finally understood that the reason we are such a great democracy is that we have an independent judiciary.

I would call out to my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop slamming the federal judiciary. We don't have to agree with every one of their opinions but let's respect their independence