Press Release Daily Summary

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) today praised the Senate passage of the annual funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The $30.8 billion bill includes $282 million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Ga. The final bill also included an amendment by Isakson calling on the United States and Mexico to address the urgent need for better immigration enforcement at the border.

“Theses funds will go along way to ensuring we have the resources necessary to defend and protect this nation,” Isakson said. “With the world’s busiest airport, the Centers for Disease Control and two vital ports, I am confident Georgia will benefit greatly from this bill.”

Isakson said FLETC, which serves as an interagency law enforcement training organization for more than 70 Federal agencies, provides a critical role to state, local, and international law enforcement agencies.

On Monday, the Senate also unanimously passed an amendment to the Homeland Security bill by Isakson to the legislation acknowledging that terrorists and other illegal immigrants are taking advantage of inadequate security along the U.S.-Mexico border and calling on both nations to address the urgent need for increased protection and enforcement on the border.

“We have a great trading partner to the south. We have a great neighbor to the south. We have a country that shares many common interests. We have a country that we enjoy being our neighbor,” Isakson said. “We also would like for them to be our partner in seeing to it that the border we share is secure so that those who are crossing are crossing legally and consistent with the laws of that nation.”

The bill includes $5.9 billion for securing our nation’s borders and $3.8 billion for investigating and enforcing immigration and customs laws. Additional highlights of the bill include: $7.8 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard, $5 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and $340 million for continued development of the United States Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology (US VISIT), which enhances the security of U.S. citizens and visitors by verifying the identity of visitors with visas.

The Senate version of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill must still be reconciled with the House version and passed again by Congress before it can be sent to President Bush for his signature.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Kathleen Long 202-228-3685

July 15, 2005

Senate Passes Homeland Security Appropriations Bill with Fairer

Allocation of Homeland Security Grants

Levin spearheaded amendment to create a more equitable formula for larger states

WASHINGTON – The Homeland Security appropriations bill passed by the Senate last night by a vote of 96-1 contains a measure spearheaded by Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., that would provide a fairer allocation of homeland security grants for larger states than is provided under current law. Levin cosponsored the amendment with Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Senator Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., the committee’s ranking Democrat.

For the past three years, the State Homeland Security Grant Program has distributed funds using a funding formula that arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of funds to be divided equally among the states, regardless of size or need. That “small state formula” has severely disadvantaged states such as Michigan with high populations.

“We have been working hard to come up with a more equitable formula,” said Levin. “This has been a very difficult issue on which to reach consensus, and yet with the help of the committee chairman and ranking member, we have come up with a formula that would come closer to treating all states fairly.”

In remarks on the Senate floor this week, Collins said, “I want to give credit where credit is due, that the proposal for this sliding scale minimum came from our colleague, a senior member of the committee, Senator Levin of Michigan.”

The current formula provides an unusually high base funding level of .75 percent of the total amount appropriated for the homeland security grant program. The amendment would reduce that guarantee to .55 percent of the total amount appropriated for the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program, as the program is now called. The amendment provides an alternative for larger states to select a guaranteed amount based on a state’s population or population density. In effect, states can choose between the base formula of .55 percent or a sliding scale formula based on population or population density. Under the old formula, Michigan would receive $10.86 million in guaranteed funding. Under the new option based on population, Michigan would receive $17.55 million in guaranteed funding.

The remainder of the total funds in the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program, approximately 60 percent, would be distributed to states and regions based purely on risk and threat assessment by the Department of Homeland Security using factors outlined in the Collins-Lieberman amendment. Of that remainder of total funds, up to half of the funds could be allocated to metropolitan areas through the Urban Area Security Initiative. The amendment also provides guidance on how to allocate this risk-based funding, including whether a state is on an international border. The original bill would have allowed these funds to be allocated without guidance, at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The House of Representatives passed their version of the Homeland Security appropriations bill in May. Conferees from the House and Senate will now meet to work out the differences between their two bills.

# # #

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Reporters and Editors

RE: Social Security

DA: Thursday, July 14, 2005

Sen. Chuck Grassley issued a comment following a meeting this morning of Finance Committee Republicans regarding Social Security. As chairman of the committee, Grassley has convened 15 such meetings since February. He also has conducted three committee hearings this year on the Social Security program. Prior to becoming chairman of the Finance Committee, Sen. Grassley introduced with Sens. Gregg, Breaux and Bob Kerrey bipartisan legislation (S.1383, May 20, 1999) to address Social Security’s solvency problems.

“The Finance Committee will continue its work on Social Security by studying the options and considering how we might achieve solvency and incorporate personal accounts. There are competing demands for the time of senators and House members, so work will probably continue well after the August recess. Social Security may be the government’s most successful program ever, and keeping it healthy must be a top priority in Washington. The annual Trustees’ report says the program is unsustainable in its current form. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have an obligation to take responsible action to make the program solvent for future generations. I won’t give up trying to bridge the divide. The sooner we act, the better the choices we have to secure Social Security.”

For Immediate Release: Contact: Elliott Bundy or Kristin Pugh

July 14, 2005 202/224-4513 or C288-6398;202/224-9301or C997-5358

MEDIA NOTE: Audio is available from the Republican Conference code-a-phone by calling 1-800-545-1267 then pressing 322. It is also available digitally via the web at: http://src.senate.gov/murkowski/radio/

SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI’S ENERGY BILL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE OPENING STATEMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Lisa Murkowski made the following statement today as the Senate and House energy bill conference committee met to discuss H.R. 6 - Energy Policy Act of 2005.

“Mr. Chairman Barton, Senator Domenici, with the price of oil near $60 and with the price of natural gas at near record levels, we need a comprehensive energy policy and we need it now.

“We want a balanced bill that will increase domestic production of oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power, but also a bill that will encourage renewable energy and new technology that will lead to alternative energy sources and measures to encourage energy conservation.

“This bill can solve a host of national problems but also many state concerns, such as helping Alaska finally craft a modern energy system so its citizens in 175 towns aren’t paying 40 to 80 cents per kilowatt hour for diesel-fired electricity, but perhaps close to the national average for other energy supplies from coal and wind, to hydro and new fuel cell-generated power.

“We have an historic opportunity to craft a bill that can be approved by both Houses and signed by the President yet this summer. We just need to get down quickly to the hard work of marrying the good ideas from these two bills and finding a way to get past the painful task of reducing the price tag for some of these provisions to meet within the overall budget cap that we face.

“I know we will succeed this month. Given what is happening in the world, we can’t afford to fail to set this nation on a rational path for energy development now.”

###

For Immediate Release

Date: Thursday, July 14, 2005

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

Reid Calls on Republicans to Put National Security Ahead of Partisan Politics

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid made the following statement on the Senate Floor.

Washington, DC - “MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT EVERYONE HERE TODAY TO BE CLEAR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU CAN CALL IT POLITICS. I CALL IT GOVERNMENT. I CALL IT GOOD GOVERNMENT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY. AT LEAST ONE, THERE COULD BE MORE BUT AT LEAST ONE SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL DISCLOSED THE IDENTITY OF A SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER TO A REPORTER OR REPORTERS AND THEN THIS ADMINISTRATION PROCEEDED TO DENY AND DEFLECT THE TRUTH AFTER IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT IT HAD BEEN LEAKED. IT PUT THIS AGENT'S LIFE IN JEOPARDY. I REPEAT, PUT THIS AGENT'S LIFE IN JEOPARDY. PLUS PEOPLE THAT SHE HAD DEALT WITH FROM OTHER COUNTRIES AND HERE IN AMERICA. IT PUT OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AT RISK, AND, OF COURSE, JEOPARDIZED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

“EVEN THE PRESIDENT'S FATHER, MY FRIEND, PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, A FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY HIMSELF, RECOGNIZES THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS OFFENSE. HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, ‘I HAVE NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT AND ANGER FOR THOSE WHO BETRAY THE TRUST BY EXPOSING THE NAME OF OUR SOURCES. THEY ARE IN MY VIEW THE MOST INSIDIOUS OF TRAITORS.’

“WHOEVER DID THIS, ACCORDING TO GEORGE BUSH, THE FIRST BUSH PRESIDENT, WOULD BE AN INSIDIOUS TRAITOR. BUT INSTEAD OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM, THIS ADMINISTRATION, THIS WHITE HOUSE AND THE MAJORITY HERE IN THE SENATE, WANT TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THIS BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY. -- BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

“UNFORTUNATELY, MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S A PATTERN WE'RE ALL TOO FAMILIAR WITH FROM THIS WHITE HOUSE. WHEN THEY ARE ON THE ROPES, THEY ATTACK. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, YOU NEED LOOK NO FURTHER THAN YESTERDAY'S ‘WASHINGTON POST’, JULY 13, 2005, WHICH DETAILED THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY FOR THIS AFFAIR. AND I QUOTE, ‘THE EMERGING G.O.P. STRATEGY DEVISED BY R.N. C. CHAIR KEN MEHLMAN AND THOSE OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE IS TO TRY TO UNDERMINE THE DEMOCRATS CALLING FOR ROVE'S OUSTER TO DROWN OUT THE CONTROVERSY ACCORDING TO SEVERAL HIGH-LEVEL REPUBLICANS.’

“MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS A COVERUP. THIS IS AN ABUSE OF POWER. THIS IS A DIVERSION FROM WHAT WE SHOULD BE DEALING WITH HERE IN THE SENATE. NO INTEREST IN COMING CLEAN AND BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

“THIS AFTERNOON MEHLMAN'S STRATEGY IS BEING BROUGHT RIGHT HERE. BUT YOU KNOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH THIS. THIS MORNING A WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOT A BASTION OF LIBERALALITY, THEIR POLL THIS MORNING SAID ONLY 41% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT IS BEING HONEST AND STRAIGHTFORWARD. THAT'S FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL THIS MORNING WHICH CONFIRMS AND UNDERLINES

WHAT I'VE SAID.

“THIS IS A COVERUP. IT'S AN ABUSE OF POWER. IT'S DIVERSIONARY. IT'S TIME TO QUITE PLAYING PARTISAN POLITICS WITH OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. IT'S TIME FOR THE WHITE HOUSE TO COME CLEAN. IT'S TIME TO ADDRESS THE PRESSING ISSUES FACING THIS COUNTRY.

“THIS SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT, MR. PRESIDENT – AND I'VE BEEN IN THE CONGRESS MORE THAN TWO DECADES -- IS ABOUT AS JUVENILE AND AS MUD-SLINGING AS I HAVE SEEN. WE'RE HERE TO DEAL WITH NATIONAL SECURITY. WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT LEAKING INFORMATION OF OUR C.I.A. AGENTS. ISN'T THAT PART OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY? I CERTAINLY OPEN SO.

“WE HAVE PRESSING ISSUES FACING THIS COUNTRY. THE REASON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LOST FAITH IN THIS ADMINISTRATION IS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS THEY CARE ABOUT. 45 MILLION AMERICANS WITH NO HEALTH INSURANCE, MILLIONS OF OTHERS UNDERINSURED, OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IS WONTING; K-12, BIG PROBLEMS. PENSIONS -- ONLY HALF OF AMERICAN WORKERS TODAY HAVE PENSIONS. AND MORE THAN HALF OF THOSE PENSIONS ARE IN DISTRESS. PEOPLE ARE WORRYING JUST LIKE THOSE

PEOPLE THAT WORK ALL THOSE VALIANT YEARS AT UNITED AIRLINES, ARE THEY GOING TO LOSE THEIR PENSIONS OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE CUT?

“THIS ADMINISTRATION IS OBSTRUCTING THIS PROGRESS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE MORE. THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD STOP PLAYING GAMES AND WORK ON ISSUES TO HELP THIS COUNTRY. WHAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY WITH THIS LITTLE SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT IS A DIVERSION, IT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER AND IT IS A COVER-UP.

###

For Immediate Release

Date: Thursday, July 14, 2005

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

Reid Statement on National Security Vote

Washington, DC – “Senate Democrats today stood on the side of the American people and our national security and tried to send a simple message: This nation’s secrets cannot be traded for political gain. It’s regrettable that my Republican colleagues chose to play partisan politics instead of joining Democrats in keeping Americans safe.”

###

RELEASE FROM MERCY MEDICAL CENTER
A University Affiliated Center Conducted by the Sisters of Mercy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 15, 2005

CONTACT: Dan Collins
410-332-9714

MEDIA ADVISORY: U.S. SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI RELEASED FROM MERCY MEDICAL CENTER

Baltimore, MD – Senator Barbara A. Mikulski was released today, Friday, July 15th, from Mercy Medical Center in downtown Baltimore. She was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation or an irregular heartbeat. This is a common condition which affects more than 2 million people in the U.S. It is treated through medication. Senator Mikulski will be able to maintain her usual schedule.

Senator Mikulski said, “I am so grateful for the good wishes and support of so many people. I am also thankful for the excellent care provided to me by the staff at Mercy Medical Center. I have thought a lot in recent days about how fortunate I am to have this quality of care. I can’t wait to get back to work – to continue my fight to ensure that all Americans have access to the best possible health care – and to meet the day-to-day needs of Marylanders and the long term needs of our nation.”

For more information on atrial fibrillation, please contact Dan Collins at Mercy Medical Center at 410-332-9714.

###

Melissa Schwartz
Press Secretary
Office of Senator Barbara Mikulski
phone 202-228-1122
fax 202-224-3892
www.mikulski.senate.gov

For Immediate Release

Thursday, July 14, 2005

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

REID: BUSH ADMINISTRATION OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE SECURITY NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

More Must be Done to Protect Americans from Terrorism

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement concerning Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff’s statement that transit security is not a federal concern:

“President Bush failed to make homeland security a priority when he slashed funding for transit and rail security grants by $50 million, cut over $400 million for first responders, and further cut funding for airport screeners. Today, The Bush White House has once again demonstrated that it is unwilling to do everything necessary to protect Americans from terrorism here at home. There is a vital role for the federal government to play in keeping our rail and transit system safe. Yet President Bush wants to push the responsibility off to state and local governments.

"Instead of heeding the lessons of London and taking critical steps to secure our rail and transit system, the President and Congressional Republicans want to pretend like fighting terrorism overseas is enough. It is not, and that is why Democrats will continue to fight to protect the American people here at home. "

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Allison Dobson/ Maureen Knightly

202-224-3254

Remarks by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

At the FTC/HHS Workshop on Marketing, Self-Regulation,

and Childhood Obesity

July 14, 2005

As Prepared for Delivery

“As most of you know, I have been highly critical of the advertising industry’s marketing of junk food to children. That said, I appreciated the opportunity, several months ago, to speak to the major advertising associations. And I am eager to maintain a constructive dialogue. Many in the industry have spoken frankly to me about the need for change. And they agree with me that the issue is not what is in the best interest of Tom Harkin, or the advertising industry, or the food industry. There is one issue: What is in the best interest of children – period.

“I hope that this is the starting point – the premise -- for our deliberations, here, today and tomorrow. We are not here to go through the motions, or for purposes of window-dressing and public relations. We are here to make a difference for the children of this country, who face a clear and present danger from an epidemic of overweight and obesity.

“My counsel to you is to seize the day – to do what is right for our children. I urge you to use this workshop to formulate and implement a truly independent, rigorous system of self-regulation for food advertising to children.

“If you move ahead boldly with such a system, I will applaud you, parents will applaud you, and the American public will applaud you. But if you fail to do so, you will have missed a tremendous opportunity. The result, I predict, will be a public backlash.

“According to Yale University polling, in 2001, 57 percent of Americans favored restricting children’s food advertising. In 2004, 73 percent of Americans favored such restrictions. The backlash is building steam. And it’s not just that more and more parents favor restrictions on food advertising. More to the point, they are ready to vote with their pocketbooks.

“So the choice is in your hands. And the stakes could not be higher for the work you are doing here over the next two days.

“Let me be clear: half measures are not acceptable. The hour is too late. Children are at risk. The time to act is now.

“I understand that the Grocery Manufacturers of America is set to unveil new, supposedly tougher proposals for voluntary restrictions. Based on a story in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, GMA will offer many perfectly fine ideas. For instance, it would limit product placements in TV shows, and the use of licensed characters in ads and food packaging. I’m all for it.

“I have not seen details of the GMA proposals, so I will withhold any final judgment. But based on what I have read so far, there appears to be no meaningful enforcement mechanism . . . no truly independent body with the will and the power to crack down on offenders.

“If CARU is the model, that is a non-starter. CARU, frankly, has become a poster child for how not to conduct self-regulation. Time and again, it has shown itself to be a captive of the industry. It has no real independence. No sanction authority. No teeth.

“The current situation is like a game with a rule book, but no real referee. CARU is a tiny group tasked with oversight of a multibillion-dollar industry. To me, the deck seems a bit stacked.

“And the proof is in the pudding. Look at the deluge of junk food advertising aimed at kids that we see today. CARU has given the green light to all of it!

“My understanding is that GMA apparently will propose to give CARU more resources and staff, and to make its process more transparent. But a bigger, more transparent CARU means nothing if it lacks true independence, and if it lacks teeth.

“I respect GMA’s efforts. But I believe that we must be much more ambitious, especially when it comes to enforcement. For my part, I believe that a meaningful system of self-regulation should include at least four elements:

“First, it must encourage, invite, and utilize stakeholder input. And by stakeholder, I do not mean industry stakeholders alone. I also include parents, public-health experts, child development experts, and others. These people need to play a meaningful role in creating the system of self-regulation – and they need to have ongoing opportunities for input and participation.

“Second, there must be a clear action plan both for implementing the self-regulation system and for ensuring compliance. The system needs independent monitors. It needs to promulgate enforceable regulations and requirements. And it needs an independent oversight body with teeth – with the power to punish bad actors that violate the agreed-to standards.

“Third, a serious system of self-regulation must look at the cumulative effect of food advertisements directed at children. Currently, CARU looks at each advertisement in isolation, determining whether that ad meets certain standards. We need to consider the cumulative effect on children of seeing many thousands of ads each year.

“Fourth, a system of self-regulation must have purview over the whole range of vehicles by which food and beverages are marketed to children – not just television and print media. Marketing has grown incredibly sophisticated and diverse. It has spread to the Internet, to products placements and tie-ins, to adver-gaming, and much more. So an effective system of self-regulation cannot be static. It must adapt and evolve to keep up with rapid changes in advertising and marketing.

“I am interested in carefully reviewing GMA’s proposals – and any others put forward by the food industry. And I am keenly interested in proposals that you will hammer out today and tomorrow. But let me be clear, my evaluation will be based on the parameters I have set forth here.

“The stakes are high for your industries. But the stakes are far higher for our children. Poor nutrition and childhood obesity are not just “problems” – they represent a public health crisis of the first order. Twenty-five percent of children between the ages of 5 and 10 already show the early-warning signs of heart disease. We are seeing more and more cases of adult-onset diabetes in children, something that used to be extraordinarily rare.

“As a Senator I cannot stand idly by as obesity-related health care costs explode federal and state budgets, and wreak havoc on corporate and family budgets. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently put it: “Fat is a fiscal issue.”

“Why are children consuming more calories and more foods high in sugar, fat, and salt? We don’t need a Harvard study to tell us the answer. Kids are eating more junk food for at least three reasons: One, because it tastes good. Two, because it is available everywhere – including in schools. And three, because it is being aggressively advertised and marketed.

“Some in the food industry insist that there is no evidence that food marketing is responsible for kids eating junk food and consuming more calories. But corporate America doesn’t spend $12 billion a year on advertising aimed at children because it likes to waste money!

“No, corporate America spends $12 billion because that advertising works brilliantly. . . . because it persuades children to demand – to the point of throwing temper tantrums, if necessary – a regular diet of candy, cookies, sugary cereal, sodas, and all manner of junk food. No wonder parents are so exasperated.

“Young kids are totally vulnerable and exploitable. Studies show that children do not understand that commercials are designed to sell products, because they don’t yet possess the cognitive ability to evaluate advertising. It’s not until age 7 or 8 that children even begin to distinguish between the show they are watching and the commercials that are trying to sell them something. So it is absurd to say that young kids have a personal responsibility to resist the lures of junk-food advertising. They can’t -- and they don’t – with disastrous consequences.

“No question, many parents need to make better choices for their children. They need to say no. But there are practical limits on what we can expect. It is just not realistic to think that most parents are going to deny their children access to TV on Saturday morning and after school. And, for goodness sake, why do we have a situation where conscientious parents have to protect their children from the ads on Saturday morning TV?

“Food advertising should not be undermining the lessons that responsible parents are teaching their children. It should not be undermining parents’ authority.

“If you hear impatience in my voice, I am expressing what I hear from parents all across this country. They come up to me in airports or shopping malls. They tell me that they are angry. They feel that their parental authority is being undermined by the sheer pervasiveness of junk-food advertising and marketing to their kids.

“A senior brand manager at Heinz was quoted in the Wall Street Journal. He said: ‘All of our advertising is targeted to kids. You want that nag factor so that seven-year-old Sarah is nagging mom in the grocery store to buy funky purple. We’re not sure mom would reach out for it on her own.’

“Is it any wonder why a backlash is brewing? A Wall Street Journal poll in February found that 68 percent of American adults believe that advertising to kids is a major contributor to the rising tide poor nutrition and overweight among American children. In the same poll, a clear majority said government should do more to regulate food ads directed at children.

“I believe strongly that when private interests conflict with the public good, government has a responsibility to act. And where corporate responsibility is absent, federal regulation of food marketing directed at children will be necessary.

“As you know, I have a bill that would take us in that direction. But it is still my hope that real restraint will come from within the food and advertising industries. Many stakeholders in the food industry have, in fact, shown a willingness to look at their own marketing practices and to make changes in order to protect children’s health. I have publicly applauded this. At the same time, I have also been deeply disappointed by actions of others in the food and advertising industries who actively – aggressively -- target impressionable children with junk-food advertising.

“My friends, you have a big job ahead of you today and tomorrow. But there is no question in my mind that, in this room, you have the knowledge, expertise, skills, and will to succeed. Likewise – based on my talks with all the major groups represented here -- I am hopeful that there is a sincere will and determination to put the interests of children first, and to hammer out a meaningful, effective approach to self-regulation.

“In particular, I am convinced that the food and advertising industries – with all your resourcefulness and creativity – can be a powerful force for change . . . and for doing good.

“So I wish you all the best. I will be following your deliberations today very closely. And I look forward to working closely with all of you as we go forward.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Feinstein and Bipartisan Coalition Join with Michael J. Fox and Other Patient Advocates in Urging Passage of Stem Cell Research Legislation

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) today stood with Michael J. Fox, and Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) to urge passage of stem cell research legislation.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S.471/H.R.810) is designed to expand the current federal funding policy for stem cell research. The legislation would allow federal funding for stem cell research using stem cell lines derived under strict ethical requirements from excess in vitro fertilization embryos, regardless of the date they were derived.

The following is Senator Feinstein’s statement:

“Let me begin by thanking Michael J. Fox for joining us today. Your efforts are a major reason why we are on the verge of passing historic legislation to expand stem cell research.

I think the time is really getting close for the Senate to act on this legislation, and I think it’s really important all supporters of stem cell research work hard from this point on. As my colleagues have expressed, there are people who do not want the House bill to become law. There are people who do not want the Cord Blood Bill to become law. There are people who want to obfuscate this issue.

There are people who are not moved by chronic debilitating illness, but are moved by ideological concerns.

We are not among them. What we see are people in need, people suffering, people who might be helped by research which is the frontier of all modern medicine, and we want this frontier to advance and move ahead.

That’s where you come in. I just heard today that in Illinois the Governor signed an executive order on Tuesday to distribute $10 million in grants for stem cell research. My own State of California has passed by a substantial majority a bond issue for $3 billion for stem cell research over the next ten years. Connecticut has done a $100 million over ten years. And in New Jersey, the State Senate has approved $150 million. So four states are essentially in the vanguard of a movement that is crossing America.

I think that its going to get rough and tumble before this bill comes out of the Senate, and even more rough and tumble when it goes to the President. He has said he will veto it. Only the voices of the American people, hopefully generated by your action, will change that. I am really convinced of that.

And so my message to you today is to go out and work for this bill. Go out and stay on the phone. Go out and stay on your computer. Build a drumbeat of voices and say that the time has come to pass this bill.”

###

For Immediate Release

Date: Wednesday, July 13, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley/Rebecca Kirszner, Reid, 202-224-2939

Joe Shoemaker, Durbin, 202-224-7028

Laura Capps, Kennedy, 202-224-2633

Chip Unruh, Biden, 202-224-0132

REID, DURBIN, KENNEDY AND BIDEN DEMAND THE ADMINISTRATION SUBMIT OVERDUE IRAQ REPORT

Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Joe Biden released the following statement:

(Washington, DC) “In the 2005 Iraq Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, the House and Senate conferees agreed to an extensive set of Defense Department reporting and benchmarking requirements on Iraq that addressed the security, economic, reconstruction, and governance areas. This report was due on July 11th, and has yet to be provided to Congress.

We have cosponsored an amendment to the homeland security appropriations bill that expresses the Senate’s concern that this information is critical to formulating a strategy for success and that the report should be delivered to Congress as soon as possible.

Over the last few weeks, the American people have been assured by the Administration that they have a strategy for success in Iraq. Unfortunately, too often the rhetorical excesses of senior Administration officials have left an impression with the American people of a credibility gap. Overly optimistic statements such as that by the Vice President that the insurgency is in its “last throes” have not matched what real experts, including the Administration’s own experts and senior military officers, have said about the challenges ahead.

With all this obfuscation, the American people are right to be concerned and right to demand that the Administration report more cold, hard facts about Iraq on a regular basis. As the Administration asks Congress for billions more in funding for the Iraq war in coming months, on top of the more than $200 billion we have provided so far, the American people are entitled to information measuring whether those resources are having an impact and moving the ball forward in Iraq.

We won’t know whether our strategy in Iraq is making true progress until real report cards start coming in.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein on
Sponsoring Legislation to Reauthorize the USA Patriot Act

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today joined with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter to sponsor legislation reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act. The following is the text of Senator Feinstein’s statement:

“I’m pleased to join with Senator Arlen Specter in sponsoring legislation to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act. The bill that was signed into law included 16 provisions scheduled to sunset in December 2005. Under our new bill, 14 would be permanently reauthorized.

Two others, governing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, would be sunset in Dec. 2009:

· Section 206, which clarifies rules relating to multi-point (roving) wiretaps; and

· Section 215, which regulates the acquisition of business records in the course of foreign intelligence investigations by requiring that a judge determines the request is relevant to a national security intelligence investigation.

I previously voted against a separate USA Patriot Bill in Intelligence Committee because it includes two new controversial provisions:

· Administrative subpoenas, which contained inadequate safeguards against abuse; and

· An elimination of the effective distinction between intelligence and law enforcement by undermining the "significant purpose" test requiring there be an intelligence mission before using investigatory tools, which was in the original Patriot Act.

The Judiciary Committee bill does not contain these two provisions and I will urge my colleagues to support this version.

This nation faces difficult times. We know that there are those already in our country or trying to enter our country who would do us grievous injury and harm unless we can stop them – and to stop them, we must find them first – before they act – not after they act. Therefore, this bill is necessary and prudent.”

MAJOR PATRIOT PROVISIONS

Section 206 (FISA Multi-Point Wiretaps): The bill extends the sunset date until December 31, 2009, adds new reporting requirements, and creates additional safeguards:

· For so-called “John Doe” wiretaps, the order must include “sufficient information to describe a specific target with particularity.”

· For all multi-point wiretaps, the bill requires the government to notify the FISC within 10 days after beginning surveillance of any new facilities or places. This notice must include:

o The “nature and location” of the facility or place under surveillance;

o The “facts and circumstances” relied upon to justify the belief that each new “facility or place” is “being used, or is about to be used,” by the target; and

o The minimization procedures designed to protect the innocent.

Section 213 (Delayed Notice “Sneak & Peek” Search Warrants): The bill adds new public reporting requirements, eliminates “unduly delaying a trial” as a basis for delay, and modifies the length of delay:

· Permits the court to determine the appropriate length of delay, but requires the court to set a “date certain” for notice to be provided.

· Permits extensions of the delay period, but only “upon an updated showing of the need for further delay.” Also, limits any extensions to 90 days each.

Section 214 (FISA Pen Registers): The bill adds public reporting provisions and requires a factual basis for FISA pen register/trap and trace orders:

· Requires “a statement of the facts” showing that the information likely to be obtained is “foreign intelligence” not concerning a U.S. person or is “relevant” to an investigation to protect against terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

· Requires the FISC to find “sufficient facts” to support the application. Also, permits the FISC to issue a contemporaneous order for communication records (e.g., subscriber information) to deter over-reliance on the FISA Business Records provision.

Section 215 (FISA Business Records): The bill extends the sunset date until December 31, 2009, and adds several safeguards:

· Requires applications to include “a statement of facts” showing “reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation.”

· Includes an explicit right to consult counsel and to seek judicial review by the FISC.

· Requires approval of the FBI Director or Deputy Director for any orders concerning library records, book sales records, firearms sales records, or medical records.

· Orders must describe the tangible things sought with “particularity;” prescribe a reasonable return date; and provide “clear and conspicuous notice” of the non-disclosure requirements and the right to seek judicial review.

· Finally, it adds new reporting requirements, including public reporting of the aggregate use and annual reports to Congress that identify the number of times the provision has been used to obtain library records, book sales records, firearms sales records, health information or tax information.

Sunsets: The reauthorization bill retains sunsets for PATRIOT Sections 206 (Multi-Point Wiretaps) and 215 (FISA Business Records). The bill also extends the sunset date for the “Lone Wolf” provision added to FISA by last year’s Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act until December 31, 2009.

OTHER PATRIOT PROVISIONS

Section 203 (Sharing Criminal Information with Intelligence Agencies): The bill requires notice to the authorizing court when foreign intelligence information gathered via a court-authorized criminal wiretap is disclosed to intelligence agencies.

Section 207 (Duration of FISA surveillance of non-U.S. Persons): The bill extends surveillance periods for non-U.S. persons under FISA (120 days for original orders; up to one year for extensions). Also, extends the duration of FISA pen registers for non-U.S. persons (up to one year).

Section 212 (Emergency Disclosure of Electronic Communications): The bill adds new reporting requirements to ensure the government is using this authority appropriately. The bill also makes technical corrections to harmonize the language permitting the emergency disclosure of contents and records.

Section 505 (National Security Letters): The draft bill incorporates legislation introduced by Sen. Cornyn to address a 2004 federal district court decision holding a National Security Letter (NSL) served on an Internet Service Provider unconstitutional. This legislation permits disclosure to legal counsel; allows court challenges; and permits judicial enforcement of NSLs.

###

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Grassley, Baucus Express Concern Over Potential CNOOC-Unocal Deal

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Committee on Finance, and Sen. Max Baucus, ranking member, today expressed concern to the President over the potential purchase of the California-based Unocal Corporation by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) Ltd.

In a letter, Grassley and Baucus said they would welcome a formal review of the transaction. They noted that such a review should take into account the impact this type of subsidized acquisition may have on the U.S. economy and its potential threat to our national security interests. Also, the senators urged the Administration to closely scrutinize any purchase of Unocal by CNOOC Ltd. to ensure that it is consistent with China’s World Trade Organization obligations.

The text of the Grassley-Baucus letter follows.

July 13, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush

President of the United States

The White House

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to apprise you of our concerns with respect to the offer by a subsidiary of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (“CNOOC”) to purchase California-based Unocal Corporation. On April 4, 2005, California-based Chevron Corporation announced it had reached a merger agreement with Unocal. The Federal Trade Commission accepted that merger, pending public comment, on June 10, 2005. Less than two weeks later, CNOOC’s subsidiary, i.e. CNOOC Ltd., made an unsolicited offer for Unocal.

We understand that National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has committed that the Administration’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) will review the proposed transaction for national security implications if Unocal eventually accepts the offer from CNOOC Ltd. We would welcome such a review.

CNOOC is wholly-owned by the Chinese Government. And CNOOC owns 70 percent of CNOOC Ltd. According to at least one press report, the higher offer by CNOOC Ltd. relies upon significant subsidies in the form of low- or no-interest loans from its government-owned parent corporation. It is reported that without those subsidies, the offer from CNOOC Ltd. would be valued lower than Chevron’s outstanding offer.

The offer by CNOOC Ltd. for Unocal raises an important question; namely, whether it is appropriate for state-owned enterprises to subsidize investment transactions to acquire scarce natural resources that are in high demand. When government subsidies are directed toward the acquisition and development of scarce resources, any ensuing market distortions should be of particular concern. Such subsidies may facilitate the allocation of scarce resources to inefficient or less-efficient producers. Any review by CFIUS should take into account the impact this type of subsidized acquisition may have on the U.S. economy and its potential threat to our national security interests.

Separately, we hope that any purchase of Unocal by CNOOC Ltd. will be closely scrutinized by the Administration to ensure that it is consistent with China’s WTO obligations. During the negotiation of China’s accession to the World Trade Organization, there were extensive discussions with China on the role of state-owned enterprises. The Working Party report on China’s accession states that the representative of China emphasized the evolving nature of China’s economy and that decisions by state-owned and state-invested enterprises had to be based on commercial considerations as provided in the WTO Agreement. The Administration should undertake a review of the structure of any final transaction in the context of the representations and commitments China made when joining the WTO.

Thank you for considering our concerns, both in the context of the offer by CNOOC Ltd. for Unocal as well as with respect to any similar transactions in the future.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley Max Baucus

Chairman Ranking Member

cc. The Hon. John W. Snow

Secretary of the Treasury

U.S. Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20220

The Hon. Rob Portman

United States Trade Representative

Winder Building, 600 17th Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20508

The Hon. Stephen J. Hadley

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

1st Floor, West Wing

Washington, D.C. 20500

-30-

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Grassley Continues Work to Advance Adoption, Focusing on Special Needs Children

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Committee on Finance, today said he will act on the findings of a new report to make sure federal programs work well to promote the adoption of special needs children.

“Federal adoption assistance and adoption incentive programs need to work as well as they possibly can,” Grassley said. “They’re a means to an important end, and that’s permanent homes for children. Today’s findings show that these programs are helping, but we have to do more. I’ll work to help make these programs 100 percent effective. It’s a no-brainer to protect children’s welfare.”

Grassley was a lead requester of a report from the Government Accountability Office, which he released today at an event with adopted youth, including an Iowan, Sean Maudlin of Indianola.

Maudlin was adopted at age 12 after stints in foster care and is now an honor student who will attend college in the fall.

The report said the federal incentives to promote foster-care adoptions that Congress adopted in 2003, 2001 and 1997 have contributed to an increased number of adoptions. However, challenges remain, including:

• the need to improve sharing of reliable data on how best to recruit adoptive families;

• better integration of and coordination among the courts and state agencies to help address court delays;

• and better procedures for placing children across state lines.

Grassley said he looks forward to working with the Department of Health and Human Services to improve data collection and dissemination and to working on legislation to better coordinate the courts and state agencies and streamline interstate placement.

As chairman of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over taxes, Grassley said he also remains committed to advancing tax policies that help promote adoptions. In the 2001 tax relief law, Grassley expanded the adoption tax credit to help prospective parents with adoption expenses. He also doubled the income-tax exclusion for employer-provided adoption benefits. “We need to make these successful initiatives a permanent part of the tax code,” Grassley said.

Grassley said it’s also time to build on the progress made since Congress created new incentives for states to promote foster-care adoptions with the Adoption Promotion Act of 2003, along with the new bonuses that were created for states with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

“The blessings of adoption have enriched the lives of families across America,” Grassley said. “There’s no doubt that public policy should continue to expand opportunities for every child to be welcomed home by a loving family every day of the week from infancy to adulthood. Sean Maudlin of Indianola is a walking, breathing adoption success story, and there are thousands of kids like him all over the country.”

Grassley has a long track record of working to improve adoption policy. In 1997, he steered through Congress legislation aimed at improving the permanent placement of children assigned to the public foster care system. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 established new bonuses for states which improve the successful reunification of families and increase the adoption and placement of foster children into safe, permanent, loving homes. From 1998 to 2002, the states placed more than 230,000 foster children in adoptive homes – almost the same number of kids adopted in the previous 10 years.

Grassley’s work on the tax front is significant. To help promote adoptions and give prospective parents help with the expenses incurred during the adoption process, under his leadership in 2001, Congress doubled the adoption tax credit from $5,000 to $10,000. The expanded adoption tax credit includes domestic foster care, private and overseas adoptions. The credit begins to phase out for families with adjusted gross income over $150,000. The 2001 tax law also doubled the income tax exclusion to $10,000 allowed for employer-provided adoption benefits.

Today’s GAO report, GAO-05-292, “Child Welfare/Better Data and Evaluations Could Improve Processes and Programs for Adopting Children with Special Needs,” will be available at www.gao.gov.

Grassley made his remarks during an afternoon congressional briefing by Voice for Adoption. In 1994, this national advocacy organization presented Grassley its first-ever legislator of the year award for his work to win passage of the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act. Grassley is a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption.

Remarks of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance

Voice for Adoption Congressional Briefing

Government Accountability Office Report on Adoption of Children with Special Needs

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Thank you, Sean. I appreciate the introduction. It’s wonderful that you were able to travel from Iowa to be with us here today. Congratulations on your plans to go to Simpson College this fall. It’s a very good school, and you are sure to do well there. Thanks to all of you for making the trip to Washington to share your stories, and to Voice for Adoption and Freddie Mac for making it possible.

Senator Clinton and I are here to release a new government study that we asked for last year to learn more about the challenges facing special-needs adoptions. We want to make sure the federal adoption assistance and adoption incentives programs work as well as they possibly can to meet the goal we all share, and that goal is permanent homes for children.

The Government Accountability Office did a thorough job with its study. The federal incentives to promote foster-care adoptions that Congress adopted in 2003, 2001 and 1997 have contributed to an increased number of adoptions. But there’s still more that states and the federal government can do to place more children in permanent homes. This new report gives us a framework for the next steps. We need to help improve the sharing of reliable data on how best to recruit adoptive families. We need to better integrate the courts and state agencies. And, we need to improve the procedures for placing children across state lines. I look forward to working with the Department of Health and Human Services to improve data collection and dissemination. I look forward to working on legislation to better coordinate the courts and state agencies and streamline interstate placement.

As chairman of the Finance Committee here in the Senate, I also remain committed to tax policies that help promote adoptions. In the 2001 tax bill we expanded the adoption tax credit to help prospective parents with adoption expenses. We also doubled the income-tax exclusion for employer-provided adoption benefits. In more recent legislation, we increased the tax credit for special-needs adoption to $10,000. We need to make these successful initiatives a permanent part of the tax code.

The blessings of adoption have enriched the lives of families across America.

There’s no doubt that public policy should continue to expand opportunities for every child in America to be welcomed home by a loving family every day of the week from infancy to adulthood. Nobody makes that point better than Sean, Chris, Savonte and Tyisha, who are here with us today. Thank you for coming, and good luck to all of you.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Senator Feinstein Opposes Changing DC School Voucher Program

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today urged the Senate Appropriations Committee to reject any changes to the District of Columbia’s pilot program that provides $7,500 toward tuition for qualified public school students to attend private school.

Following is the text of the letter Senator Feinstein sent to Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Ranking Member Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and all other members of the Appropriations Committee:

I am writing to join Mayor Anthony Williams in urging the Appropriations Committee to reject a broad expansion of the scholarship program for students in the neediest public schools in Washington, DC to attend private schools of their choice.

I believe I was a crucial and critical vote for this program and would very strongly oppose the proposals to allow students to attend private high schools three miles outside the District and to raise the high school scholarship level to $11,500 from $7,500.

The pilot program, which I supported based on a request from Mayor Williams, is just in its second year out of five, and like the Mayor, I don’t believe it should be dramatically changed through the course of the program. Furthermore, it is imperative that we have the results of a comprehensive evaluation before considering any program changes.

As Mayor Williams noted in a press statement: “Everyone involved with the school choice program has agreed that we should let the program run through its trial period before we attempt any major restructuring - such as sending District students to private schools in Maryland and Virginia. I’m afraid that tinkering with it now could erode public support for choice and might lead to unintended consequences.

When we launched the school choice program in 2003 we always knew that modifications might be necessary but agreed to wait to see how things unfolded over a five-year period before making piecemeal changes. At the end of that period, we will have enough information to judge the program’s strengths and weaknesses. My hope is that our state-of-the-art school choice program will continue to provide an alternative for some students but will complement our existing strong public school and charter school options - with the goal of educating all students inside our boundaries.”

My original purpose for supporting the pilot program was so we could learn whether students currently attending failing public schools would improve academically in a private school environment. To change the program mid-way would make such an evaluation very difficult.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

###

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

July 13, 2005

HATCH: H.R. 810 PROMOTES VITAL, ETHICAL RESEARCH

Washington — Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) today joined members of Congress, Michael J. Fox and other patient advocates to urge passage of H.R. 810, legislation designed to expand the current federal funding policy for stem cell research.

A full copy of Hatch’s remarks follow:

I am proud to be here today with all these incredible people who are in support of stem cell research.

Leading scientists have told us time and time again that stem cell research, including and especially embryonic stem cell research, holds great promise in uncovering the mysteries of human health and disease and in potentially developing diagnostic tests and therapeutic agents for a multitude of conditions including cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and many, many others.

I want to commend Michael J. Fox and the thousands of patient advocates who have contacted their Congressmen, both here in Washington and across the country to give us their views on stem cell research.

Just a few weeks ago, I was visited in my Washington office by the Parker family from Utah with two adorable young girls, Megan and Kendra, both of whom suffer from juvenile diabetes. When you see what these and many other diabetes patients must endure each day, you just want to do all you can to to help them. You also want to help children like Megan and Kendra as soon as possible. I thank the Parker family for taking the time to help educate me.

I also want to commend my colleagues, Senators Specter and Harkin. They have held a comprehensive series of now sixteen hearings on stem cell research over the past seven years. It is their original legislation that forms the basis of Castle-DeGette bill, H.R. 810, which passed the House last months. I am pleased that Representatives Castle and DeGette are here with us today. This bill will greatly expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote for H.R. 810. I urge President Bush to sign H.R.810 into law when it is presented to him.

I am supportive of all forms of stem cell research that can be conducted in an ethical manner. This includes adult stem cell research. This includes embryonic stem cell research conducted through the technology of somatic cell nuclear transfer. This includes cord blood stem cell research.

I am pleased that the Senate is poised to pass cord blood stem cell research legislation that I have been working on for over three years. I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 1317, a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will enhance cord blood stem cell and bone marrow research and treatment.

Recently, there has been interest by many, including the President’s Council on Bioethics and some members of Congress, in still other forms of stem cells research. Just yesterday, Senators Specter and Harkin held a hearing of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee that examined progress on some of these new techniques.

I believe that all forms of stem cell research that may be undertaken in an ethical fashion should be fully explored. In this regard, I was pleased to learn, despite the fact that much of the research in these new techniques is in the preliminary stages, the bill reported by the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee yesterday contained language that instructs NIH to fund these new, potential techniques of deriving stem cells.

I understand that Senators Frist and Enzi and others are interested in developing legislation to promote potentially new techniques of deriving stem cells. I commend them. I am open to all suggestions, and I urge my colleagues and other interested parties to keep an open mind as well if complementary techniques and legislation are developed.

At the same time, I am mindful that regardless of the good intentions of the proponents of this new research, some may suggest that these potential alternative sources of stem cells – most of which, I understand, are largely unproven at this time – somehow justify diminished support for tested and demonstrated means of deriving stem cells, such as from spare embryos slated for destruction as permitted by H.R. 810.

In my judgment, it would be a mistake to prematurely pull the plug on the proven techniques embraced by H.R. 810 in the hope that some new, and apparently speculative, alternative sources of stem cells will be successful one day. Complementary research, yes. Substitute research, no.

H.R. 810 is a good bill. It promotes vital, ethical research. Patients are waiting all across America. It could take ten or twenty years or longer for this research to bear fruit. When you look into the eyes of the sick, you know that we must redouble our efforts today, without further delay.

Let’s adopt H.R. 810 as soon as we can.

# # #

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.

Leahy Warns Against Limiting Court Appeals Of Death Penalty Cases

…Evidence Shows More Than 100 Innocent People Released From Death Row

WASHINGTON (Wednesday, July 13) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday began consideration of a bill that would speed up executions by limiting the ability of those sentenced to death to appeal to federal court. A longtime proponent of death penalty reform, Senator Patrick Leahy, the Ranking Democratic Member of the panel, warned that the bill could drastically increase the risk of wrongful executions and incarcerations of innocent people.

“I will not vote to increase the risk that more innocent people will be executed,” Leahy said. More than 100 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, said Leahy, who during the hearing, raised as an example of the need for a fair appeals process a murder case in St. Louis that was reopened this week, a decade after a man was executed for the crime.

Leahy was the chief author of the Innocence Protection Act of 2004, a package of criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing wrongful executions. The IPA was included in the more expansive, Justice For All Act of 2004, a sweeping law that would combat crime and reduce wrongful convictions through greater access to DNA technology. Congress passed the landmark legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support last year and President Bush signed it into law. Below is Leahy’s statement from the committee’s hearing followed by background information on the St. Louis case that has been reopened.

Contact: Tracy Schmaler, 202-224-2154

David Carle, 202-224-3693

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy,

Ranking Member, Committee On The Judiciary

Hearing On Habeas Corpus Proceedings and Issues of Actual Innocence

July 13, 2005

It has been less than a decade since Congress overhauled federal habeas corpus law as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, or AEDPA. Enacted as a bipartisan compromise, this law severely narrowed the scope of habeas jurisdiction by, for example, imposing strict new time limits and procedural bar rules.

I thought then, and continue to think, that AEDPA went too far. By drastically curtailing the ability of federal courts to adjudicate meritorious constitutional claims, it increased the risk that people who were wrongfully convicted would be left to rot in jail, and that the nightmare scenario -- the execution of an innocent American – would come to pass.

Of course, others thought AEDPA did not go far enough. That is the nature of compromise. During the floor debate on AEDPA, the Senator from Arizona offered an amendment to eliminate federal habeas except in circumstances where the state’s justice system had proved incapable of enforcing federal constitutional rights. That extreme position was roundly rejected in the Senate, with every Democratic Senator and more than a dozen Republican Senators -- including several Republican members of this Committee -- voting against it.

The habeas bill that is now before the Committee, the so-called “Streamlined Procedures Act,” would go much farther than AEDPA did, and it would unravel that bipartisan compromise. I will have more to say about the specifics of the bill when the Committee marks it up, but for now it will suffice to say that I can see little practical difference between this bill and the 1996 amendment that was defeated.

What has changed that might justify unraveling AEDPA now? I imagine that we will hear today anecdotal evidence about cases in which habeas proceedings have dragged on long after conviction. I would urge consideration first and caution against any rash judgments. We need to ask some questions before we rush to legislate based on such stories.

First and foremost, what caused the delays? Was federal habeas being abused? Or was it that most of the time between conviction and the end of habeas proceedings was taken up by either state habeas proceedings, or by delays attributable to the state itself? My understanding is that it is quite common in some states for a case to spend many years in state post-conviction proceedings. If that is right, there may well be something to be said for taking a close look at the rules that require state prisoners to exhaust state post-conviction remedies before they can bring a federal habeas petition. But there is nothing to be said for scape-goating the federal courts for a problem that is internal to certain state justice systems.

Second, if there are in fact instances of serious delay caused by real abuse of federal habeas, we need to ask if there is a systemic problem, or just a few isolated instances. Habeas corpus has protected the constitutional rights and freedoms of all Americans throughout our history. That is a vital protection that all Americans rely on. Let’s not rush to dismantle it based on a few anecdotes about delay.

We must also bear in mind that a great deal of time has been spent litigating over the precise meaning of AEDPA’s complex array of time limits and procedural bars. Those questions, which reflect the poor drafting of the law itself and not any abuse of habeas, are now largely resolved. Indeed, it is only in the last couple of years that the appellate courts have clarified the rules under AEDPA sufficiently to start generating information about how the law is actually working in practice.

What has really changed since AEDPA’s enactment? Since 1996, we as a Committee have joined with the rest of the Congress and the Nation as a whole in taking a closer look at the realities of state criminal justice systems. And that closer look led us to a further consensus. Last October, President Bush signed into law the Innocence Protection Act of 2004 -- a package of criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing the likelihood that an innocent person would be executed. Congress passed this landmark legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support, including the strong support of Chairman Specter, former Chairman Hatch, and Senator DeWine.

It is important to remember why we joined together on the IPA, and why we must continue to work together to ensure that its funding promises do not go unfulfilled. The IPA reflects what we learned about the administration of the death penalty over years of hearings in this Committee. We learned that there is an unconscionably high rate of error in capital cases -- error so serious that it not only denies defendants their constitutional rights, but also undermines the reliability of the verdict. We learned of sleeping lawyers, drunk lawyers, suspended lawyers, and lawyers too overworked, underpaid, inexperienced, or indifferent to meet with their clients or conduct even the most cursory investigation. Most troubling, we learned of the more than 100 people who have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.

The modern miracle of DNA testing has revealed what, because of its limited scope, can only be the tip of the iceberg, but that tip is tragically vast. Since the enactment of AEDPA in 1996, post-conviction DNA testing has cleared more than 150 wrongfully convicted individuals, including a dozen who had been sentenced to death.

A few of these individuals are here today, and I would like to welcome them:

? Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man, just out of the Marines, when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous crime that he did not commit. DNA evidence ultimately freed him and identified the real killer. I am proud to have come to know him and his wife, Brenda, through our work together on the Innocence Protection Act, which includes a program named in his honor.

? Dennis Fritz spent 12 years serving a life sentence until he was finally able to prove his innocence through DNA testing. He testified before this Committee five years ago, in support of the Innocence Protection Act, and I welcome him back.

? Darryl Hunt of North Carolina was convicted in 1984 for a murder he did not commit. He was freed in 2003, after DNA evidence ruled him out as the killer and identified the true perpetrator of the crime. The true perpetrator then confessed.

? Brandon Moon was convicted of rape in 1987, while a student at the University of Texas at El Paso. DNA testing cleared him of the crime just a few months ago, and he was released with the apology of the District Attorney.

Three other exonerees are also in the audience – Thomas Goldstein, Gloria Killian, and Joseph Eastridge. Each was granted federal habeas relief after presenting substantial evidence of actual innocence. If S.1088 were the law, they would still be wrongfully imprisoned, or worse. So there will be no misunderstanding of what is at stake here, let me repeat that: If S.1088 were the law, exonerees such as these would still be wrongfully imprisoned, or worse.

That is what we have learned since AEDPA, and that lesson has involved saving innocent lives. And that is what apparently convinced President Reagan’s first appointee to the Supreme Court -- and one of the strongest advocates of states’ rights in the history of the Court -- that left without federal scrutiny, state criminal justice systems may pose unacceptable risks. In July 2001, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor acknowledged in a widely reported speech that “serious questions are being raised” about the administration of the death penalty. Her conclusion was chilling in its commonsense candor: “the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed.” Tragically, we now know how prophetic those words appear to be.

Just this week, prosecutors in St. Louis, Missouri, reopened a murder investigation – 10 years after a man was executed for the crime. Larry Griffin was put to death on June 21, 1995, for a drive-by killing that he steadfastly maintained he did not commit. Now, new evidence has emerged to support his claim, and the victim’s family is expressing concern that the wrong man was convicted and executed.

I sympathize deeply with victims and their families who seek closure. I hope they will take some comfort from the statistics showing that notwithstanding some scare-mongering rhetoric to the contrary, under AEDPA, habeas relief has effectively been reserved for a very small minority of truly problematic cases. But I will not vote to increase the risk that more innocent people will be executed.

The bill before us would greatly increase that risk, as well as the risk of lesser, but nonetheless life-shattering, injustices. And it would do so without any real evidence that the new regime we enacted less than a decade ago to limit federal habeas is not doing the job. AEDPA is not broken – at least, not in the way this bill would presuppose – and there is no need to “fix” federal habeas corpus by destroying it.

# # # # #

(Background On St. Louis Case –AP News Article on Murder Case Reopened A Decade After Man Executed)

Executed man's case reopened
Ten years after execution, 25 years since killing
ST. LOUIS, Missouri (AP) -- Citing grave concerns that Missouri executed an innocent man, a coalition that includes a congressman, high-profile lawyers and even the victim's family pointed to evidence Tuesday that they said could clear Larry Griffin's name.

Prosecutors have decided to reopen the case of Griffin, who was convicted in 1981 in the murder of Quintin Moss, a 19-year-old drug dealer who was shot to death. Griffin maintained his innocence to the end, but was put to death in 1995.

Now, many people, including some members of Moss' family, believe him.

"What I have heard recently is very troubling and leads me to believe an innocent man was executed for this murder, while the real killers have not been brought to justice," said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Missouri, who spoke at a news conference Tuesday with other supporters of Griffin.

The news conference followed a report compiled by a University of Michigan Law School professor who discovered new information on the case in the last year. The report suggests that:

The first police officer at the scene of the 1980 shooting, Michael Ruggeri, now says that the story told by the supposed eyewitness was false, even though Ruggeri's own testimony at trial supported what the witness said.
A second victim of the shooting, Wallace Conners, has said he was never contacted by the defense or the prosecution. Conners, now 52, who was wounded in the attack, said the supposed eyewitness was not present at the shooting.
"I tell all you all, Larry Griffin did not commit this crime," Conners told reporters. "Larry Griffin definitely wasn't in the car."

Original prosecutor: Testimony about revenge
The report, by Michigan professor Sam Gross, called into question the credibility of the only person who testified at the trial that he saw the murder. Robert Fitzgerald later testified at an organized crime murder trial and in other prosecutions, and "judging from news coverage, he developed a reputation as a snitch who couldn't produce convictions," Gross' report said. Fitzgerald died last year.

There was no DNA evidence in the case, prosecutor Jennifer Joyce said.

But Gordon Ankney, the original prosecutor who is now in private practice, believes Griffin was the killer.

"I believe the jury did the right thing, and nothing's happened that's led me to believe otherwise," Ankney said.

Ankney said the new information discounts several facts from the case. He said an off-duty officer saw Griffin get in the car used in the drive-by shooting the day of the murder. He said the murder weapon was found in the car and that Conners told police twice he wouldn't be able to identify who shot him.

He also pointed out there was testimony that Griffin killed Moss in revenge for the slaying of one of Griffin's brothers, Dennis. Moss had been questioned by police in that shooting, but not charged.

Moss' older brother, Walter Moss, is among those supporting a reinvestigation of the case.

"I myself am not here to accuse, blame or show anger. It's been 25 years since my brother was murdered and 10 years since Larry Griffin was put to death for that murder," Walter Moss said.

John Fougere, a spokesman for the state Department of Corrections, said he was unaware of any previous situation where a Missouri case was reopened after an execution.

# # # # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Allison Dobson/ Maureen Knightly

Statement of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Press Conference on Stem Cell Research

July 13, 2005

“My friends, this is an exciting time for millions of Americans who suffer from juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s, and other diseases. They have new hope for treatment – and perhaps a cure – thanks to embryonic stem cell research.

“Two months ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would vastly expand the number of stem cell lines eligible for federally funded research. This was a strong, bipartisan vote – 238 to 194.

“Now it’s up to us in the Senate to pass the exact same bill – without any amendments.

“We don’t want it getting lost in a conference committee. We need to pass HR 810 by a strong, bipartisan majority, and send it straight to the President’s desk.

“Regrettably, opponents of this bill are trying to muddy the waters. They want the Senate to vote on 4, 5, or 6 bills, some of which have nothing to do with stem cell research.

“Their strategy is simple: They’re trying to convince Senators that instead of supporting HR 810, they can vote for a different bill that promotes alternative methods of deriving stem cells. They figure that if they can pull enough Senators off of HR 810, that will keep us from getting the 60 we need to stop a filibuster.

“Let’s be clear: these alternative approaches are currently nothing but theories. They are hypothetical, speculative, and totally unproven.

“Should we pursue these alternative methods? Absolutely. But we cannot delay the pursuit of medical research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines while these more speculative methods are tested.

“As we stand here today, people we love are dying from Parkinson’s and ALS. Children are suffering from juvenile diabetes. People are losing the ability to walk due to spinal cord injuries. They don’t have 10 years to wait and see if these alternative methods pan out. They need help now.

“And that’s what HR 810 is all about.

“So, my friends, I urge you – and you, and you, and you – to call everyone you know across the country and ask them to tell their Senators to vote for HR 810 without any amendments.”

# # #

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

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

REID CALLS BUSH’S RECORD DEFICITS A THREAT TO ECONOMIC AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement:

Washington, DC - “This year’s deficit is among the worst in our nation’s history and huge deficits are still projected for years to come. Such fiscal irresponsibility ultimately threatens our economy and security by increasing America’s dependence on China and other foreign countries. Instead of claiming credit for an F+ in fiscal management, the Administration should join Democratic efforts to restore fiscal discipline.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Senators Feinstein and Cornyn Offer Amendment to Ensure that Homeland Security Funding is Based on Risk

Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-TX) today urged the Senate to approve an amendment to the FY 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bill that would ensure that homeland security grants are allocated based on where the threat of terrorist attack is greatest. The following is the prepared text of Senator Feinstein’s floor speech:

“Mr. President, I rise today offer in support an amendment, which in essence is identical to the Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005, Senate Bill Number 1013.

I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn, as well as Senators Boxer, Hutchison, Kerry, Martinez, Schumer, Clinton, Corzine, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Nelson and Mikulski in this effort.

It is time for our nation to adopt risk-based analysis to guide critical resource allocation our homeland security efforts. The legislation will do exactly that. My amendment is, at bottom, extremely simple in approach – its key language, which appears at its very beginning, is clear, and I quote in full:

“The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that homeland security grants are allocated based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent practicable.”

This legislation will ensure that these priorities are set, and set according to analysis of risk and threat. It will accomplish this goal through five basic mechanisms:

· First: The law requires the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security to allocate grants based on Risk: The legislation will mandate that funding decisions be designed according to an assessment of risk. This is a key element of the law, which makes this clear in its very first section, entitled risk-based funding, which reads, and I repeat this key phrase:

“The Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall ensure that covered grants are allocated based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent possible.”

The bill defines “covered grants” as including the four major first-responder grant programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security:

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.

In addition to these four core grant programs, the legislation also covers grants “provided by the Department for improving homeland security,” including grants for seaport and airport security.”

The bottom line: If federal funds are going to be distributed to improve first responders ability to “prevent, prepare for, respond to, or mitigate threatened or actual terrorists attacks,” those funds should be distributed in accordance with a risk-based analysis. Al Qa’ida and its allies to not attack based on a formula – this bill rejects the formula approach in favor of a framework that is flexible, and risk-focused.

· Second: The legislation requires that covered grants be designed to meet “essential capabilities.” Essential capabilities, a concept defined in this law, is what we get for the money spent – the ability to meet the risk, by:

o Reducing vulnerability to attack; and

o Diminishing the consequences by effective response.

· Third: The bill requires States to quickly pass on federal funds to where they are needed: States should not hold federal funds back from where they are most needed. The bill will ensure that states quickly and effectively move the funds through.

· Fourth: The bill address the “small state minimum” issue: 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. For instance, under the current appropriations bill, of the $1.918 billion appropriated, $548 million is taken right off the top, allocated to states, and thus not available to meet risk. The legislation will significantly reduce this large set-aside, with the minimum being reduced to .25% per state.

I must admit that I am uncomfortable even with the .25 minimum, and would prefer to eliminate any such impediment to risk-based funding. But I understand the realities of the Senate, and decided to track what the President requested in his budget.

In this post-Cold War world of asymmetric threat there are two fundamental laws which apply to efforts to make our nation more secure against a terrorist attack.

The first law is that understanding and predicting what terrorists will do requires risk analysis. It is an uncomfortable fact that, even with the best intelligence, we will never know exactly how, when and where terrorists will strike -- the best we can do is try to assess risks and threats, and make predictions.

The second law is that our defense resources are not infinite. The sum total of money, time and personnel that can be devoted to homeland security is limited.

Together these two laws define the task for our nation. We must accurately assess the risks of an array of possible terrorist attacks, measure the vulnerability of all of these possible targets, and then divide up our resources based on that assessment.

We are failing in this effort.

The 9/11 Commission agreed, finding that “nothing has been harder for officials – executive or legislative – than to set priorities, making hard choices in allocating limited resources.” The Commission concluded “Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.”

The New York Times agreed. In an editorial titled “Real Security, or Politics as Usual?” the Times wrote: Defending places where the terrorist threat is greatest is not parochialism; it is defending America.” [Offer into record]

Last week’s tragic events in London underscore the point. The effectiveness of the British response to these terrible attacks illustrates that they put their resources where the risk was – in London.

Reacting to these events, the New York Times wrote again, just last Friday: “Congress should take fast action on these fronts [and adopt] risk-based financing formula -- Just as London was an obvious place for an attack, parts of the United States are particularly likely targets. The 9/11 commission recommended that antiterrorism funds be allocated solely based on risk, but some members of Congress have been trying to set aside much of the money for low-risk areas. That is irresponsible. Congress should base as much of this financing as possible - ideally, 100 percent - on risk.

Despite these recommendations, we find again and again that scarce resources are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security. For instance, we have retained a “small state minimum” designed to ensure that every state gets a substantial portion of scarce resources, regardless of the measure of risk or vulnerability. As a result, a state such as Wyoming gets a 27.80 cents per capita in funding, while New York and California get $15.54 and $8.05 respectively.

It is not just the New York Times that agrees. The Heritage Foundation recently issued a report which began by stating: “the Feinstein/Cornyn proposal offers solid ideas on how to ensure that federal dollars are actually used to make Americans safer.”

The problem is not just in Congress. For example, in a recent Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report it was found that in the critical area of port security, grants are “not well coordinated with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.” The result? “funding of projects with low [risk and vulnerability] scores.”

A recently issued joint report from the Center for Security Studies and the Heritage foundation found that there is “no funding formula that is based on risk analysis and divorces from politics… [w]ith only limited resources available to achieve the almost limitless goal of protecting the entire United States… it is critical that we set priorities.”

This amendment (and the bill upon which it is based) builds on efforts last year by Representatives Cox and Turner, the Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the other bodies Homeland Security Committee. That effort passed the House of Representatives as part of the Intelligence Reform Bill, but was dropped at conference.

I understand and appreciate the efforts made by Senators Collins and Lieberman to craft the bill now before us. I applaud their leadership in this area, and think they have tried mightily to square the circle: the obvious need to allocate based on risk, with the realities of our legislative process. But I honestly do not believe they were able to accomplish the impossible.

The Collins/Lieberman bill, while it purports to be “risk-based” is actually not. It incorporates complex formulae, in which we try to replace entrusting risk analysis to the Department of Homeland Security with a pre-cooked list of factors which approximate what we believe will be the risk. I don’t think that works, for the following reasons:

· First: The key to responding to Al Qa’ida and similar organizations if flexibility. While today it may seem obvious that mass transit or ports are “obvious” targets, tomorrow they may not be. Hopefully, our Intelligence Community will increasingly be effective in spying on our terrorist adversaries, and our analysts better at understanding and predicting their behavior. What they find could change, and change yet again. Building a formula mechanism based on our “best guess” about what Al Qa’ida will do is simply not good policy.

· Second: We created the Department of Homeland Security primarily to do exactly what this legislation calls for. The very first mission statement for the department is described as: [The Department will] Identify and understand threats, assess vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts and disseminate timely information to our homeland security partners and the American public.

That is exactly what President Bush said in announcing the creating of the Department, when he stated: “this new department will bring together the best intelligence information about our vulnerabilities to terrorist attack so that we can act quickly to protect America.

Senator Lieberman was a leader in this effort, and we all worked with him to create the Department of Homeland Security. In my view, the biggest selling point for this new Department was, as the President said, that for the first time we would have a place in the Government that would map threats against vulnerability, and thus allocate our defenses in an effective, efficient way. The Department of Homeland Security can be seen as the Department of Risk Analysis. So it is ironic that having provided the authority and responsibility to do this, the Congress then handcuffs the Secretary by restricting those resources based on geography, politics and parochial interests. Let’s let the Secretary do the job we gave him.

· Third: In addition to creating the Department of Homeland Security, the Congress, again with the leadership of Senators Collins and Lieberman, reorganized the Intelligence Community. The purpose of this task was to ensure that the most important ingredient in risk analysis – good intelligence – was good enough to keep America safe.

So there is an irony that having gone to such trouble to improve the Intelligence Community, we are prepared to pass legislation which, for a large percentage of funds, will make intelligence irrelevant – all you will need is a map, a census, and a list of important places in each state. That makes no sense to me.

I mentioned the difference in funding levels, and amounts subject to risk. Last week the Congressional Research Service issued an analysis of the underlying Appropriations bill; Senator Collins bill, and my amendment. The results are startling:

If we assume that the base amount of Homeland Security Grant funding contained in the Appropriations bill becomes law, that means that the total amount available for these programs will be 1.918 billion dollars.

The underlying bill would allocate a considerable amount under the existing “small state minimum” framework, $579.2 million, leaving $1.3 billion to be allocated through a risk assessment process.

If the Collins-Lieberman amendment is adopted, $762 million will be allocated according to the formula, leaving even less to be allocated based on risk, only $1.155 billion. Only $251.2 million will be allocated based on the .25 small state minimum, leaving $1.66 billion for risk-based allocation.

Put another way: Under the current bill only 70% of available funds are allocated based on risk. If the Collins/Lieberman approach is adopted, that drops to 60%. Under the approach embodied in my amendment, 87% of funds go to risk.

The Bottom Line?: Our nation is in danger. We have a limited amount of resources available to defend ourselves. Those resources must be targeted where they can do the most good – where the risk is. That is the simple question which faces us today. How can we best protect America?

I believe the best way to protect America is to let the Secretary of Homeland Security do the job we so recently created: match resources to risk, using the best available intelligence analysis. That is the only way to safety. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.”

For Immediate Release Contact: Rob Sawicki (Lieberman)
July 11, 2005 202-224-0975

MEDIA ADVISORY

Lieberman, Bingaman to Assume Chairmanship

of Senate Hispanic Task Force

WASHINGTON – Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), new co-chairs for the Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force, will hold a press conference TODAY, Tuesday, July 12 at 11 a.m. to discuss the Democratic caucus’ agenda for the remainder of the 109th Congress on health care, education and other issues important to Hispanic communities across the country. Senator Ken Salazar, new member of the Senate Hispanic Task Force, and Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus will also participate.

WHO: U.S. Sens. Joe Lieberman, Jeff Bingaman, and Ken Salazar, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano

WHAT: New Senate Hispanic Task Force co-chair Joe Lieberman joins current co-chair Jeff Bingaman kickoff the Senate Democratic Caucus’s Hispanic outreach agenda for the 109th Congress.

WHEN: TODAY, Tuesday, July 12, 2005, 11:00 a.m.

WHERE: Senate Radio and TV Gallery

###

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

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 joan_kirchner@isakson.senate.gov

sheridan_watson@isakson.senate.gov

Senate Passes Isakson Amendment Calling on

U.S. and Mexico to Improve Border Security

Isakson National Security Amendment Added to Homeland Security Funding Bill

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate unanimously passed an amendment by Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) acknowledging that terrorists and other illegal immigrants are taking advantage of inadequate security along the U.S.-Mexico border and calling on both nations to address the urgent need for increased protection and enforcement on the border.

The Senate unanimously adopted Isakson’s “Sense of the Senate” amendment to the Homeland Security funding bill Monday night in which he expressed the following:

1) This Nation cannot thoroughly address the security of the United States without recognizing the reality of terrorists taking advantage of inadequacies in border security along the border between United States and Mexico;

2) Every effort should be made to increase the technology and efficiency in preventing these individuals from entering the United States across the Mexican border;

3) The Mexican government has an obligation to secure its side of the border between the United States and Mexico; and

4) The Mexican government must commit to addressing inadequacies in its own domestic and border security policies, which are contributing to the present dilemma in border security.

“My amendment calls on the government of Mexico to assist in helping to secure the border between the United States and Mexico to ensure that those who immigrate into this country are coming in consistent with the laws of the United States of America,” Isakson said on the Senate floor. “We have a great trading partner to the south. We have a great neighbor to the south. We have a country that shares many common interests. We have a country that we enjoy being our neighbor. We also would like for them to be our partner in seeing to it that the border we share is secure so that those who are crossing are crossing legally and consistent with the laws of that nation.”

Two weeks ago, Isakson co-sponsored a bill to give state and local law enforcement officers the authority to help the Department of Homeland Security enforce the nation’s immigration laws, including improving the government’s ability to deport illegal aliens who have been ordered to leave the country.

In April, Isakson offered an amendment, referred to as the REAL ID Act, to the Senate’s Iraq supplemental spending bill that incorporated several immigration reform measures critical to national security. The REAL ID measures including national standards for driver’s licenses and identification cards, stricter asylum requirements and the completion of a security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego were included in the final version of the bill that became law.

###

For Immediate Release Contact: Allison Dobson/ Maureen Knightly

Statement by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) on Stem Cell Research

Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education

July 12, 2005

“Today’s hearing focuses on an alternative method of deriving stem cells that has suddenly become very popular at the White House and among other people who want to maintain current restrictions on stem cell research.

“Under this method, scientists take a 2-day-old embryo that has 8 cells, extract one (called a blastomere), and then stimulate that blastomere to begin dividing. After a few days, scientists can use it to derive stem cells. The supposed advantage of this method is that the original embryo isn’t destroyed.

“I’m intrigued by this method. It seems worth pursuing. But we need to be clear about one thing as we listen to today’s testimony. There’s only one reason why this method has suddenly become so popular at the White House: They want to use it to defeat HR 810, the stem cell bill that passed the House by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority, and is identical to the bill that Senator Specter and I introduced in the Senate.

“Here’s the White House strategy: They’re trying to convince Senators that instead of supporting HR 810, we should pin all our hopes on this blastomere method, or other so-called ‘ethical alternatives.’ They figure that if they can pull enough Senators off of HR 810, that will keep us from getting the 60 we need to stop a filibuster.

“Now, I could respect that position if blastomere extraction showed as much promise as our current method for deriving stem cells. But so far, it doesn’t. The method we’re discussing today hasn’t been published in a single scientific journal. It hasn’t even cleared the peer review process. What’s more, it’s only been tried in mice. We’re a long way from proving it works with human embryos.

“I could also respect the White House’s position if blastomere extraction didn’t raise any ethical issues. But again, that’s not the case. We have no idea what the long-term effects are of removing a cell from a 2-day-old human embryo. Here’s what Leon Kass, the chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics, said about this method: “Blastomere extraction from living embryos, we found unacceptable ethically in humans because we do not believe that one should impose risks on living embryos destined to become children for the sake of getting stem cells for research.”

“There’s another problem with this method. It would violate the Dickey amendment, which is included every year in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. The Dickey amendment states that no federal funds may be used for research in which human embryos are subjected to risk of injury. Unless Congress removes this amendment, which is extremely unlikely, this method of deriving human stem cell lines will be off-limits to federal scientists.

“Now let’s look at another method that has suddenly gained a lot of support among opponents of stem cell research. This one is called altered nuclear transfer. In this method, scientists would create a new kind of cloned human embryo that’s never been seen before. They’d remove a critical gene, so the embryo – or whatever you call this new thing – could never turn into a fetus, but scientists could use it to derive stem cells.

“So let me get this straight: The conservatives accuse supporters of HR 810 of being immoral because we want to use embryos that would otherwise be discarded to help people with juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, and spinal cord injuries. But they think it’s perfectly OK to create a new kind of Frankenstein human embryo that’s genetically engineered to die. The hypocrisy here is indefensible.

“Are alternative methods for deriving stem cells worth examining? Absolutely. I support any ethical means to improve the lives of human beings who are suffering. In fact, Senator Specter and I have included language in our appropriations bill urging NIH to support research on derivation methods that don’t involve the destruction of a human embryo.

“But meanwhile, people we love are dying from Parkinson’s and ALS. Children are suffering from juvenile diabetes. People are losing the ability to walk due to spinal cord injuries. They don’t have 10 years to wait and see if these alternative methods pan out. They need help now.

“So I look forward to hearing more about blastomere extraction and the other alternative methods. But they are no substitute for passing HR 810 in the Senate.”

# # #

Media Advisory
Contact: Howard Gantman

Tuesday, July 11, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

The Senate is now scheduled to consider the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment to the Homeland Appropriations Bill from 10 a.m. EDT to 1 p.m. EDT today, with time evenly divided between supporters and opponents. Senator Feinstein is scheduled to speak about 10 a.m. The following is a copy of the news release sent out last night:

Senators Feinstein and Cornyn Offer Amendment to Ensure that Homeland Security Funding is Based on Risk

Washington, DC – U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and John Cornyn (R-TX) today offered an amendment to the FY 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bill that would ensure that homeland security grants are allocated based on where the threat of terrorist attack is greatest.

“Last week’s attacks in London are a brutal reminder that the terrorists can strike anywhere, anytime,” Senator Feinstein said. “We have scarce resources to combat the threat. That’s why it is absolutely critical that our dollars go to where the threat is greatest and where resources can do the most good. This is our ports, our transit systems, our bridges, our critical infrastructure, and our landmarks. In my view, we’ve got to move to a system where the grants follow the threat and are distributed primarily based on risk and threat – not on geographic or political factors.”

"This legislation is guided by the 9/11 commission's recommendations that homeland security assistance should be based on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities, and substantially increases the amount of risk-based funding from current levels,” said Senator Cornyn, Chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee. “It is critical that we more effectively protect our most vulnerable population centers, and the critical infrastructure and vital components of our economy.”

The Feinstein-Cornyn amendment is cosponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), John Kerry (D-MA), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Jon Corzine (D-NJ), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Bill Nelson (D-FL). Following is a summary of the Feinstein-Cornyn legislation and a comparison of the Feinstein-Cornyn bill and the Collins-Lieberman bill.

Summary

Specifically the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment 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.

Comparison of Feinstein-Cornyn with Collins-Lieberman:

Senators Collins and Lieberman have offered their first responder grant authorization bill (S. 21) as an amendment to the FY2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. In response, Senators Feinstein and Cornyn have offered their bill (S. 1013) as an alternative amendment.

S. 21 SHIFTS FUNDS AWAY FROM HIGH-THREAT STATES AND LOCALITIES.

§ contradicts the risk-based approaches to homeland security funding advocated in 9/11 Commission recommendations, Administration policy, and current and prior Congressional appropriations;

§ increases the proportion of funding not subject to risk-based distribution;

§ cuts and limits funding available to the high-threat regions identified in more than 30 States.

S. 1013 FOCUSES FUNDS ON BASELINE CAPABILITIES AND GREATEST RISK.

§ more consistent with 9/11 Commission recommendations to distribute homeland security assistance targeting potential for greatest casualties and economic harm;

§ implements latest Administration proposals to increase risk-based funding;

§ preserves flexibility to fund high-threat regions at whatever level is deemed appropriate.

S. 21 provides the LEAST risk-based funding among the options being considered by the Senate.

§ Congressional Research Service assessment (July 8, 2005) –

S. 21 40% not risk-based 60% on risk

Senate FY2006 Appropriations 30% not risk-based 70% on risk

S. 1013 13% not risk-based 87% on risk

S. 21 actually INCREASES funding distributed under guaranteed minimums over prior year levels, but S. 1013 increases allocations based on risk.

§ S. 21 increases by 56.4% the amount of guaranteed funding distributed without consideration of risk, using FY2005 appropriations levels as the baseline for comparison (CRS - April 13, 2005).

§ Although S. 21 purports to reduce non-risk-based funding by lowering guaranteed minimums from 0.75% to at least 0.55%, it applies that percentage across a wider funding base of additional programs. Including those programs nearly doubles the amount of funding subject to a minimum. Therefore, S. 21 actually distributes more money under a guarantee and blind to risk.

§ S. 21 also allocates risk-based funding after the guaranteed minimum already is distributed, making the difference between the two unnecessary and wasteful.

§ S. 1013 lowers the guaranteed minimum to a flat 0.25%, conforming to the President’s Budget proposal and Statement of Administration Policy (May 12, 2005), and makes risk-based allocations before the guaranteed minimum is distributed to achieve a true minimum.

Example: Under S. 21, a low-risk State might receive a $10 million minimum distribution, then qualify for $8 million in risk funding to total $18 million. Under S. 1013, that low-risk State would receive $10 million – the $8 million risk-based allocation, plus an additional $2 million allocation to reach the $10 million minimum. Thus, S. 21 would require distribution of an extra $8 million in wasteful homeland security funding.

S. 21 cuts and limits funding to High-Threat Urban Regions designated in 30+ States, the most likely terrorist targets, but S. 1013 preserves flexibility to fund at higher levels.

§ As the 9/11 Commission report stated and attacks in London again demonstrated, major urban centers (not rural or smaller communities) are the primary terrorist focus, with concentrations of population, transit systems, critical infrastructure, and high-profile targets for maximum impact.

§ The Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) has organized and funded preparedness and prevention efforts in 56 of the most likely target regions, encompassing hundreds of local jurisdictions and more than 75 million people. UASI regions now are implementing comprehensive cross-jurisdiction anti-terror plans with shared long-term project investments.

§ S. 21 cuts authorization of funding for UASI to 30% of the total homeland security funds (at most half of the amount available after having allocated the guaranteed minimum).

o This limit in S. 21 is a 1/3 cut from the amount actually provided in FY2005 appropriations, and 50% cut from the President’s FY2006 Budget request.

o The Senate FY2006 appropriations bill currently leaves the UASI allocation to Department of Homeland Security discretion.

o Setting an arbitrary limit on the amount available for risk-based funding to the most threatened urban areas is counter to recommendations by the 9/11 Commission and terrorism experts.

§ S. 1013 preserves the UASI program and flexibility to target funds as needed.

Risk-based funding will benefit many smaller States with high-threat profiles, not just large States.

§ Risk-based allocations will not simply redirect funds from small States to large States.

§ Several less populous States have high-threat profiles that rank higher than larger States, as indicated by the amount of distributions through current risk-based programs, including the Urban Area Security Initiative and the Buffer Zone Protection / Critical Infrastructure programs.

§ In some cases the UASI program alone represents 15% - 30% of first responder grant funding to less populous States, indicating a strong likelihood for more funding under a more risk-based distribution approach.

###

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Press Contacts

Harkin: Allison Dobson 224-3254

Specter: Scott Hoeflich 224-9020

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

**WEDNESDAY**

Harkin, Specter, and Bipartisan Coalition Join

Michael J. Fox, and Dana Reeve in

Urging Passage of Stem Cell Research Legislation

Washington, D.C.--Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) will stand with advocates Michael J. Fox and Dana Reeve at a press conference on Wednesday, July 13, at 11:30 a.m., urging passage of stem cell research legislation. House sponsors Mike Castle (R-DE) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) will also attend.

WHAT: Press Conference on Stem Cell Legislation

WHEN: Wednesday, July 13

11:30 am EDT

WHERE: 124 Dirksen Senate Office Building

United States Capitol

Washington, D.C.

# # #

For Planning Purposes

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

CONTACT: Jim Manley/Rebecca Kirszner, Reid, 202-224-2939

Leslie Phillips, Lieberman, 202-224-0384

Chip Unruh, Biden, 202-224-0132

David Wade, Kerry, 202-224-4159

Donalyn Dela Cruz, Akaka, 202-224-7045

Israel Klein, Schumer, 202-224-7433

Sarah Gegenheimer, Clinton, 202-224-2300

Anthony Coley, Corzine, 202-224-6037

**MEDIA ADVISORY**

Democrats Work to Protect America from Terrorism

Senate Democrats join together to improve Homeland Security Appropriations Bill

Washington, DC – Senators Joe Lieberman, Daniel Akaka, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Jon Corzine will join together TODAY to promote key Democratic initiatives to improve the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill currently on the Senate floor. Democrats are determined to do everything we can to protect America from terrorism by making the much needed investments in rail security, protecting chemical and nuclear power plants, and fully equipping our first responders.

Democrats believe Senate Republicans should take very seriously the lesson learned from the attacks in London: fighting terrorism overseas is not enough to ensure that terrorists will not strike American soil again. The Senators will discuss crucial initiatives to support our first responders and better protect Americans through rail and transit security, protecting chemical and nuclear plants, and safeguarding our ports.

WHO: Senators Lieberman, Biden, Kerry, Akaka, Schumer, Clinton, and Corzine

WHAT: Democrats' Efforts to Protect Americans from Terrorism

WHEN: TODAY, July 12th, 10:00 A.M.

WHERE: LBJ Room, S-211, Capitol Building

###

Comment of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee,

On Tuesday’s Meeting With President Bush And Senate Leaders

To Discuss The Supreme Court Vacancy

Monday, July 11, 2005

“The process starts with the President, and this decision is too important to all Americans for it be treated as a divisive political campaign to eek out a slim majority of 51 votes in the Senate. The Supreme Court belongs to all Americans, not just to one party or faction.

“There are potential candidates who would unite Americans, and those who would divide us. Meaningful consultation is more than checking off a box. It means a real dialogue that can help the President find a good nominee who could have overwhelming bipartisan support.

“I hope this meeting is a solid step toward meaningful consultation between the White House and the Senate in making this crucial decision. It’s been my experience that many Presidents have consulted, and when they did it led to good candidates and a much smoother confirmation process. I look forward to working with the President to help him bring the country together with this decision.”

# # # # #

Contact: David Carle, 202-224-3693

Tracy Schmaler, 202-224-2154

For Immediate Release

Date: Monday, July 11, 2005

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

REID STATEMENT ON KARL ROVE

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement:

Washington, DC – “I agree with the President when he said he expects the people who work for him to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true this rises above politics and is about our national security.”

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

July 11, 2005 Alison Aikele (202) 224-7518

IDAHO PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO RECEIVE SENATE COMPUTERS

Kamiah, Orofino, Avery, Bonners Ferry, and Lake Pend Oreille students benefit from “Computers for Schools” program

Washington, DC –Five Idaho schools will have twenty-five U.S. Senate computers for the coming school year, courtesy of Idaho Senator Mike Crapo and the Senate “Computers for Schools” program. The program helps public schools take advantage of current technology by channeling excess federal computer equipment to public schools.

“Technology training and computer skills are a vital part of our education system,” Crapo said. “In a rapidly changing job sector, these skills are increasingly necessary to thrive in our economy. Placing these computers in Idaho schools gives students access to a vital tool, and better prepares them to compete and contribute to a complex job market.”

The following schools, selected based on need using Title 1 criteria, will each receive five computers:

Kamiah High School
Orofino Elementary School
Avery Elementary-Junior High School
Lake Pend Oreille School District
Bonners Ferry High School
Avery Technology Director Dale Johnson said, “Our students and teachers need these computers to learn skills, for Internet research, as well as for learning in math, reading, science and social studies. Technology tools in their hands have a huge impact on the quality of learning and teaching that takes place in our schools, and we are very appreciative of this kind donation.”

Orofino Schools Superintendent Al Arzen said, “Our school greatly appreciates these computers and thanks Senator Crapo for all his hard work in securing these for our students and teachers.”

The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1997 authorized the Senate to participate in the program, which allows the U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms (SAA) to transfer educationally useful surplus equipment to public schools. The computers, which the Senate no longer uses due to routine equipment upgrades, remain in excellent condition and are ideal for use in public schools.

The SAA notifies Senators on a seniority basis of eligibility and provides a list of public schools in each state who have registered and can participate in the program. The SAA, in conjunction with UPS, ships the computers to the selected schools. The schools that were allocated computers this year will receive them before school begins this fall. Schools interested in participating in the program may register on the General Services Administration website at: http://www.computers.fed.gov.

To directly link to this news release, please use the following address: http://crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=240331

###

For Immediate Release

Date: Monday, July 11, 2005

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

PROTECTING AMERICA FROM TERRORISM
More Must Be Done Here at Home

Once again, the Bush administration has failed to make protecting America from terrorism here at home a top priority. The Bush budget falls far below the needed resources to defend Americans from terrorist attacks. It fails to provide the needed resources to hire, train, and equip our first responders, increase rail and transit security, protect chemical and nuclear plants and strengthen port security. More must be done and Democrats will fight to ensure that the needed investments will be made.

THE BUSH BUDGET FAILS TO PROTECT AMERICANS

Bush Cuts Support for Firefighters. Though reports have raised concern about severe staffing and equipment shortages at fire departments nationwide, the Bush budget cuts funding critical to hiring, training, and equipping firefighters. His budget falls $450 million below the authorized funding level and $215 million below this year’s appropriation. [Bush FY 2006 Budget]

Bush Cuts Funding for Police. Once again, President Bush has attempted to severely limit funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, one of the most successful federal law enforcement programs ever created. This year, Bush requested only $2.8 million compared to the nearly $1 billion spent just two years ago. Less funding will mean fewer police officers available to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. [Bush FY 2006 Budget]

Bush Cuts National First Responder Programs. The Bush budget also cuts funding to national first responder programs that provide needed training, technical assistance, rural preparedness and other programs. Bush proposed cutting funding to this program by nearly $180 million. [Bush FY 2006 Budget]

Bush Offers No Support for Rail Security, Port Security or Protecting Chemical and Nuclear Plants. President Bush has failed to make rail security, port security or protecting chemical and nuclear plants a priority. Year after year, these items have not made it into the Bush budget, instead given inadequate support through general, unallocated funding. [Bush FY 2006 Budget]

REPUBLICANS HAVE STOOD IN THE WAY OF PROTECTING AMERICA:

Republicans Voted Against Effort to Restore $1.6 Billion in Support to First Responders. Senate Republicans rejected $1.6 billion meant to restore Bush’s cuts to first responder grants. The funding included $298 million for the State Homeland Security Grant program, $79 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative, $226 million for Firefighter Assistance Grants, $485 million for the COPS program, and $537 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. The amendment failed 46-54. [RC 50, S. Amdt. 147 to S. Con. Res. 18, 3/15/05]

Republicans Blocked Increased Funding for COPS Program. Senate Republicans rejected an effort to restore $1 billion in cuts to the COPS program. The funding would have allowed the Justice Department to provide funding to the nearly 3,800 pending applications by law enforcement agencies nationwide who have applied for COPS grants to help them hire additional police officers in their communities. The amendment was rejected 45-55. [RC 70, S. Amdt. 239 to S. Con. Res. 18, 3/17/05]

For immediate release
July 11, 2005
Contact: Tara Andringa 202-228-3685

Levin releases Iraq trip report

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., today issued a report detailing his three-day trip to Iraq and Jordan last week. During the visit, Levin met with Iraqi President Talabani, Iraqi Prime Minister Jaafari, leaders of the Sunni Arab community, senior U.S. military and civilian officials, and troops from Michigan.

In his report, Levin concludes that he heard surprising optimism for meeting the August 15th deadline for adopting a draft constitution, but that there is great uncertainty that the insurgency will be eliminated or lessened in the near term even if that timetable is met. Levin believes that we need to develop a plan for drawing down coalition forces, which will assure the American public that U.S. forces will not be in Iraq indefinitely.

Attachments: photo of Levin meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Dr. Ibrahim Ja'afari; photo of Levin with Iraqi President Jalal Al-Talabani.

Trip Report of Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
Iraq and Jordan, July 5 B 7, 2005

I spent two days - July 5 and 6 - in Iraq and the morning of July 7 in Jordan. I believe mine was the first Congressional delegation to overnight in Iraq since the start of the war. It was also my fifth post-war trip to Iraq.

In Iraq, I spent a day and a half in Baghdad meeting with U.S. Embassy and military personnel and with Members of the Government of Iraq, including the President and Prime Minister. Additionally, I met with numerous Sunni Arabs, including officials of the Government, a member of the Iraqi National Assembly, and representatives of political groups, including some who had just been added to the Assembly=s constitutional drafting committee. I also met with the Chairman of the constitutional drafting committee and the UN Special Representative, whose staff is advising on the drafting of the constitution.

I spent the remainder of the second day in Iraq in Fallujah in the Sunni Triangle, where I was able to meet with a number of U.S. servicemen and women, and was privileged to have dinner with ten Marine Corps and Navy personnel from Michigan.

Once again, I was deeply impressed by the dedication and professionalism of our servicemen and women and with their very high morale. I told them that the Congress and the American people are proud of them and back them one hundred percent, regardless of differing positions on the Administration=s policies.

One purpose of my trip was to gauge the level of the insurgency. I found strong support for the recent assessment of General Abizaid, the regional U.S. Commander, that the insurgency is not weakening and that the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq has increased. I found no support for Vice President Cheney=s view that the insurgency is in its “last throes.”

Another purpose of my trip was to assess the current and potential level of participation of the Sunni Arabs in the political and constitutional drafting processes, including the likelihood that the Iraqi constitution would be completed by August 15th (and therefore not needing to utilize the one six month extension allowed under Iraqi law). I was surprised by the optimism of most Iraqis that the constitution would be agreed by August 15th and particularly that the Sunni Arab participants (recently increased by 15) would likely be supportive of the draft. If that is true, that will pave the way for a referendum on the draft constitution on October 15th and a national election on December 15th.

If this optimism is not borne out, however, a way must be found to bring pressure to bear on the parties to make the reasonable compromises that will be required for agreement on the constitution. Everyone whom I met on this trip advised that none of the Iraqis B not just Shia and Kurd, but also Sunni Arab B want U.S. forces to leave now. They want our forces to be less visible and Iraqi security forces to be more visible, but they want us to stay for now.

Given that fact and given the consensus that a political solution is necessary if there is any prospect of defeating the insurgency, we need to make clear to the Iraqis that if they are unable to reach agreement on the constitution, we will reconsider our presence in Iraq and that all options will be on the table, including withdrawal. (The logic of that position is that if a political settlement is essential if there is a chance of lessening the insurgency, that without a political settlement the insurgency is not going to be defeated even with our presence.)

I focused on meeting with members of the Sunni Arab community, as I believe they are the key to a successful political process in Iraq. Most of them realize it was a mistake for them not to have participated in the January elections and they want to participate in the drafting of a constitution and in the follow-on elections. At the same time, the so-called former regime element that is fueling the insurgency in an attempt to block a political settlement comes from the Sunni Arab community, and too many members of that community sympathize with and provide support for the insurgents.

There are a number of issues that will need to be resolved if a draft constitution is to be agreed upon by August 15th. These include the role of Islam; the form of the government (i.e. parliamentary or presidential); the relationship between the national government and the provinces and the degree to which natural resources will belong to the provinces or the national government; and the degree of autonomy that will reside in the regions. Since the oil resources of Iraq are located in the Shia south and the Kurdish north, these are issues that are extremely important to the Sunni Arabs, whose area lacks oil resources.

The decision of the National Assembly to accept 15 Sunni Arabs as members of the constitutional drafting committee, despite the Sunni Arabs lack of participation in the election, hopefully augurs well for the kind of compromises that will need to be made by all three of the main political factions for a draft constitution to be reached.

Although the successful drafting of a constitution, with the active participation of the Sunni Arab community, is very important and may help create an environment within which the insurgency can be dramatically reduced, it will not automatically achieve that result. The Sunni Arabs with whom we met, although from different groups, complained of the extended detention of their brethren, the perceived focus of raids by Coalition and Iraqi security forces on their community, the forced unemployment of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs fired in the de-Baathification process and denied the pensions to which they contributed. They expressed a preference for the U.S. military to leave the cities and to locate on bases removed from populated areas, and the need for at least a rough estimate as to when Coalition forces will be withdrawn.

I explored in depth the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces. It is clear that a great deal of time was wasted during the existence of the Coalition Provisional Authority or CPA. While it appears that progress is being made now, it is moving slowly and will take quite some time before Iraqis will be capable of dealing with the insurgency on their own.

In his recent speech to the nation on Iraq, President Bush said, with respect to the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, that “as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” General Casey, the overall commander on the ground in Iraq, acknowledged to me that he is working on a plan whereby units of the Iraqi security forces would first partner with Coalition military units and gradually take the lead in military operations, then will assume control in selected provinces, and gradually assume control more broadly until they ultimately can control the entire country. Part of that plan provides for Coalition forces to be reduced as Iraqi security forces become more and more capable.

I also spoke to General Casey and to Iraqi officials about the need for greater progress in the review of Iraqis detained by Coalition or Iraqi forces and the need to either release or try them. While some progress has been made in this area, it has been too slow in coming and much more must be done and done quickly.

In Jordan, I was pleased to be able to meet with King Abdullah. King Abdullah had just finished presiding over the closing session of a three day International Islamic Conference that he had organized. This visionary and critically important Conference was attended by top Muslim authorities from around the globe. It was aimed at finding common principles among various Muslim schools of thought and isolating and deligitimatizing those who preach violence in the name of Islam.

Two things need to happen within the next 40 days to improve chances of a successful outcome in Iraq.

A draft of the Iraqi constitution needs to be agreed and sent to the National Assembly by the constitutional committee no later than August 15 B the timetable the Iraqis have set for themselves. All of the people with whom I spoke B whether Sunni, Shia, or Kurd B agree that that date should and can be met.

There also needs to be a more detailed road map for drawing down U.S. forces. General Casey, commander of the multi-national forces in Iraq, has said that it should be possible for a fairly significant reduction in U.S. force levels in the first few months of next year. But what is so far missing are the decision criteria for determining when that reduction can begin so that presidential rhetoric and statements of intent are turned into a credible and reassuring roadmap for Iraqis taking ownership of the risks and responsibility for their own security and survival.

After much prodding by Congress, the Administration has finally created and implemented a capability assessment system for determining the readiness of Iraqi military and police units to conduct counter-insurgency operations B whether alongside of Coalition units, or in the lead but with Coalition support, or independently. Now there must be a detailed plan, mutually agreed to by the Coalition and Iraqis, with measurable benchmarks to determine progress, and with a reasonable estimate of the time required to reach those benchmarks. Only in this way can we know the approximate number of Iraqi units that need to be capable of counter-insurgency operations so that coalition units can first withdraw from cities and other visible locations and begin a withdrawal from the country as a whole.

It is essential that such a plan be promptly agreed to and implemented, and its outline publicly announced, so as to provide reassurance to the American public which is expressing growing concern about simply being told we need to “stay the course” in Iraq, and to the Iraqi public which needs to see that U.S. forces will not be in their country indefinitely. Both publics must see that the President=s statement that “as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down” is not just a bumper sticker slogan.

Secretary Rice has said that we will be in Iraq as long as we are needed. Without adopting and implementing a measured and credible plan, coalition forces could be “needed for” an indeterminate time. Without such a plan, Iraqis may never assume the responsibility for taking back their country from the insurgents and taking the risks and making the compromises necessary to chart their own destiny.

Finally, while I was surprised by the high level of optimism about the August 15 date being met for agreement on a draft Iraqi constitution, I was given a sobering assessment about the current and future strength of the insurgency.

Even if the timetable for adopting a constitution is met, and even if a plan is agreed upon for phasing in capable Iraqi military forces to take over responsibility for security so U.S. forces in Iraq can simultaneously be reduced, there is still great uncertainty that the insurgency will be eliminated or lessened in the near term.

But, while taking those steps doesn=t guarantee success, they could help change the dynamic in Iraq and provide the only way a poorly thought through and mistake ridden U.S. policy in Iraq can still reach a successful conclusion.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Allison Dobson/ Maureen Knightly

July 11, 2005 202-224-3254

HARKIN ANNOUNCES DRUG FIGHTING

FUNDS FOR WOODBURY COUNTY

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced today that Woodbury County has received a $125,911 grant from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program to fight drugs.

“The Byrne grants are critical to Iowa’s neighborhoods and communities,” said Harkin. “By targeting illegal drug activity, these funds give law enforcement officials in Woodbury County additional resources to strike at one of the major factors behind crime in Iowa and across America.”

Sioux City will receive $62,955 of the funds, with the remaining $62,956 going to the other communities in Woodbury County. The funds will be used for salaries and benefits for members of the Tri-State Drug Task Force.

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) allows states, tribes, and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime. Grant funds can be used for state and local initiatives for any of the following purpose areas: 1) law enforcement programs; 2) prosecution and court programs; 3) prevention and education programs; 4) corrections and community corrections programs; 5) drug treatment programs; and 6) planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs.

Last year Iowa received $5.3 million from the Byrne grant program. Unfortunately, the President’s 2006 law enforcement budget proposal eliminates the program. Harkin, a leader in the fight to preserve the Byrne grant program criticized the President’s law enforcement budget, saying these cuts would undermine law enforcement efforts to fight crime and drug problems like methamphetamine throughout Iowa.

# # #

For Immediate Release

Monday, July 11, 2005

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

REID SAYS MORE MUST BE DONE TO PROTECT AMERICA FROM TERRORISM

Calls for a Renewed Investment in Fighting Terrorism Here at Home

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement:

Washington, DC – “With terrorists determined to strike us here at home, we must do everything we can to protect Americans from terrorism. We should take very seriously the lesson learned from the attacks in London: fighting terrorism overseas is not enough to ensure that terrorists will not strike American soil again.

“The simple fact is that the Bush administration has refused to make the needed investments to secure American cities and towns. We spend more in Iraq in a single month than we spend on first responders all year. Failure in Iraq is not an option, and we will continue to support our troops but we must do more to support the war on terror here at home.

“Democrats are determined to do everything we can to protect America from terrorism by making the much needed investments in rail security, protecting chemical plants and fully equipping our first responders.”

###

Word On: Violence Against Women Act

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

Q: What is the Violence Against Women Act and what was it designed to do?

A: Unfortunately, stories of domestic abuse, assault and rape are all to common. There seem to be regular reports of women beaten in their own home, raped by a boyfriend or acquaintance, or stalked by an ex. To help prevent abuse and provide better care for victimized women, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. This legislation was designed to help change the landscape for women who have suffered violence by creating programs within the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to make sure offenders are punished and victims receive quality care. The programs administered by the Department of Justice provide grants to law enforcement officers and prosecutors to help make sure they are able to arrest and prosecute offenders, support programs for victim advocates and counselors, and encourage the training of probation and parole officers who work with released sex offenders. To make sure women who are the victims of violence have a support system in place, the Department of Health and Human Services provided grants to battered women’s shelters, supported rape prevention and education, and encouraged community programs on domestic violence. Together, these programs have helped make significant gains in the fight against crimes against women.

Q: Now that the Violence Against Women Act is more than 10 years old, is anything being done to make sure it is up-to-date?

A: The Violence Against Women Act is working and we are beginning to see a decline in domestic and sexual violence. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of work to be done. On average, husbands or boyfriends murder three women each day, and more than 700 are raped or sexually assaulted. The Violence Against Women Act is due for reauthorization this year and I have signed on as a cosponsor of a bill that will make sure the tough penalties and support programs included in the Violence Against Women Act stay on the books. The new bill will also create new programs designed to support women, men and children in living healthy, safe lives. It will help women become more self sufficient by providing housing support and employment protection so they aren’t forced to return to an abusive relationships, provide services for the children touched by the effects of domestic violence and sexual assault, and focus on prevention and educating the next generation so that they will avoid these crimes of violence. I’m working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation this year so we can take the next step towards stemming domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

109-11-05

According to the Leader’s office, the Senate will take up the Homeland Security Appropriations bill this week, and upon completion, will possibly move to the Foreign Operations and State Department Appropriations bill.

This week, Senator DeWine will be introducing a bill that would legislatively list 3 species of Asian carp as injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. Such a listing means that someone cannot import into the US or transport across state lines live Asian carp without a permit. Asian carp are voracious eaters and can grow up to six feet and 110 pounds. Unfortunately, these species were released into the Mississippi River during major flooding, impacting food supplies available to native fisheries, and natural resource managers are currently preventing the movement of Asian carp into the Great Lakes by an electric dispersal barrier.

Senator DeWine will also be introducing a resolution on food aid. This resolution would reiterate the need for the U.S. to use its financial and diplomatic resources to address food aid shortages in Africa.

On 12:15pm on Wednesday, Senator DeWine will be giving remarks at the National Alliance to End Homelessness Annual Conference Lunch at the Hyatt Regency, 400 New Jersey Ave, NW.

Jeffrey C. Sadosky

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)

140 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

(202) 224-2315

(202) 228-0549 fax

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

Press Secretary: Andy Fisher, andy_fisher@foreign.senate.gov, (202) 224-2079 Date: 07/11/2005

Advisory
Border Security Hearing Tomorrow
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearing.html

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar announced that he will preside over the following public hearing on border security tomorrow, July 12, 2005:

NORTH AMERICAN COOPERATION ON THE BORDER

DATE: TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005

TIME: 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 419

WITNESSES:

Panel I:

The Honorable Perrin Beatty, P.C.

President and Chief Executive Officer

Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters

Former Foreign Minister

Ottawa, Canada

The Honorable Jorge Castaneda

Global Distinguished Professor of Politics and

Latin American and Caribbean Studies

New York University

Former Foreign Minister

Mexico City, Mexico

Panel II:

Mr. David V. Aguilar

Chief of the Office of Border Patrol

Customs and Border Protection

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Mr. Roger (Rogelio) Pardo-Maurer IV

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western

Hemisphere Affairs

Department of Defense

Washington, DC

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Allison Dobson/ Maureen Knightly

July 11, 2005

202-224-3254

HARKIN ANNOUNCES DRUG FIGHTING

FUNDS FOR DUBUQUE

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced today that the city of Dubuque has received a $40,704 grant from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program to help fight drugs.

“The Byrne grants are critical to Iowa’s neighborhoods and communities,” said Harkin. “By targeting illegal drug activity, these funds give law enforcement officials in Dubuque additional resources to strike at one of the major factors behind crime in Iowa and across America.”

The city and county of Dubuque will use these funds to assist with enforcement and prevention efforts. Overtime funds will be provided to the Dubuque Drug Task Force to assist in the identification, investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of illegal drug distributors, manufacturers, and users of methamphetamine and other drugs. Overtime will also be used for special project enforcement teams that are formed to suppress crime sprees related to burglaries, robberies, identity thefts, organized shoplifting, alcohol, financial crimes, and other organized joint criminal behaviors.

# # #

Jennifer L. Carrier
Office of Senator Tom Harkin
(202) 224-3254
jennifer_carrier@harkin.senate.gov

For Planning Purposes

Monday, July 11, 2005

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

**MEDIA ADVISORY**

SENATOR REID TO HOLD MEDIA AVAILABILITY WITH FIRST RESPONDERS

Reid to Discuss Protecting America from Terrorists

Washington, DC – Democratic Leader Harry Reid will meet TODAY with first responders to discuss their needs to protect America from terrorists. With the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill on the floor of the United States Senate, Reid will hear directly from those on the frontlines of the war on terror what support they need from the federal government to protect Americans. Reid will discuss Democratic efforts to protect America and point to the inadequate and unacceptable job the Bush administration is doing to protect Americans today.

WHO: Democratic Leader Harry Reid

WHAT: Media Availability with First Responders after meeting on

Protecting America from Terrorists

WHEN: TODAY, 2:45 P.M.

WHERE: S-207, The Mansfield Room

NOTE: Cameras will be handheld only.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Dave Townsend/ Allison Dobson

July 8, 2005

HARKIN CALLS ON USDA TO IMPLEMENT

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING

WASHINGTON, DC – In a bipartisan letter to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately publish an interim final rule on mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL). The 2002 farm bill requires USDA to implement a program informing consumers about the country of origin for meat, fruits and vegetables and peanuts, yet the rules to establish this program are long overdue. Harkin is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

“USDA needs to get a rule out now,” Harkin said. “More foot dragging and waiting until the last minute to issue a rule will cause even further unnecessary delays for this program.”

COOL for meat, fruits and vegetables and peanuts will become mandatory on September 30, 2006. USDA has had a year and a half to publish an interim final rule, but has yet to do so. This interim final rule is necessary so that producers, industry and retailers have sufficient time to make comments and understand the requirements of COOL. USDA has already implemented the labeling requirements for fish and shellfish on grocery store shelves.

“This delay, along with USDA’s over inflated cost estimates for COOL, seems to be another indicator that USDA is determined to nullify what was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.” Harkin said. “The Secretary of Agriculture has full discretion within the law to write a common sense, cost-effective and flexible rule in a timely manner.”

# # #

Jennifer L. Carrier
Office of Senator Tom Harkin
(202) 224-3254
jennifer_carrier@harkin.senate.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Allison Dobson/ Maureen Knightly

July 8, 2005

202-224-3254

Harkin Calls on VA to Provide Quality Care

for Iowa’s Veterans

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a letter today to Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) called on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to explain why the Bush Administration has failed to provide the needed resources to care for Iowa’s veterans, specifically in underserved rural areas. Although the VA Secretary proposed six new Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) for Iowa earlier this year, President Bush has failed to include funding for even one of these in his current budget.

Included is a text of Senator Harkin’s letter:

“As you are aware, I sent you a letter in February of this year encouraging you to keep Iowa’s Knoxville VA Medical Center in operation due to the potential long-term disadvantages for veterans in Knoxville and surrounding rural communities caused by closing that facility. Unfortunately, the concerns regarding plans to close the Knoxville VA Medical Center went unheeded, and planning for the relocation of inpatient services from Knoxville to Des Moines has already commenced.

“In the May 7th, 2004 announcement from Veterans Affairs regarding changes for Iowa VA health care facilities, former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony J. Principi, laid out a plan to build six new Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) in the Iowa cities Carroll, Marshalltown, Cedar Rapids, Ottumwa, Shenandoah, and Spirit Lake. By providing outpatient care, these six new Iowa CBOCs will offset some of the hardships imposed upon veterans living in the underserved and rural areas of Iowa.

“It has come to my attention that while six new CBOCs were proposed under the CARES plan, the current budget doesn’t include funding for even one. In order to ensure no delay in the outpatient care which is so essential to our veterans, I am inquiring as to the progress of the planning for these six Iowa CBOCs and request from your office a written timeline charting their intended schedule for completion. I am also interested in knowing how the recently projected $2.7 billion VA budget shortfall for fiscal year 2006 might affect the promised CBOCs. I encourage you not to allow this shortfall to affect the plans for the CBOCs, as community-based outpatient health care is vitally important to our nation’s veterans.

“As more of our nation’s veterans return to their country from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is imperative that we deliver the healthcare services that have been promised to America’s veterans.

“I thank you very much for your assistance with this inquiry. As veterans and native Iowans, I am confident that by working together, we can improve our service to the veterans of the United States”

# # #

Jennifer L. Carrier
Office of Senator Tom Harkin
(202) 224-3254
jennifer_carrier@harkin.senate.gov

MEDIA ADVISORY: Contact: Howard Gantman

Friday, July 8, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Senator Feinstein Announces Agenda for BRAC
Hearing to be Held in Los Angeles Next Week

-- Gov. Schwarzenegger, Leon Panetta, community leaders to voice
concerns about proposed base closures and realignments to BRAC Commission --

Los Angeles, Calif. – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced the agenda for the Federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission’s California Regional Hearing, which will be held in Los Angeles on Thursday, July 14, 2005 at 1:00 p.m.

The hearing will give supporters of military installations that are facing a major closure or realignment the opportunity to voice their concerns directly to the BRAC Commission. As California’s Senior Senator, Senator Feinstein has the responsibility for developing and coordinating the agenda for the hearing.

Date: Thursday, July 14, 2005
Time: 1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Location: Westchester High School

7400 West Manchester Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90045

In a letter to BRAC Chairman Anthony Principi, Senator Feinstein wrote: “On behalf of the entire California Congressional Delegation, I am pleased to forward you the attached agenda and schedule for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission Regional Hearing in Los Angeles on July 14, 2005.

We wish to express our appreciation to you and each of the other BRAC Commissioners for your willingness to hold this hearing and listen to local California communities and their elected officials advocate on behalf of their military bases. We strongly believe that California offers a unique and unparalleled environment for the U.S. military to work, train, reside, and will be a valuable asset to the process of military transformation and force projection well into the future.”

Hearing Agenda

(subject to change)

I. State of California Panel
The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, State of California

The Honorable Leon Panetta, Co-Chair, California Council of Base Support and Retention

The Honorable Donna Tuttle, Co-Chair, California Council of Base Support and Retention

II. Statements from representatives of Senators Feinstein and Boxer
Mr. James Molinari, State Director, Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein

Mr. Alton Garrett, Southern California Director, Office of Senator Barbara Boxer

III. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona Division
Councilman Frank Hall, City of Norco

Ed Schwier, Captain (Ret.) Former Commanding Officer NSWC, Corona Division

Bob Everly, Managing Director, Computer Sciences Corporation

Bob Bordeaux, former Executive Director of NSWC, Corona Division

Brian Oulman, Economic Development Director, City of Norco

Dennis Casebier, Former Associate Technical Director, NSWC Corona Division

IV. Riverbank Army Ammunition Depot
Mayor Chris Crifasi, City of Riverbank

Winifred Wu, General Manager of Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant,

NI Industries, Inc. (operating contractor for Riverbank)

John Maniatakis, Executive Vice President, NI Industries, Inc.

V. Marine Corps Recruit Depot & Navy Broadway Complex
Julie Meier Wright, CEO, San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation

General Joe Hoar, USMC (Ret.)

Vice Admiral Peter M. Hekman, U.S. Navy (Ret.)

The Hon. William J. Cassidy, Jr., Former Assistant Secretary of the Navy,

Installations and Environment

W. Erik Bruvold, San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation

VI. Naval Base Ventura County
Congresswoman Lois Capps (Tentative)

Congressman Elton Gallegly (Tentative)

Rear Admiral George Strohsahl (Ret.)

Rear Admiral Dana McKinney (Ret.)

Captain Jack Dodd (Ret.)

VII. Marine Corps Logistics Base – Barstow

Mayor Lawrence Dale, City of Barstow

Patricia Morris, Military Affairs Committee of the Barstow Area Chamber of Commerce and Assistant to City Manager City of Barstow

Supervisor Bill Postmus, San Bernardino County

State Senator Roy Ashburn

State Assemblyman Bill Maze

Mr. Bob Lucas, Chairman, Military Affairs Committee of the Barstow Area Chamber of

Commerce

Mr. Rick Bremen, former Head Production Management Department

Ruben Fabunan, AFGE #1482 Union Representative

VIII. Naval Weapons Station China Lake
Phil Arnold, China Lake Defense Alliance
Bill Porter, China Lake Defense Alliance

Senator Roy Ashburn
Assemblyman Kevin McCarthy
Kern County Supervisor Jon McQuiston
Ridgecrest Mayor Marshall Holloway

BRAC Commissioners Scheduled to be in Attendance
The Honorable Anthony Principi, Chair of the BRAC Commission

The Honorable James Bilbray, Chair of the Los Angeles Regional Hearing

The Honorable Philip Coyle

Admiral Harold (Hal) Gehman

Brigadier General Sue Turner (USAF, Ret)

###

For Immediate Release Contact: David DiMartino (202)-224-8795

July 8, 2005 Jim Fagin (402)-616-2652

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

NELSON TO VISIT CENTRAL CITY

AND KEARNEY ON SATURDAY

***EVENTS ARE OPEN TO THE MEDIA***

OMAHA, NE—Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson is planning to tour an ethanol plant and attend the grand opening of an E-85 pumping station in Central City Saturday afternoon.

Saturday evening Nelson will speak at Frank Morrison’s 100th Birthday Tribute in Kearney.

Schedule is as follows:

2:30 TO 3:00 PM CDT

TOUR AND BRIEFING

PLATTE VALLEY ETHANOL PLANT, LLC

CENTRAL CITY, NE

3:30 TO 3:45 PM CDT

MEDIA AVAILABILITY

COUNTRY PRIDE FARM STORE

719 – 16th STREET

CENTRAL CITY, NE

3:45 TO 4:15 PM CDT

GRAND OPENING OF E-85 STATION WITH MEMBERS OF ETHANOL BOARD

COUNTRY PRIDE FARM STORE

719 – 16TH STREET

CENTRAL CITY, NE

7:00PM TO 9:30PM CDT

FRANK MORRISON’S 100TH BIRTHDAY TRIBUTE

GREAT PLATTE RIVER ROAD ARCHWAY MONUMENT

KEARNEY, NE

July 8, 2005
For Immediate Release:
Contact: Scott Gerber, 202-224-9629

Background: Feinstein/Cornyn Risk-Based
Homeland Security Funding

The Senate will consider the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill next week. Part of that debate may include consideration of amendments related to the formula for how funding is distributed.

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

The following is a summary and section by section of that legislation. If you need further information or would like to talk to Steve Cash, Senator Feinstein’s Chief Counsel, on background, please call 202-224-9629

Homeland Security Funding: Resources to Meet Risk

The Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005

S.1013

Senators Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn

Federal Homeland Security dollars should be allocated based on an assessment of the risks which face us. In a time of tight budgets, every penny of federal funds should be directed where it can do the most good – guarding against the places where we think terrorists may actually strike, and where they may do the most damage.

The 9/11 Commission Report (page 396):

Resources must be allocated according to vulnerabilities. We recommend that a panel of security experts be convened to develop written benchmarks for evaluating community needs. We further recommend that federal homeland security funds be allocated in accordance with those benchmarks, and that states be required to abide by those benchmarks in disbursing the federal funds

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) have worked together to draft legislation to require that such funds be allocated according a risk-based assessment. After intensive consultation with experts, including the first responder community, they introduced the bill on May 12, 2005.

Key Components of Risk-Based Funding Legislation

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 Feinstein/ Cornyn bill would:

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

The Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005

Section 1: Short Title; Table of Contents (page 1)

Section 2: Risk-Based funding for homeland security

Section 1801, Risk-Based funding for homeland security: (pages 2-4)

Contains the core provisions of the bill.

Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to “ensure that covered grants are allocated based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent practicable.”

Defines “covered grants” as (page 2):
State Homeland Security Grant Program;
Urban Area Security Initiative;
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevents Program; and
Citizen Corps Program.

Note: “Other grants” which require risk-analysis are port and airport grants, see below.

Explicitly excludes grants not administered by the Department of Homeland Security, as well as Fire Grant Programs and Emergency Management Planning and Assistance Account Grants (page 3)

Section 1802, Covered Grant Eligibility and Criteria: (pages 4-21)

Sets out what entities will be eligible to apply for covered grants (pages 4-6)
States,
Regions and
Tribes

(a) Eligibility:

· Only Regions can apply for Urban Area Security Initiative Funds (page 4)

· Only States will be permitted to apply for State Homeland Security Grant Program funds (page 5)

· Grants to seaports, airports and other transportation facilities to be allocated based on threat, vulnerability and consequence (page 5)

Existing Urban Area Security Initiative areas are to be certified as “regions” if such designation is consistent with an assessment of threat, vulnerability and consequence (page 6)

(b) Criteria:

· Grants must be used to achieve “essential capabilities,” as defined (page 6)

· States applying must submit a three year plan detailing (page 7):

o State’s “essential capability” requirement

o A prioritized threat, vulnerability and consequence analysis

o Budget and resource allocation

o Co-ordination with local governments and agencies

o The role and preparedness of emergency first responders

· No grants will be issued without a plan (page 8)

(d) Consistency:

· All grants (even Regions and Tribes) must be consistent with the State Plan (page 8)

(e) Application for Grant:

· DHS Secretary may set deadlines for applications (page 9)

· All approved awards for each fiscal year to be paid no later than March 1st (page 9)

· Funds awarded shall be available through the end of the subsequent year (page 9)

· Details required in a complete application (page 9)

· Regional applications (page 10):

o Must be coordinated with State applications

o Governor may comment on all regional applications, but cannot stop them

o Funds for Regional grants must pass through State within 45 days

o At least 80% of funds must pass through

o States will certify compliance within 30 days

o Regions may petition for direct payment if States fail to comply

o Regions to designate a liaison to Federal, State and local officials

· Tribal applications (page 15):

o Mirror Regional applications

o DHS Secretary remains final approval authority

o Direct grants limited to 20 eligible tribes per fiscal year

o Tribes may also apply for grants through States

o Tribes to designate a liaison to Federal, State and local officials

· Equipment Standards (page 17):

o New equipment should meet or exceed DHS national voluntary consensus standards

o Applicants must explain their need for any proposed sub-standard equipment

(f) Homeland Security Grants Board:

· Establishment and composition (page 18)

· Risk-based ranking (page 19):

o All applications to be prioritized according to threat, vulnerability and consequences for persons and critical infrastructure

o Greater weight to be given to specific, credible threats, and patterns of repetition

· Minimum amounts (page 20):

o Each State to receive no less than 0.25 percent of available funds in any fiscal year

o Each Territory to receive 0.08 percent

· Under Secretaries on the Board to make available all relevant expertise (page 21)

Section 3: Essential capabilities, task forces, and standards

Section 1803, Essential Capabilities for Homeland Security: Establishing “essential capabilities,” linking capabilities to threat, defining threats to critical infrastructure (pages 21-27).

(a) Establishment of Essential Capabilities:

· DHS Secretary, in consultation with appropriate officials, to establish clearly defined essential capabilities for State and local government preparedness for terrorism (page 21)

· These are to be (page 22):

o Established within one year of enactment

o Updated as necessary, or at least every 3 years

o Provided promptly to Congress and the States

o Made available as necessary and appropriate to local governments and port or airport operators

(b) Objectives:

Describe specific preparedness needs of different communities based on (page 23):
Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection’s most current risk assessment
Principles of mutual aid among State and local governments

Flexibility, measurability and comprehensiveness in addressing threat (page 24)

· DHS Secretary to specifically consider threat, vulnerability and and consequences for populations and critical infrastructure (page 24)

· “Critical Infrastructure Sectors” listed (page 25)

· “Types of Threat” listed (page 26)

· Additional factors – foregoing lists not to be considered exclusive (page 26)

Section 1804, Task Force on Essential Capabilities: Organizes a Task Force to advise on “essential capabilities,” requires regular reports (pages 27-31).

(a) Establishment:

Task Force on Essential Capabilities to be established by DHS Secretary within 60 days of enactment (page 27)

(b) Report:

· Within 9 months of formation, and every 3 years thereafter, the Task Force is to produce a report containing (page 27):

o Priority ranking of essential capabilities

o Methodology for States to determine what access they have to these capabilities

o Analysis of “voluntary consensus standards” for first responder equipment

o Additional matters, as directed by DHS Secretary

o Revisions reflecting the most recent risk assessment

· Report to be consistent with recommendations of the Federal working group established under Section 319F(a), 42 U.S.C. 247d-6(a) (page 28)

· 35 Members to be drawn from a cross-section of communities, Federal, State and local, including (page 29):

o Emergency first responders

o Health scientists and healthcare providers, including mental health

o Experts in standards and standards development

o Government experts in terrorism preparedness, with elected officials to be selected equally from both major political parties

· Health professionals to be selected in consultation with DHHS (page 31)

· 2 or more Ex Officio Members to be appointed by DHS Secretary and DHHS Secretary (page 31)

· Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act (page 31)

Section 1805, National Standards for First Responder Equipment and Training (Pages 32-37).

(a) Equipment Standards:

· DHS Secretary to establish, within 6 months of enactment, “national voluntary consensus standards” for equipment which (page 32):

o Are consistent with existing standards

o Account for new types of threats

o Maximize interoperability, flexibility, efficiency and safety

o Cover all appropriate uses of the equipment

· Required categories of equipment listed (page 33)

(b) Training Standards:

· DHS Secretary to promulgate “national voluntary consensus standards” for training provided under covered grants (page 34)

· Priority will be given to training in (page 34):

o Preparation, response and mitigation of terrorist threats

o Proper use of standard equipment

· Required categories of training activities listed (page 35)

· DHS Secretary to consult with public and private sector standards organizations (page 36)

(d) Coordination with Secretary of HHS:

· National voluntary consensus standards for equipment or training relating to health professionals to be coordinated with DHHS Secretary (page 37)

Section 4: Effective administration of homeland security grants

Section 1806, Use of Funds and Accountability Requirements: Limitations on Grant use, accounting and reporting. Incentives to efficiency (pages 38-51).

(a) Grants may be used for:

· Equipment (page 38)

· Exercises (page 38)

· Training, including training in the use of equipment (page 38)

· Response planning (page 38)

· Information sharing (page 38)

· Engineering projects (page 38)

· Personnel costs associated with (page 38):

o Elevated threat alert levels

o Travel and participation in exercises and training

o Temporary replacement of personnel during exercises and training

o Participation in information sharing activities

· Equipment costs required to handle classified information (page 39)

· Target hardening of high-value targets (page 39)

· Physical barriers around critical infrastructure, within limits (page 39)

· Communications equipment in compliance with consensus standards (page 40)

· Educational curricula for first responders (page 40)

· Training and exercises in public schools (page 40)

· Administrative expenses related to the grant, not to exceed 3 percent (page 40)

· Other activities as approved by the DHS Secretary (page 41)

(b) Grants may not be used for:

· Supplantation of obligated funds (page 41)

· Construction, except (page 41):

o As provided under Section 611, 42 U.S.C. 5196

o Upagerading facilities to cope with biological agents

· Acquiring land (page 41)

· State or local government cost-sharing contribution (page 41)

· Grant funds may serve ends beyond terrorism preparedness, provided they do also assist in achieving “essential capabilities” (page 41)

(d) Reimbursement of Costs:

· Stipends for paid-on-call or volunteer first responders (page 42)

(e) Assistance Requirement:

· DHS to bear costs of emergency responses outside of State, Region or Tribe (page 42)

(f) Flexibility in Unspent Grant Funds:

· Funds may transferred to other uses in the interests of homeland security (page 42)

(g) State, Regional and Tribal Responsibilities:

· State has 45 days to pass through at least 80 percent of funds (page 43)

· State shall certify same to DHS within 30 days (page 43)

· Grantees to furnish quarterly reports summarizing (page 44):

o Amounts obligated during the quarter

o Amounts expended

o Items purchased

· Grantees to furnish annual report detailing (page 44):

o Amounts, recipients and dates of receipt of all granted funds

o Amounts and dates of disbursement of all funds expended

o Ultimate utilization of all funds

o Measure of contribution of funds to grantee’s essential capabilities

o Essential capabilities remaining unmet

(h) Incentives to Efficient Administration of Grants:

· Penalties for failing pass-through requirements (page 46)

o Reduction of funding

o Direct funding of ultimate recipient

o Restrictions on use

· States may request 15 day extension to pass-through (page 48)

· Conditions for non-local share to be provided to local government (page 48)

(i) DHS Reports to Congress:

· Secretary to submit annual report by 31 December each year (page 50):

o Detailing amounts of Federal funds made available as covered grants

o Reporting on the use of funds by grantees

o Describing progress on nationwide essential capabilities

o Estimating further expenditures required to meet essential capabilities

Section (b): Sense of Congress Regarding Interoperable Communications

· New and upgraded emergency response communications systems must meet national voluntary consensus standards (page 51)

Section (c): Sense of Congress Regarding Citizen Corps Councils

· Citizen Corps councils should provide funding to as many participating organizations as practicable (page 52)

Sections (d), (e) : Coordinations

· Secretary to coordinate all emergency response within DHS (page 52)

· Secretary to coordinate with industry to align private and public efforts (page 53)

Section (f): Study Regarding Nationwide Emergency Notification System

· Secretary to study the feasibility of a national emergency telephonic alert notification system, and report to Congress within 9 months of enactment (page 53)

Section (g): Study of Expansion of Area of Jurisdiction of Office of National Capital Region Coordination

· Secretary to study the feasibility of modifying the definition of “National Capital Region” under Section 882, Homeland Security Act, and report to Congress within 6 months of enactment (page 54)

Section 5. Implementation; Definitions; Table of Contents (pages 56-62)

Implementation provisions in this section:

· Technical and conforming amendments to USA PATRIOT Act (page 56)

· Delays certain provisions within the act from implementation in regard to some provisions of the grant criteria and essential capabilities to give sufficient time to develop (page 56)

Section 1807 – Definitions - For the purposes of this Act, there are a several key definitions, the most notable being the following:

· Risk-Based Funding – This definition is essential to the application and purposes of this proposal. The definition states that it “means the allocation of funds based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence.” (page 61)

· Threat – Also important to application of this act, the definition states that threat is the “assessment of the plans, intentions, and capability of and adversary to implement and identified attack scenario.” (page 61)

Other definitions in the section include:

· Region – for the purpose of regional applications established in this Act, a region will (page 60):

o Be certified by the Secretary

o Include a city with a core population exceeding 500,000

o Have a mutual aid agreement in place

Emergency Response Provider – Amends current statutory definition to include private emergency providers and fire fighters

For Immediate Release

Friday, July 01, 2005

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

Statement of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid Regarding the Passage of the Short Term Extension of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program

"Yesterday, the Senate passed the House extension to the TANF program. H.R. 3021 provides a 3-month extension for the existing TANF program, ensuring that our nation's most vulnerable populations will have access to uninterrupted social services.

"Passage of the 10th short term extension was necessary because Senate Republicans have been unwilling to bring to the Senate floor a new authorization bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee by a voice vote, one opposing more than three months ago.

“I strongly hope that Senate Republicans resolve their differences and permit the committee-passed bill to come to the Senate floor. If Republicans cannot agree to let the Senate take up the committee-passed bill, Senate Democrats are committed to ensuring that we take up some version of this bill so that the latest temporary extension will be the last. I stand ready to work with Senator Frist and the leaders on the Finance Committee to achieve that goal.

###

___________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 1, 2005

Contact: John Reid

Director of Communications

(202) 224-4746

ALLEN COMMENTS ON O’CONNOR RETIREMENT

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) today released the following statement regarding the announcement that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will retire from the Supreme Court of the United States:

“Sandra Day O’Connor deserves our admiration for her long and dedicated service to our nation on the Supreme Court. Nominated by President Reagan in 1981, Justice O’Connor was the first woman to serve on the highest court of the land. She has been a wonderful role model for women and, indeed, all Americans and has earned a rightful place in the distinguished history of our great nation. Knowing Justice O’Connor, she will stay active and continue to be in demand to offer her insight, perspective and experience to motivate future generations.

“Whomever the President nominates to fill this vacancy deserves a fair and dignified confirmation hearing on their qualifications and judicial philosophy. I sincerely hope that he or she is not targeted for personal destruction by partisan attack groups. In my view, judges ought to apply the law and the Constitution, not invent the law or amend the Constitution by decree.”

# # #

For Immediate Release: June 30, 20005
Contact: Jim Manley/Rebecca Kirszner
202 224-2939
SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADER REID BLASTS BUSH FOR FAILED TRADE POLICY

Bush Has No Policy on China, No Policy on the Trade Deficit, No Policy to Keep America Competitive

(Washington, DC) Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid blasted the Bush Administration for having a failed trade policy today as the Senate considered the CAFTA agreement. In his floor speech, Senator Reid noted that although America is on pace to have a $700 billion trade deficit this year and the emergence of China is the biggest issue of concern to the American people, yet the Bush Administration has no policy for dealing with the trade deficit, no policy for dealing with China, and no policy for keeping America competitive in a changing global economy.

³I am not sure if this Administration has a trade policy other than CAFTA. Š Except for an occasional rhetorical oar splashing around, the Administration¹s trade policy toward China is completely rudderless.²

The full statement is attached.

Mr. President, of all the trade agreements this body has considered since I have been here, I would most like to be able to support this one. I think it is remarkable how the CAFTA countries have turned from pasts of violence and instability to hopeful democracies. The initial economic and political reforms made by these countries are an important sign of progress.

Unfortunately, this trade agreement is seriously flawed. And, more importantly, it is symptomatic of the Bush Administration¹s rudderless trade and economic policy.

The CAFTA countries account for less than 1.5% of total U.S. trade. The combined economic size of the CAFTA countries is smaller than each of the top 25 metropolitan areas in America. Yet, the Bush Administration has made CAFTA its number one trade priority this year. I don¹t know if the President even has any trade policies other than CAFTA.

Misplaced Priorities: No Strategy for Dealing with Record Trade Deficit

I know that President Bush has no policy for dealing with the U.S. trade deficit, which set a record last year of over $600 billion and is on pace to surpass $700 billion this year.

Economists have warned that our trade deficit is unsustainable and could threaten the U.S. and global economies. If anyone tells you that CAFTA will help reduce the deficit, they are confused or are being misleading. The CAFTA countries account for just 0.3% of the U.S. trade deficit. They are barely a molecule of water in the proverbial drop in the bucket. Instead of coming up with a policy for addressing the deficit, the Administration sits in denial. The Treasury Secretary even likes to say our enormous trade deficit is a sign of U.S. economic strength.

In order to fund the enormous U.S. deficit, the nation has to borrow from foreign governments. The Bush Administration has managed to accumulate more foreign-owned debt in four years -- $921 trillion -- than the U.S. accumulated in the first 220 years of its existence.

I don¹t consider that a sign of strength; I consider it a cause for concern. If the Bush Administration doesn¹t acknowledge something is a problem, how can you come up with a policy to fix it?

Misplaced Priorities: No Strategy for Dealing with China

The Bush Administration at least concedes that China is a problem. The U.S. trade deficit with China was over $160 billion last year -- more than ten times the size of total U.S. exports to the CAFTA countries. We had a $36 billion trade deficit with China just in Advanced Technology Products &SHY; more than twice total U.S. exports to CAFTA.

Yet the Bush Administration¹s only policy seems to be empty rhetoric. It has no strategy to ensure that China ends its currency manipulation. It has no strategy to reduce China¹s 90% piracy rates. It has no strategy for ensuring China complies with all its WTO obligations. It has no strategy for responding to China¹s industrial policies in areas critical to the U.S. economy like high-tech goods, automobiles, software, and energy.

Except for an occasional rhetorical oar splashing around the water, U.S. trade policy toward China is totally adrift.

Misplaced Priorities: No Strategy for Opening Meaningful U.S. Markets.

The Administration likes to note that the U.S. exports more to the CAFTA countries than to Russia, India, and Indonesia combined, as if that is a great selling point for CAFTA.

But, that statistic is really an indictment of the Administration¹s trade policy. The economies of those three countries are more than 25 times the size of the CAFTA countries. Why do we export so little to those three countries?

If the U.S. exported as much to Russia, India, and Indonesia as it does to the CAFTA countries (relative to the size of their GDPs), the U.S. would gain about $360 billion in exports &SHY; 120 times the benefit touted for
CAFTA. Why are we focusing on CAFTA and not focusing on opening
these and other markets that would make a much bigger difference for the
U.S. economy?

The Bush Administration likes to negotiate new trade agreements, but it never gets around to enforcing the ones we already have. President Clinton brought an average of 11 cases in the WTO each year to open foreign markets. The Bush Administration brought 12 WTO cases total in four years.

Once again, this Administration has no policy for doing the things that really matter for the U.S. economy. But it has given us CAFTA and all its flaws.

CAFTA Is Flawed: Step Back from U.S. Commitment to Help Workers.

There are always winners and losers in trade agreements. The rich few in these countries will be the winners, while the poor majority will be the losers. The CAFTA countries already have some of the highest levels of income inequality in the world. The CAFTA agreement will exacerbate these problems rather than help them.

Democrats called for rules to help out the ³little guy² in the CAFTA countries &SHY; stronger labor provisions and significant investments &SHY; but the Bush Administration rejected them. The CAFTA countries have serious worker rights abuses. The U.S. Department of State, the International Labor Organization, and numerous independent human rights groups have all catalogued these abuses extensively. El Salvador=s independent government-appointed Human Rights Ombudsman put it well. As reported by the Washington Post last year, she Asaid both government and industry have >an explicit intent to destroy unions.=@ (Washington Post, 12/2/04).

CAFTA does not require that these countries labor laws meet basic internationally accepted standards. The CAFTA countries may weaken their labor laws at will. If one of the CAFTA countries allowed child labor, blacklisting, or intimidation of workers, it would all be OK under CAFTA.

Anyone who buys Bush Administration claims that it sincerely wants to try to improve worker rights in the region, I¹ve got some ocean front property in my home state to sell you. The Bush Administration has consistently sought major cuts in U.S. funds to the programs that improve worker rights overseas. This Administration simply does not care about the
issue.

CAFTA Is Flawed: No Help for U.S. Workers Hurt By Trade.

As I said, it is inevitable that trade has winners and losers. The Bush Administration has ignored those who are hurt by expanded trade here at home, however.

Democrats succeeded in getting an amendment added to CAFTA to provide training and assistance for more U.S. workers injured by trade. The Bush Administration stripped this provision out of the legislation.

Leading Latinos Opposed; Bishops Have Serious Concerns.

Because of CAFTA¹s flaws, leading groups of Latinos have announced their opposition or raised serious concerns about it &SHY; including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Central American bishops. These groups worry that CAFTA will hurt poor Latinos in Central America and here at home.

This Administration¹s trade policy &SHY; when it has one -- is the wrong policy for America. We should demand that the Administration re-negotiate CAFTA and come back with a better agreement that makes sense for America and the region. More importantly, we should demand that the Administration develop a comprehensive trade policy that addresses the critical issues, including the trade deficit, the emergence of China, and tough enforcement of U.S. rights under trade agreements, that reflect the priorities of the American people.

-30-

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Reporters and Editors

RE: Retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

DA: July 1, 2005

Sen. Chuck Grassley, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following comment after learning of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Grassley’s first Supreme Court nomination hearing was that of Justice O’Connor. He has been a part of nine hearings for nominations to the Supreme Court or for Chief Justice.

Here is Grassley’s statement.

“As a freshman Senator going through my first Supreme Court nomination, I said during her confirmation hearing that Justice O’Connor seemed like a warm, perceptive and articulate person. She has confirmed this judgment everyday since then. As the first woman confirmed to the Supreme Court she has served the Court with dignity and fairness.

“Now as we move forward, I expect that any nominee the President sends to the Senate will be treated with fairness and respect, including an up or down vote in the Senate. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I’ll be looking forward to hearing from a nominee who understands that the role of the courts is to interpret the law, not create the law.”

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

RANKING MEMBER, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

ON THE RETIREMENT OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

JULY 1, 2005

Twenty-four years ago, Sandra Day O’Connor became a pioneer when she was unanimously confirmed as the first female Justice to sit on the United States Supreme Court. I am sorry to learn today that she has decided it is time to retire. Until she was joined on the Court by Justice Ginsburg in1993, Justice O’Connor was the only woman serving on the Court, and she wore her historic mantle with honor and grace.

While I was pleased to be able to vote for her confirmation to the Court in 1981, I have been even more privileged to watch her become a vital — often a critical -- independent voice. Justice O’Connor began her career at a time when the legal profession was not friendly to women, and she withstood the sting of early barriers to shatter the glass ceiling. This alone would be worthy of the many accolades she is sure to receive as we look back on her tenure. But it is how she has accorded herself on the Court — how she has exemplified the best of what it means to be a Justice — that will serve as her hallmark.

Justice O’Connor’s distinguished tenure on the Nation’s highest court resists easy labels. Rather than apply the litmus tests of any particular group or a particular political philosophy, she has approached each case with an interest in an open mind. For that, she is role model not only to the many women who will follow her on the Supreme Court, but also to jurists at every level of the judiciary. For 24 years she has served a unique role as a pragmatic centrist, often the bridge and the critical deciding vote. Justice O’Connor is a sterling example of what can happen when a President nominates a Justice not from the right or the left wing of one of the political parties, but an independent judge capable of making up her own mind. While a life-long Republican appointed by President Reagan, Justice O’Connor has been an independent thinker. From the bench, she has not sought to impose her own views, but rather has acted as I believe all judges should act by consistently applying the law to the particular facts of each case, even when confronted with some of the most difficult and controversial debates to ever occur in this country on issues as important as the fundamental rights of Americans.

I imagine this transition is a difficult one for Justice O’Connor, and I wish her, her husband John, and the rest of her family all best wishes in the days ahead. This is a public occasion but it is also a very personal chapter for the O’Connor family.

The stakes are high for all Americans. Consideration of Supreme Court nominations is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate. I renew my call to the President to consult with Members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle as he makes his decision about a nominee. There is a rich history and tradition of consultation between the President and the Senate on Supreme Court nominees. I hope that the President will honor not only Justice O’Connor’s record of service, but also her judicial independence, by respecting that tradition of meaningful consultation and in finding a nominee who will unite and not further divide the Nation.

# # # # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Rodell Mollineau

July 1, 2005 202-224-2353

Statement by Senator Mark Pryor

On the Retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s leaves behind a remarkable legacy of legal scholarship and public service that spanned 52 years.

She helped shape major legal issues of our time, and her pioneering efforts as the Court’s first female justice will forever be admired. I believe Justice O’Connor’s most notable contribution to the Court has been her ability to uphold our nation’s laws without predisposition or agenda, which led to decisions that favor liberty and fairness.

This is an important moment in the history of our country. I stand ready to fulfill my constitutional duty and it is my hope that President Bush, in making a nomination to the Supreme Court, will follow the tradition of past Presidents who have sought meaningful consultation with the U.S. Senate.

I believe the White House working together with the Senate, as a co-equal branch of government, will be able to find a consensus nominee who will faithfully uphold the Constitution and represent the best of our justice system.

###

Rodell J. Mollineau

Communications Director

U.S. Senator Mark Pryor

202-224-2353 (office)

202-228-0908 (fax)

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 1, 2005

JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and former Texas Supreme Court justice, made the following statement regarding the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a native of El Paso, Texas:

“Under the steady hand of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, America has weathered some of the most heated legal controversies our nation has ever endured – and for that, the American people will forever be grateful.

“Throughout her service on the nation’s highest court, Justice O’Connor restored a measure of commonsense to our criminal justice system, a measure of respect for our nation’s allocation of power between the states and the federal government, and a measure of freedom in the public square to people of faith. And although I have not always agreed with her rulings, I have always felt a deep and abiding respect for her commitment to public service and reverence for the law.

“I’m confident that the President’s nominee to replace Justice O’Connor will be an able jurist and among our nation’s finest legal minds, but I am less confident of the treatment that nominee will receive from the President’s opponents. During the past four years, we have seen unprecedented obstruction, partisanship, and venomous personal attacks dominate the Senate’s judicial confirmation process. But the process ahead offers a fresh start, one that must be guided by an appreciation of the high office involved, and a personal respect for the individuals who stand as nominees.”

Justice O’Connor has played a leading role in some of the nation’s most heated legal disputes in recent years. She authored the Court’s 5-4 majority opinion upholding the three-strikes-and-you’re out law for repeat convicted criminals. She wrote the Court’s plurality opinion in Hamdi, affirming the President’s legal authority to detain enemy combatants in wartime and thus preserving a key tool in the ongoing global war on terrorism. She provided the critical fifth vote protecting the First Amendment freedom of association of the Boy Scouts.

Sandra Day O’Connor was born in El Paso, Texas, on March 26, 1930. She married law school classmate John Jay O’Connor III in 1952 and raised three sons, Scott, Brian, and Jay – all while managing to put together one of the most remarkable legal and political careers in American history. She received her undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University and graduated at the top of her law school class. She then served as Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California, and as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center in Frankfurt, Germany. She later served as Assistant Attorney General of Arizona and as a member of the Arizona State Senate. In 1974, she was elected Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and served there until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated her as an Associate Justice, replacing Justice Potter Stewart. She became the Court’s 102nd Justice and its first female member. Sandra Day O’Connor has written two books, Lazy B and Majesty of the Law.

Sen. Cornyn chairs the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and is the only former judge on the committee. He served previously as Texas Supreme Court Justice, Texas Attorney General, and Bexar County District Judge.

http://cornyn.senate.gov

For Immediate Release

Friday, July 01, 2005

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

Statement of Senator Harry Reid on the Retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has been an inspirational figure to all Americans. As the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, she blazed a trail that many will follow. As a Westerner, she brought to the Court a love of the land and an appreciation for individual rights. And as a former state legislator, she had a practical sense of how to balance the will of the majority with the rights of the minority in our society.

Above all, Justice O’Connor has been a voice of reason and moderation on the Court. It is vital that she be replaced by someone like her, someone who embodies the fundamental American values of freedom, equality and fairness.

The decisions handed down by the Supreme Court profoundly affect the daily lives of all Americans. The Court is the final guardian of our constitutional rights and liberties. That is why the process of filling a Supreme Court vacancy is so important.

The Constitution gives the President and the Senate shared responsibility to fill this vacancy, because the President may only act with the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate. At this critical moment, the President must recognize the Senate’s constitutional role. He should give life to the Advice and Consent Clause by engaging in meaningful consultation with Senators of both political parties.

Working with the Senate, the President should identify a highly qualified candidate whose views are within the broad constitutional mainstream and who will make all Americans proud. With this nomination the President should choose to unite the country, not divide it. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the Senate to fill this critical vacancy.

###

MEDIA ADVISORY

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

SENATORS WORK TOGETHER ON HEALTH CARE QUALITY, IT LEGISLATION

Committee leaders propose bi-partisan bills to modernize health care system

Event: News conference to announce two bi-partisan bills to be considered by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Committee on Finance

Participants: Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana

Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming

Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts

Date: Thursday, June 30, 2005

Time: 1:30 pm (ET)

Location: S-325, Senate Radio-TV Gallery

Description: On Thursday, these four senators will introduce two bills, the Medicare Value Purchasing Act (MVP) and the Health Information Technology and Quality Improvement Act (HITQI). The MVP Act falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance, where Grassley is the chairman and Baucus is the ranking member. The HITQI Act falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, where Enzi is the chairman and Kennedy is the ranking member.

The Health Information Technology Quality and Improvement Act would give health care providers the assistance they need to invest in lifesaving health information technology (IT). The two proposals work together to create quality payments under Medicare for physicians and practitioners, hospitals, health plans, skilled nursing facilities, home health, and end stage renal disease facilities, and establishing an information technology infrastructure that enhances health care quality.

The savings from better IT use are enormous. The federal government's estimate is that the nation would save $140 billion each year from proper IT use. These savings from health IT could cut the cost of a family's insurance policy by over $700. Despite the benefits of investment in health IT, utilization is low.

The MVP Act would implement recommendations from the Institute of Medicine and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to establish financial incentives that promote quality care and better value in the Medicare payment system.

Contacts: Jill Kozeny, Grassley, 202/224-1308

Wendy Carey, Baucus, 202/224-5315

Craig Orfield, Enzi, 202/224-6770

Melissa Wagoner, 202/224-2633

For Immediate Release: Contact: Elliott Bundy or Kristin Pugh

June 29, 2005 202/224-4513 or C236-1037;202/224-9301or C997-5358

MEDIA ADVISORY: SENATORS TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS REORGANIZATION OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

WASHINGTON,D.C.- Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Larry Craig (R-ID), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Conrad Burns (R-MT) will hold a press conference tomorrow at 11:15 a.m. in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery to discuss the introduction of S. 1296, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2005.

The bill proposes a new Twelfth Circuit comprised of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Arizona to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Currently the Ninth Circuit encompasses nine states and some 14 million square miles. It is the largest of all U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal and larger than the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits combined.

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has more cases than any other Circuit. Last year alone 14,272 cases were filed. The average time to get a final disposition of an appellate case in the Ninth Circuit is nearly five months longer than the national average. The 58 million residents of the Ninth Circuit are suffering from the size and ineffectiveness of the Circuit.

Senators Murkowski, Stevens, Craig, Crapo and Burns

Press Conference to Discuss Splitting the Ninth Circuit

Thursday, June 30, 2005

In the

Senate Radio/ TV Gallery

11:15 a.m.

###

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

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

REID REAFFIRMS COMMITMENT TO STOP PRIVATIZATION

Calls Proposals to Weaken Social Security Out of Place

“By now my Republican colleagues should realize that proposals to weaken Social Security are out of place in this debate. Yet once again, the Republican majority is pushing a risky privatization scheme that will weaken Social Security, cut benefits and increase the debt.

“I also would have hoped by now that my Republican colleagues would have realized that Democrats are not going to fall for their publicly announced bait and switch scam. We have not and we will not. Democrats are ready, willing and able to join together in a bipartisan conversation to strengthen Social Security and are eager for the president and the Republican leadership in Congress to put their risky privatization scheme aside so we can address the real concerns of the American people.”

###

TODAY’S LATEST REMINDER OF THE BAIT AND SWITCH

Republican Congressman and Vice Chairman of the House Republican Conference Jack Kingston (R-GA) Reiterated the Bait and Switch: “Though the Senate is far from agreement on personal accounts, Rep. Jack Kingston, Georgia Republican and vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, was glad Mr. Grassley seems to be making some progress in his chamber. ‘Anything they can get passed out of the Senate we should consider a major victory,” Mr. Kingston said, adding that if the Senate can pass any sort of Social Security bill – even without personal accounts – the House would ‘meet them in conference committee with personal accounts.’” [Washington Times, 6/29/05, Emphasis Added]

-- Included below is Sen. Leahy’s statement on the bill followed by a brief summary of the legislation’s key features and a section-by-section analysis. Senators Specter and Leahy are holding a news conference on the bill TODAY at 4 pm in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery.

For Immediate Release Contact: Specter: Blain Rethmeier, (202) 224-9020

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 Leahy: Tracy Schmaler, (202) 224-2154

SPECTER, LEAHY INTRODUCE PERSONAL DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY ACT OF 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Wednesday, June 29) - Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the panel’s ranking member, introduced Wednesday the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005, legislation that would help consumers better protect the privacy of their personal information in the face of recurrent data security breaches across the country.

Their bill draws from testimony earlier this year (April 13, 2005) at the Judiciary Committee’s hearing on electronic data security after serious data breaches at ChoicePoint and LexisNexis. Since then breaches at several other firms have also exposed millions of Americans to identity theft by leaking or losing their personal data, which included names, addresses, and sometimes Social Security numbers. In the most recent case, CardSystems, a company that services credit cards for MasterCard International, Visa and other brands, acknowledged that its databases had been compromised, potentially exposing information about more than 40 million cardholders.

“We are in a field of phenomenal electronic advances,” Senator Specter said. “We are now seeing breaches in the security of those advances, and it has become a matter of serious consequence for our individual privacy and law enforcement, which rely upon these electronic mechanisms to identify suspects and pursue legitimate law enforcement interests.”

“Our laws need to keep pace with technology,” said Leahy. “Insecure databases have become low-hanging fruit for hackers looking to steal identities and commit fraud during a time when we are seeing a troubling rise in organized rings that target personal data to sell in online, virtual bazaars.” Leahy also testified before the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee earlier this year on the issue.

Key features of the Specter-Leahy legislation include:

§ Increasing criminal penalties for identity theft involving electronic personal data by (1) increasing penalties for computer fraud when such fraud involves personal data, (2) adding fraud involving unauthorized access to personal information as a predicate offense for RICO and (3) making it a crime to intentionally or willfully conceal a security breach involving personal data;

§ Giving individuals access to, and the opportunity to correct, any personal information held by data brokers;

§ Requiring entities that maintain personal data to establish internal policies that protect such data and vet third-parties they hire to process that data;

§ Requiring entities that maintain personal data to give notice to individuals and law enforcement when they experience a breach involving sensitive personal data;

§ Limits the buying, selling or displaying of a social security number without consent from the individual whose number it is, prohibits companies from requiring individuals to use social security numbers as their account numbers and places limits on when companies can force individuals to turn over those numbers in order to obtain goods or services, and bars government agencies from posting public records that contain Social Security numbers on the Internet; and

§ Requiring the government to establish rules protecting privacy and security when it uses data broker information, to conduct audits of government contracts with data brokers and impose penalties on government contractors that fail to meet data privacy and security requirements.

# # # # #

(Leahy’s Statement on the Introduction of the Bill )

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy

On The Introduction Of

The Specter-Leahy Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005

June 29, 2005

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we introduce the Specter-Leahy Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005. Reforms are urgently needed to protect Americans’ privacy and to secure their personal data. There have been steady waves of security breaches over the past six months, with the latest involving a database containing 40 million credit card numbers at a company that most Americans never knew existed.

These security breaches are a window on a broader, more challenging trend. Advanced technologies have improved our lives and can help make us safer. Private data about Americans has become a hot commodity. This personal and financial information about each of us suddenly is a treasure trove, valuable and vulnerable, but our privacy and security laws have not kept pace. The reality is that in the digital era, a robust market has developed for collecting and selling personal information. Today, all types of corporate and governmental entities routinely traffic in billions of digitized personal records about Americans.

The data broker market has exploded in size to meet this demand. Insecure databases are now low-hanging fruit for hackers looking to steal identities and commit fraud. We are seeing a rise in organized rings that target personal data to sell in online, virtual bazaars.

In this information-saturated age, the use of personal data has significant consequences for every American. People have lost jobs, mortgages and control over their credit and identities because personal information has been mishandled or listed incorrectly. This trend raises new threats to our personal security as well as to our privacy. In one disturbing case, a stalker purchased the Social Security number of a woman with whom he was obsessed, used that information to track her down. He killed her, and then shot himself.

Americans everywhere are wondering, “Why do all these companies have my personal information? What are they doing with it? Why aren’t they protecting it better?” And they are right to wonder. It is time for Congress to catch up with the data market and to show the American people that we are aware of these threats and will protect the privacy and security of their personal information.

Chairman Specter and I have worked closely together over many months to craft comprehensive legislation to fix key vulnerabilities in our information economy. We thought through these issues carefully and took the time needed to develop well-balanced, focused legislation that provides strong protections where necessary. We also provide tough penalties and consequences for failing to protect Americans’ most personal information. Reforms like these are long overdue. This issue and our legislation deserve to become a key part of this year’s domestic agenda so that we can achieve some positive changes in areas that affect the everyday lives of Americans.

First, our bill requires data brokers to let people know what information they have about them, and to allow people to correct inaccurate information. These principles have precedent from the credit report context, and we have adapted them in a way that makes sense for the data brokering industry. It’s a simple matter of fairness.

Second, we would require companies that have databases with personal information on Americans to establish and implement data privacy and security programs. Any company that wants to be trusted by the public in this day and age must vigilantly protect databases housing Americans’ private data. They also have a responsibility in the next link in the security chain, to make sure that contractors hired to process data are on the up-and-up and secure. This is critical as Americans’ personal information is increasingly processed overseas.

Third, our bill requires notice when sensitive personal information has been compromised. The American people have a right to know when they are at risk because of corporate failures to protect their data, or when a criminal has infiltrated data systems. The notice rules in our bill were crafted carefully to ensure that the trigger for notice is tied to risk and to recognize important fraud prevention techniques that already exist. But our priority was making sure that victims have that critical information as a roadmap providing the assistance necessary to protect themselves, their families and their financial well-being.

Fourth, our bill provides tough new protections for Social Security numbers, which are the keys to unlocking so much of our financial and personal lives. The use of Social Security numbers has expanded well beyond the intended purposes. Some uses provide important benefits, but others have made Americans vulnerable. Social Security numbers are for sale online for small fees. Earlier this year, it was reported that a payroll and benefits company put the Social Security numbers of 1,000 workers on postcards – on postcards - brazenly visible for anyone to see. Worse still, those postcards described in detail how those Social Security numbers could be used to access employee benefits online. This is unacceptable, and this bill would make that kind of disregard and sloppiness illegal.

Finally, our bill addresses the government’s use of personal data. We are living in a world where the government is increasingly looking to the private sector to get personal data that it could not legally collect on its own without oversight and appropriate protections. So ingrained has the data broker-government partnership become that a ChoicePoint executive stated, “We do act as an intelligence agency, gathering data, applying analytics.” While these relationships can help protect us, there must be oversight and appropriate protections.

The recent decision to award Choicepoint an IRS contract highlights this tension. It is especially galling right now to be rewarding firms that have been so careless with the public’s confidential information. The dust has not yet settled and the investigations are incomplete on ChoicePoint’s lax security practices. We should at least take a pause before rewarding such missteps with even more government contracts. This bill would place privacy and security front and center in evaluating whether data brokers can be trusted with government contracts that involve sensitive information about the American people. It would require contract reviews that include these considerations, audits to ensure good practice, and contract penalties for failure to protect data privacy and security.

The Specter-Leahy legislation meets other key goals. It provides tough monetary and criminal penalties for compromising personal data or failing to provide necessary protections. This creates an incentive for companies to protect personal information, especially when there is no commercial relationship between individuals and companies using their data.

Our legislation also carefully balances the need for federal uniformity and state leadership. States are often on the forefront of protecting privacy and spurring change. The California security breach law has been an important lesson. My state of Vermont was among the first – if not the first – to require individual consent before sharing financial information with third parties, and to require a person or business to obtain consent from individuals before reviewing their credit reports. The role of states is important, and our bill identifies areas that require uniformity while leaving the states free to act elsewhere as they see fit. We also would authorize an additional $100 million over 4 years to help state law enforcement fight misuse of personal information.

This is a solid bill - a comprehensive bill &SHY;- that not only deals with providing Americans notice when they have already been hurt, but also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability in dealing with their most personal and private information.

I commend Senator Specter for his leadership on this emerging problem. A number of us have been working on these issues -- Senator Feinstein, Senator Nelson, Senator Cantwell and Senator Schumer, among others. I appreciate and recognize their hard work and look forward to making progress together. I am pleased to work closely with Senator Specter on this and believe that we have a bill that significantly advances the ball in protecting Americans.

# # # # #

(Summary of the Key Features of the Bill)

Summary of the

Specter-Leahy Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005

June 29, 2005

Provides Americans notice when they have been harmed, and also addresses the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability in dealing with personal data.

Requires data brokers to let individuals know what information they have about them, and where appropriate, allow individuals to correct inaccurate information.

Requires companies that have databases with personal information on more than 10,000 Americans to establish and implement data privacy and security programs, and vet third-party contractors hired to process data.

Requires notice to law enforcement, consumers and credit reporting agencies when digitized sensitive personal information has been compromised. The trigger for notice is tied to risk of harm, and there are exemptions for notice where the risk is de minimis or where fraud prevention techniques prevent harm to consumers. Also requires that companies provide victim protection assistance, specifically free access to credit reports and credit monitoring services, to individuals notified that their personal data has been breached.

Prohibits the display and sale of Social Security numbers (SSNs) without consent, with exceptions for law enforcement and other authorized purposes, and prohibits companies from requiring individuals to use their SSNs as account numbers. Also, prohibits companies from requiring individuals to turn over SSNs as a prerequisite for receiving goods and services, with exceptions for background checks, consumer reports and law enforcement.

Addresses the government’s use of personal data by requiring: (1) the General Services Administration to evaluate the privacy and security practices of potential government contractors handling personal data, and include penalties in government contracts for failure to protect data privacy and security; (2) Federal departments and agencies to audit the information security practices of commercial data brokers hired for projects involving personal data; (3) Federal departments and agencies to conduct privacy impact assessments on their use of commercial databases with personal data, to adopt regulations to ensure the security and privacy of data obtained through commercial data brokers and to include protections and penalties in contracts with data brokers to protect data privacy and security; and (4) federal departments and agencies to seek Congressional approval before establishing programs that rely on commercial data brokers to screen individuals and to establish security and privacy measures for such uses.

Provides tough monetary penalties for failing to provide privacy and security protections and notices of security breaches, and toughens criminal penalties for those who infiltrate systems to compromise personal data or attempt to cover-up security breaches.

Balances the need for federal uniformity and state leadership by identifying areas that require uniformity while leaving the states free to act elsewhere as they see fit.

Authorizes an additional $100 million over 4 years to help state law enforcement fight misuse of personal information.

# # # # #

(Section by Section of the Bill)

Section-By-Section Summary

Of The

Personal Data Privacy And Security Act of 2005

June 29, 2005

TITLE I – ENHANCING PUNISHMENT FOR IDENTITY THEFT

AND OTHER VIOLATIONS OF DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY

Section 101 – Fraud and Related Criminal Activity in Connection with Unauthorized Access to Personally Identifiable Information

Section 101 extends the criminal computer fraud statute to cover unauthorized access of information contained in the databases or systems of a data broker, or in other personal electronic records. The statute already covers unauthorized access of information contained in a financial record of a financial institution or card issuer in a consumer reporting agency file on a consumer.

Section 102 - Organized Criminal Activity in Connection with Unauthorized Access to Personally Identifiable Information

Section 102 amends the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute to address the emergence of sophisticated criminal organizations trafficking in large amounts of personally identifiable information. Specifically, this section amends the definition of racketeering activity in 18 U.S.C. § 1961 to include fraud and related activity in connection with unauthorized access to personally identifiable information. The definition currently includes similar provisions, such as fraud and related activities in connection with identification documents and financial institution fraud.

Section 103 – Concealment of Security Breaches Involving Personally Identifiable Information.

Section 103 makes it a crime for a person who knows of a security breach requiring notice to individuals under Title IV of this Act to intentionally and willfully conceal the fact of, or information related to, that security breach. Punishment is either a fine under Title 18, or imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both.

Section 104 – Aggravated Fraud in Connection with Computers

Section 104 creates a new crime of aggravated fraud in connection with computers. Any person who, during and in relation to a felony violation of the computer fraud law, knowingly obtains, accesses or transmits a means of identification of another person without lawful authority, may be imprisoned for up to 2 years in addition to the punishment provided for such felony.

Section 105 – Review and Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines Related to Fraudulent Access to or Misuse of Digitized or Electronic Personally Identifiable Information

Section 105 directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review, and if necessary, amend the federal sentencing guidelines (including its policy statements) to ensure that they appropriately reflect the serious nature of, and deter crimes related to, the use of fraud to access or misuse digitized personally identifiable information.

TITLE II – ASSISTANCE FOR STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Section 201 – Grants for State and Local Enforcement

Section 201 establishes a program within the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice to award funds to state and local law enforcement in combating activities related to fraudulent, unauthorized or other criminal use of personally identifiable information.

Section 202 – Authorization of Appropriations

Section 202 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $25 million for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009 for this program.

TITLE III - DATA BROKERS

Title III addresses the data brokering industry that has come of age prompted by technology developments and changes in marketplace incentives. Data brokers collect and sell billions of private and public records containing individuals’ personal information. Many of these companies also provide products and services, including identity verification, background screening, risk assessments, individual digital dossiers, and tools for analyzing data.

Although some of the products and services provided by data brokers are currently subject to privacy and security protections aimed at credit reporting agencies and the financial industry under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB), many are not subject to such protections. In addition, there has been insufficient oversight of the industry’s practices, including the accuracy and handling of sensitive data. These concerns have been highlighted by the security breaches at ChoicePoint, LexisNexis, Acxiom and many others, as well as reports on harm caused by inaccurate data records.

Title III draws from the principles in FCRA to close these loopholes, provide additional oversight, and ensure privacy and security protections for all data broker products and services involving personally identifiable information.

For the purposes of this Act, the term data broker is defined as “a business entity which for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages, in whole or in part, in the practice of collecting, transmitting, or otherwise providing personally identifiable information on a nationwide basis on more than 5,000 individuals who are not the customers or employees of the business entity or affiliate.”

Section 301 – Transparency and Accuracy of Data Collection

Section 301 applies disclosure and accuracy requirements to data brokers that engage in interstate commerce and offer any product or service to third parties that allows access, use, compilation, distribution, processing, analyzing or evaluating of personally identifiable information. Section 301 requirements are not applicable to products and services already subject to similar disclosure and accuracy provisions under FCRA and GLB, and implementing regulations.

Access to Personal Electronic Records. Section 301(b)(1) requires data brokers to disclose to individuals upon their request and for a reasonable fee the individual’s personal electronic records that the data broker maintains and provides to third parties.

Process for Correcting Inaccurate Personal Electronic Records. Sections 301(b)(2) and 301(c) require data brokers to establish and disclose a fair process for individuals to dispute, flag or correct any inaccuracies in their personal electronic records maintained by the data broker. In addition, Section 301(d) sets minimum requirements for addressing inaccurate information obtained from both public and non-public record sources of information.

Public record and non-public record information are treated differently on the theory that data brokers have less leeway in addressing and resolving claims of inaccuracy for information gathered from public record sources. For public record information, Section 301(d)(1) requires data brokers to verify that they have accurately and completely recorded the information from the public record source, and to correct information that does not accurately and completely reflect public record information. If the data broker determines that it has accurately recorded information from the public record source, the data brokers may simply identify and direct individuals to the public record source to address any further claims of inaccuracies.

Section 301(d)(2) outlines procedures for correcting non-public record information. Modeled after Section 611of FCRA, this provision requires data brokers to: (1) investigate disputed non-public record information within 30 days; (2) identify the source of the disputed information; (3) notify individuals about dispute procedures; (4) allow individuals to include a statement of dispute in the electronic records containing the disputed personal information for up to 90 days; (5) notify individuals of the results of the accuracy investigation; and (6) delete or correct inaccurate information, and provide notification of such changes to users or customers of data broker services in the previous 90 days. Section 301(d) also allows data brokers to skip certain procedures in instances where disputes can be resolved within 3 days.

Section 302 – Enforcement

A data broker in violation of Section 301 is subject to penalties of $1,000 per violation per day with a maximum of $15,000 per day. A data broker that intentionally or willfully violates the provisions of Section 301 is subject to additional penalties of $1,000 per violation per day, with a maximum of an additional $15,000 per day.

The U.S. Attorney General may bring a civil action in U.S. district court for violations of Section 301. This section also authorizes the attorney general of a State to bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of that State, upon advance notice to the U.S. Attorney General where practicable. The U.S. Attorney General has the right to stay state actions pending disposition of federal actions, intervene or file petitions for appeal.

Section 303 - Relation to State Laws

Modeled after the preemption provision in the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACT Act), Section 303 preempts state laws only to the extent they are: (1) inconsistent with Title III; or (2) address areas specifically subject to preemption by Section 303. Specifically, Section 303 preempts state laws on subject matters regulated by Section 301.

Section 304 - Effective Date

Title III takes effect 180 days after the date of enactment.

TITLE IV– PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF

PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION

Subtitle A – Data Privacy and Security Program

Section 401 – Purpose and Applicability of Data Privacy and Security Program

Section 401 applies data privacy and security requirements to businesses entities engaging in interstate commerce that involves collecting, accessing, transmitting, using, storing or disposing of personally identifiable information in electronic or digital form on 10,000 or more U.S. persons. Section 401 exempts from the data privacy and security requirements of Section 502: (1) financial institutions subject to similar data privacy and security requirements under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB) and implementing regulations; and (2) “covered entities” subject to data security requirements pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA) and implementing regulations.

Section 402 – Requirements for a Data Privacy and Security Program

Section 402 requires covered business entities to create a data privacy and security program. The requirements in this section are partly modeled after those established by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for financial institutions in its Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 12 C.F.R. § 30.6 Appendix B (2005).

A data privacy and security program must be designed to ensure security and confidentiality of personal electronic records, protect against vulnerabilities to the security and integrity of personal electronic records, and protect against unauthorized access and use of personally identifiable information contained in electronic records. Section 402 requires a covered business entity to: (1) regularly assess, manage and control risks to data privacy and security consistent with the size, complexity and scope of its business; (2) publish or otherwise make available the terms of its program to the extent that such terms do not reveal information that comprise data security or privacy; (3) provide employee training to implement its data privacy and security program; (4) conduct tests to identify system vulnerabilities; (5) ensure that if service providers not also subject to these laws are retained, those service providers are capable of maintaining appropriate safeguards for personally identifiable information and are subject to contract requirements consistent with this Act; and (6) periodically assess its data privacy and security program to ensure that the program addresses current threats.

Finally, business entities subject subtitle A must implement a data privacy and security program no later than 1 year after the date of enactment.

Section 403 – Enforcement

Business entities that violate the data privacy and security program requirements in Sections 401 to 402 are subject to civil penalties of not more than $5,000 per violation per day, with a maximum of $35,000 per day, while such violations persist. In addition, business entities that intentionally or willfully violate Sections 401 to 402 are subject to additional penalties of $5,000 per violation per day, with a maximum of $35,000 per day, while such violations persist.

The U.S. Attorney General may bring a civil action in U.S. district court for violations of Sections 401 and 402. This section also authorizes the attorney general of a State to bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of that State, upon advance notice to the U.S. Attorney General where practicable. The U.S. Attorney General has the right to stay state actions pending disposition of federal actions, intervene or file petitions for appeal.

Section 404 - Relation to State Laws

Modeled after the preemption provision in the FACT Act, Section 404 preempts state laws only to the extent they are: (1) inconsistent with Title IV; or (2) address areas specifically subject to preemption by Section 404. Specifically, Section 404 preempts state laws on subject matters regulated by Section 401(c), relating to entities exempted from compliance with the data privacy and security program requirements.

Subtitle B – Security Breach Notification

Section 421 – Right to Notice of Security Breach

Section 421 applies the security breach notification requirements in Sections 421 to 425 to business entities and agencies that engage in interstate commerce that involves collecting, accessing, using, transmitting, storing, or disposing of sensitive personally identifiable information. The term “sensitive personally identifiable information” is defined as

“any name or number used in conjunction with any other information to identify a specific individual, including any (A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number; (B) unique biometric data, such as (i) a fingerprint; (ii) a voice print; (iii) a retina or iris image; or (iv) any other unique physical representation; (C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code or (D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029(e) of title 18, United States Code).”

Unless specifically exempted or delayed, Section 421 requires a business entity or agency that engages in interstate commerce that involves collecting, accessing, using, transmitting, storing, or disposing of personally identifiable information to disclose security breaches of its systems or databases in its possession or direct control when such security breaches impact sensitive personally identifiable information.

Specifically, the business entity or agency must give notice to residents of the United States whose sensitive personally identifiable information was impacted by the breach, consistent with the notice content requirements, law enforcement delay, risk assessment and fraud prevention exemption provisions in Sections 422 and 423.

The business entity or agency must also give notice to the United States Secret Service and state attorneys general if the security breach: (1) impacts more than 10,000 individuals nationwide; (2) impacts a database, networked or integrated databases, or other data systems associated with more than 1,000,000 individuals nationwide; (3) impacts databases owned or used by the Federal Government; or (4) involves sensitive personally identifiable information of employees or contractors of the Federal Government. The Secret Service is required to give notice to the FBI to the extent the security breach involves espionage, foreign counterintelligence, or information protected against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations or Restricted Data under 42 U.S.C. § 2014(y), and give notice to the United States Postal Inspection service to the extent the security breach may involve mail fraud.

When a security breach requires notice to more than 1,000 individuals, a business entity or agency must also give notice to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) in anticipation of increased calls to CRAs from impacted consumers.

Section 422 – Notice Procedures

Notice must be given expeditiously and without unreasonable delay after discovery of the breach, but in no case shall notice to federal law enforcement and state attorneys general be delivered more than 14 days after discovering the events requiring notice. Notice to individuals should be written to an individual’s home address, but if the home address is unavailable, by telephone call to the last known home address. In addition to a written notification, if a security breach requires notice to more than 1,000 individuals, the business entity shall also post a notice of the breach on its Internet site, if the business entity maintains a site. If a security breach requires notice to more than 5,000 individuals in a State or jurisdiction, notice must also be given to major media outlets servicing that State or jurisdiction.

Subtitle B allows delay in notice to individuals and consumer reporting agencies if Federal law enforcement or the attorney general of a State determines that such notice would impede a criminal investigation. However, notice cannot be delayed for law enforcement purposes beyond 30 days, unless Federal law enforcement provides written notification that further delay is necessary.

Section 423 – Content of Notice

Section 423 specifies that notice under Section 421 shall detail the nature of the sensitive personally identifiable information impacted by the security breach. Notice shall also include the availability of victim protection assistance pursuant to Section 425; guidance on how to request a fraud alert and the implications of such action; the availability of a summary of rights for identity theft victims from consumer reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; if applicable, notice that consumer reporting agencies have been notified of the security breach; and, if applicable, notice that the State where an individual resides has a statute that provides the individual the right to place a security freeze on their credit report. Section 423 prohibits notices from including marketing information, sales offers or any solicitation regarding the collection of additional personally identifiable information.

Section 424 – Risk Assessment and Fraud Prevention Notice Exemptions

Section 424 establishes two exemptions to the notice requirements under Section 421(a)(2)-(3). First, Section 424 provides a “risk assessment exemption.” Under this exemption, a business entity need not provide notice if a risk assessment conducted in consultation with Federal law enforcement and the attorney general of each State affected by the breach determines that the risk to individuals is de minimis.

Second, Section 424 provides a “fraud prevention exemption.” Under this exemption, a business entity need not provide notice if: (1) the nature of the sensitive personally identifiable information subject to the security breach cannot be used to facilitate transactions, or to facilitate identity theft to further transactions, with another business entity; (2) the business entity uses a security program reasonably designed to block the use of sensitive personally identifiable information to initiate unauthorized transactions; and (3) the business entity has a policy in place to provide notice and provides such notice if a security breach results in fraud or unauthorized transactions.

Section 425 – Victim Protection Assistance

Section 425 requires any business entity or agency obligated to provide notice to U.S. residents under Section 421 to offer those residents free monthly access to a credit report and credit monitoring services for a period of one year from the date of the notice.

Section 426 – Enforcement

Business entities that violate Sections 421 to 425 are subject to civil penalties of not more than $5,000 per violation per day, with a maximum of $55,000 per day, while such violations persist. In addition, business entities that intentionally or willfully violate Sections 421 to 425 are subject to additional penalties of $5,000 per violation per day, with a maximum of $55,000 per day, while such violations persist.

The U.S. Attorney General may bring a civil action in U.S. district court for violations of Subtitle B. This section also authorizes the attorney general of a State to bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of that State, upon advance notice to the U.S. Attorney General where practicable. The U.S. Attorney General has the right to stay state actions pending disposition of federal actions, intervene or file petitions for appeal.

Section 427 - Relation to State Laws

Modeled after the preemption provision in the FACT Act, Section 427 preempts state laws only to the extent they are: (1) inconsistent with Title IV; or (2) address areas specifically subject to preemption by Section 427. Specifically, Section 427 preempts state laws on subject matters regulated by: Section 3(9), relating to the definition of “security breach;” Section 421(a)(1)(A), (2), and (3), and 421(b), relating to the right to notice of security breach; Section 422, relating to notice procedures; and Section 424, relating to risk assessment and fraud prevention notice exemptions.

Section 428 – Study on Securing Personally Identifiable Information in the Digital Era

Section 428 requires the Department of Justice within 120 days of enactment to contract with the National Research Council of the National Academies to conduct a study on securing personally identifiable information in the digital era, and authorizes $850,000 for this purpose. A report on the study is due to Congress within 18 months of the contract.

Section 429 – Authorization of Appropriations.

Section 429 authorizes funds for the U.S. Secret Service as may be necessary to carry out investigations and risk assessments of security breaches under the requirements of Subtitle B.

Sections 430 – Effective Date

Subtitle B takes effect 90 days after the date of enactment.

TITLE V – PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

Section 501 – Social Security Number Protection

Section 501(a)-(b) prohibits the display, sale or purchase of Social Security numbers (SSNs) to third parties without an individual’s informed consent, unless expressly exempted. An individual must be informed of the general purpose for the use of the SSN, to whom the SSN will be made available, and the scope of transactions permitted by the consent. Section 501(c) extends this prohibition to public records of Federal agencies that contain SSNs extracted from other public records for the purpose of displaying or selling such numbers to the general public.

Section 501(d) exempts the following from this prohibition: (1) uses authorized, required or excepted under Federal law; (2) public health; (3) national security; (4) law enforcement; (5) research (subject to conditions); (6) government programs; (7) incidental to, or in the course of, the sale, lease, franchise or merger of a business; and (8) truncated displays of only the last four digits of the SSN.

Section 502 - Limits on Personal Disclosure of Social Security Numbers for Commercial Transactions and Accounts

Account Numbers. Section 502(a) prohibits a business entity from requiring individuals to use their SSN as an account number or identifier when purchasing commercial goods or services. In addition, a business entity may not deny individuals goods or service for refusing to use their SSN as an account number or identifier. Account numbers and identifiers established prior to enactment are exempted.

Social Security Number Prerequisites for Goods and Services. Section 502(a) also prohibits commercial entities from requiring individuals to provide SSNs when purchasing commercial goods or services, or from denying individuals goods or services for refusing to provide SSNs. Exempted from this prohibition are: (1) consumer reports; (2) background checks by landlords, lessors, employers, voluntary service agencies, and other entities as determined by the U.S. Attorney General; (3) law enforcement; (4) Federal, State or local law requirement. Violations of Section 502(a) are subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Social Security Act.

Section 503 - Public Records

Unless specifically exempted, Section 503(a) extends to public records posted on the Internet or provided in an electronic form the Section 501(a) prohibition against the display, sale or purchase of SSNs to third parties without an individual’s informed consent. Section 503(b) exempts from this prohibition: (1) public records containing only the last 4 digits of an individual’s SSN; and (2) records first posted on the Internet or provided in electronic medium prior to enactment. In addition, 503(b) also clarifies that this prohibition should not be construed to limit law enforcement’s ability to access the full SSN of an individual.

Section 504 - Treatment of Social Security Numbers on Government Checks and Prohibition of Inmate Access

Section 504(a) prohibits the use of Social Security numbers on federal, state and local government checks issued for payment after three years following enactment. In addition, Section 504(b) prohibits Federal, State or local agencies from employing or using prisoners in any capacity that would allow them access to SSNs of other individuals, and takes effect one year after enactment.

Section 505 - Study and Report

Section 505 requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study and report to Congress on uses of Social Security numbers permitted, required or authorized under federal law, and the use of Social Security numbers in federal, state and local public records. The report is due one year after enactment and should include: (1) an assessment of uses; (2) the impact on privacy and security; (3) recommendations on whether those uses should continue; (4) assessment of State compliance with current Social Security number protections; (5) advantages and disadvantages of social security numbers in public records; (6) the benefits and costs of requiring state and local governments to truncate, redact or remove SSNs; (7) assessment of federal truncation requirements; and (8) recommendations for the treatment of Social Security numbers in public records posted on the Internet or in electronic form prior to enactment. The report is due one year after enactment.

Section 506 - Enforcement

Any person in violation of sections 501 or 502 is subject to penalties of $5,000 per violation per day with a maximum of $35,000 per day. In addition, a person intentionally or willfully violates the provisions of sections 501 or 502 is subject to additional penalties of $5,000 per violation per day, with a maximum of an additional $35,000 per day.

The U.S. Attorney General may bring a civil action in U.S. district court for violations of Title V. This section also authorizes the attorney general of a State to bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of that State, upon advance notice to the U.S. Attorney General where practicable. The U.S. Attorney General has the right to stay state actions pending disposition of federal actions, intervene or file petitions for appeal.

Section 507 – Relation to State Laws

Modeled after the preemption provision in the FACT Act, Section 507 preempts state laws only to the extent they are: (1) inconsistent with Title V; or (2) address areas specifically subject to preemption by Section 507. Specifically, Section 507 preempts state laws on subject matters regulated by Section 501(b), relating to prerequisites for consent for the display, sale, or purchase of SSNs; Section 501(c), relating to harvesting Social Security numbers; and Section 504, relating to treatment of Social Security numbers on government checks and prohibition of inmate access.

TITLE VI – GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO AND USE OF COMMERCIAL DATA

Section 601 – General Services Administration Review of Government Contracts

Section 601 requires the General Services Administration (GSA), when issuing contracts, to review and consider government contractors’ programs for securing the privacy and security of personally identifiable information, contractors’ compliance with such programs, and any security breaches of contractors’ systems and responses to those breaches.

In addition, GSA is required to include penalties in contracts involving personally identifiable information for: (1) failures to comply with the provisions of Title IV of this Act; (2) knowingly delivering inaccurate information; and (3) delivering information that the contractor has been notified is inaccurate and is in fact inaccurate. This section also directs GSA to require contractors to provide updates to their federal department and agency customers of any changes or corrections to personally identifiable information provided under contract.

Section 602 – Requirement to Audit Information Security Practices of Contractors and Third Party Business Entities

Section 602 updates the E-Government Act of 2002 to require that agencies include in their information security programs procedures for evaluating and auditing the information security practices of contractors or third-party business entities that support agency systems or operations involving personally identifiable information. In addition, agencies must ensure remedial action to address significant deficiencies in the information security practices of such contractors and third party business entities.

Section 603 - Privacy Impact assessment of Government Use of Commercial Information Services Containing Personally Identifiable Information

Section 603 updates the E-Government Act of 2002 to require Federal departments and agencies purchasing or subscribing to personally identifiable information from a commercial entity to conduct privacy impact assessments on the use of those services. News reporting and telephone directory services are exempt from this requirement.

In addition, Section 603(b) requires that the privacy impact assessments include descriptions of the database, the name of the provider and the contract amount. Departments and agencies must adopt standards, including: for personnel access, analysis or use; limitations to ensure only legitimate government use; for retention and redisclosure of information; to ensure accuracy, relevance, completeness and timeliness; to promote auditing and security measures to protect against unauthorized use; to ensure redress procedures for adverse consequences; and to establish enforcement mechanisms.

Departments and agencies must include in contracts and agreements with commercial data services: (1) penalties if the entity delivers personally identifiable information that it knows to be inaccurate, or has been informed is inaccurate and is in fact inaccurate; and (2) a requirement that the data providers inform Federal departments or agencies of any changes or corrections to personally identifiable information. If the provisions in Section 603(b) are not implemented within 60 days of enactment, no Department or agency may procure or access any commercially available database consisting primarily of personally identifiable information (other than news reporting or telephone directories).

Section 603(c) requires protections where commercial data services are used to screen individuals. These protections are modeled after similar provisions applied to the use of commercial data services for airline passenger screening in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Specifically, under Section 603(c) no Department or agency may use commercial databases to implement an individual screening program unless the program is congressionally authorized, and the program includes provisions to: ensure redress procedures for individuals suffering adverse consequences; ensure that use of commercial databases for screening will not produce a large number of false positives or unjustified adverse consequences; ensure the efficacy and accuracy of search tools; establish oversight policies; ensure the use of operational safeguards to reduce abuse; and ensure no specific privacy concerns with the technological architecture of screening systems.

Section 603(d) directs the Government Accountability Office to study, audit and report to Congress on Federal agency use of commercial databases, including the impact of that use on privacy and security, sufficiency of privacy and security protections, and the extent to which commercial data providers are penalized for privacy and security failures.

Section 604 – Implementation of Chief Privacy Officer Requirements

Section 604 facilitates the efficient and effective implementation of Section 522 of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act of 2005, which requires each agency to create a Chief Privacy Officer. Specifically, Section 604 directs the Department of Justice to designate a department-wide Chief Privacy Officer, whose primary role is to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of Chief Privacy Officer. The DOJ Chief Privacy Officer will report directly to the Deputy Attorney General.

Section 604 also stipulates responsibilities for the DOJ Chief Privacy Officer that are tailored to the mission of the Department and the requirements of this Act. Specifically, this section directs the Chief Privacy Officer to: (1) oversee DOJ’s implementation of the privacy impact assessment requirement under Section 603; (2) promote the use of law enforcement technologies that sustain, rather than erode, privacy protections and ensure technologies relating to the use, collection and disclosure of personally identifiable information preserve privacy and security; and (3) coordinate implementation with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, established in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

# # # # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 29, 2005

CONTACT: Melissa Schwartz
202-228-1122
http://mikulski.senate.gov

MIKULSKI SPONSORS AMENDMENT TO FUND ESSENTIAL VETERAN CARE

“We cannot wait any longer for President Bush and Senate Republicans to explain how this deficit will be addressed.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) today added her support to an amendment to the pending Interior Appropriations bill which would add nearly $1.5 billion to support veteran care at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The amendment was filed in response to the recent disclosure that the VA current budget faces a significant shortfall, leaving soldiers returning from Iraq without the facilities, programs and treatment they may need.

“We must ensure that our returning soldiers are cared for when they return from Iraq. We cannot wait any longer for President Bush and Senate Republicans to explain how this deficit will be addressed,” said Senator Mikulski. “American troops deserve our gratitude, not just with words, but with deeds.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) annual mid-year budget review recently confirmed that soldiers returning from Iraq are beginning to access the VA health care system in record numbers, placing increased demands on an already overburdened agency.

Senator Mikulski joined Democratic Senate leaders earlier this week in sending a letter to President Bush, urging him to address the budget shortfall in his Tuesday evening address to the nation. In their letter to the President, Senator Mikulski and her Democratic colleagues write:

“War is costly. This is a lesson we all know personally. As Senators we have dealt with legislation authorizing the use of military force, we have worked on spending bills to support our troops, and we have talked to the families of those who have lost loved ones. We also know that failing to provide for the men and women who have sacrificed for our freedom is wrong.”

The VA Amendment (1052) is scheduled to be voted on by the Senate this afternoon.

# # #

Melissa Schwartz
Press Secretary
Office of Senator Barbara Mikulski
phone 202-228-1122
fax 202-224-3892
www.mikulski.senate.gov

For Release: Contact: Angela de Rocha
June 29, 2005 (202) 224-5944
Stephen Myers
(202) 224-6207

SENATOR ALLARD ASKS AIR FORCE SECRETARY
FOR CLEAR RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION GUIDELINES
AT ACADEMY

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colorado), a member of the Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, sent a letter on Monday to the Acting Secretary of the Air Force, Michael Dominguez, requesting that the Air Force clarify the line between permissible and impermissible religious expression at the Air Force Academy.

“I was pleased that the recent religious climate survey at the Air Force Academy found no overt religious discrimination, and I have also been pleased by the steps that Superintendent Rosa has taken to address the issue proactively,” Senator Allard said. “However, there seems to be a lack of awareness at the academy about what constitutes appropriate religious expression.”

“Now that the academic year has ended, there is a window of opportunity for the Air Force to establish clear religious guidelines before classes resume in August,” Senator Allard said. “Implementing clear religious expression guidelines for the faculty, staff and cadets at the Air Force Academy will be the key to making sure that the academy is a welcoming place for people of all religions.”

The U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors is scheduled to meet on July 15, 2005. The recent religious climate survey, as well as the steps that the Air Force is taking on the issue, will be among the topics of discussion at the meeting.

“My hope is that the Air Force will have some draft guidelines ready for review at the upcoming Board of Visitors Meeting,” added Senator Allard.

###

***********************************************
Stephen Myers
Deputy Press Secretary
Office of Senator Wayne Allard
521 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-6207

Results of Executive Session

June 29, 2005

The Committee on Finance favorably reported S. 1307, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act by voice vote. (Note: Senator Thomas voted no.)

The Committee on Finance favorably reported S. J. Res. 18, a joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 by unanimous voice vote.

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Grassley Works to Make Sure Federal Dollars Are Tapped for Iowans

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley has made a personal appeal to the U.S. Secretary of Labor to award funds from a National Emergency Grant program to Iowa for job losses that may result from the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations.

The special consideration sought by Grassley for Iowa is necessary because the state failed to submit a request by the June 10 deadline.

In a letter sent to Secretary Elaine Chao, Grassley wrote, “National Emergency Grant funds would provide critical retraining assistance. It would be a shame if these workers were not helped because a deadline was missed.”

According to the Department of Labor, National Emergency “Phase I” planning grants are available to help states initiate early community planning in order to provide assistance for workers and spouses potentially affected by BRAC 2005 final actions. Funds will be used to establish local BRAC partnerships for the benefit of workers and key stakeholders. Their use will have no impact on subsequent BRAC-related recommendations or actions.

A copy of Grassley’s handwritten note can be found at Grassley’s website, http://grassley.senate.gov.

-30-

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 29, 2005
CONTACT: Cody Wertz – Press Secretary

202-228-3630

Jen Clanahan – Deputy Press Secretary

303-455-7600

SEN. SALAZAR TO DISCUSS PRES. IRAQ SPEECH & THIS WEEK’S SENATE BUSINESS

WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Senator Ken Salazar will discuss the President’s Iraq speech, final passage of the energy bill and give an update on other Senate business during his weekly media conference call. Below is Senator Salazar’s statement on the President’s speech last night.

“The President reminded us again of the high stakes involved in Iraq. I join the President in wanting America to succeed. I was hoping to hear a clearer plan that would measure how we can achieve success in Iraq. That plan should include clearly defined goals for political stability, the formation of a functioning government and specific targets for training Iraqi police and security forces. It should also include a candid assessment of the cost of the war as well as a plan to pay for those costs with an assurance that the international community will do its part in this effort. Given the enormous sacrifices our troops and their families have made in Iraq – including the more than 14,000 troops currently deployed from Colorado – such a plan is the least we can expect.”

The conference call is scheduled for Wednesday, June 29, 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: 9024364

WHEN: 12:55 P.M. EDT/ 10:55 A.M. MDT, Wednesday, June 29, 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 or speakerphone 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

Editors note: Resent with vote now 9-3 (one member accidentally voted in favor when he meant to vote against and later changed his vote)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Senate Indian Affairs Committee Approves Feinstein Bill to
Restore Oversight Process for San Pablo Casino Project

Washington, DC – The Senate Indian Affairs Committee today approved legislation sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to require that the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians go through the same regulatory oversight process for opening a casino as any other tribe that acquired land after October 17, 1988 – the date the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted.

“I believe that the Lytton Tribe should have to go through the same process under federal law that all other tribes must go through,” Senator Feinstein said. “Today’s vote will help ensure that the Lytton Tribe isn’t able to short-circuit the regulatory process and proceed with Las Vegas-style gaming in the heart of the Bay Area.”

“This should be a signal that off-reservation, in-city gaming is not acceptable. Propositions 1A clearly stated that all Indian gaming would stay on tribal lands. I believe that this commitment to the People of California should be kept.”

“My great thanks go to Chairman McCain and the Indian Affairs Committee for passing this legislation. It is my hope that the Senate will pass the bill soon.”

Senator Feinstein’s bill would strike a provision in the 2000 Indian Omnibus Advancement Act – inserted by Congressman George Miller (D-Calif.) – which allows the Lytton Tribe to sidestep gaming requirements in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The provision required the Secretary of Interior to backdate the acquisition of a card club property in San Pablo to October 17, 1988.

The committee voted 9-3 in favor of the bill. If the legislation is approved by Congress and signed into law, the Lytton Tribe would be required to go through a two-part determination process that requires both the Secretary of Interior and a State’s Governor to sign off on plans to build a gaming facility. This process also provides for consultation with local communities and nearby tribes prior to its completion.

Background

Last year, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger entered into a compact with the Lytton Tribe that authorized 5,000 slot machines in a 6-8 story casino in the city of San Pablo. The proposed facility would have been the largest casino outside of Connecticut, including those in Las Vegas.

Alarmed by the size of the proposed project, the Legislature refused to take up and approve the compact, even after the Governor scaled back the proposal to include only 2,500 slot machines.

Subsequently, the Lytton Tribe announced that it was temporarily dropping its pursuit of a casino, but it could reverse these plans at anytime and is already proceeding with plans for Class II electronic bingo machines that function and look like slot machines. These would not be permitted without IGRA authorization.

###

For Immediate Release

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

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

REID EXPRESSES SUPPORT FOR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

Reid Praises Bipartisan Support for Life Saving Research

Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement:

(Washington, DC) “This year, we are taking important steps forward in opening a crucial avenue of medical discovery, embryonic stem cell research. The House passed stem cell bill was a victory for millions of Americans who suffer from deadly diseases and for their families. It was also a victory for bipartisanship. I am pleased that this spirit of bipartisanship continues in the Senate.

“Stem cell research has the potential to lead to treatments and cures for many debilitating diseases, including Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, and diabetes. We have a moral obligation to pursue promising avenues of research, like stem cell research, that has the potential to cure disease and alleviate human suffering.

“I look forward to working with the leaders on this issue in the Senate -- Senators Harkin, Specter, Kennedy, Smith, Feinstein and Hatch – to pass this important legislation. I hope that Senator Frist will join us in this fight and take up the bill after the July 4th recess and pass this key piece of legislation.”

###

Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance

Hearing, Medicaid Waste, Fraud and Abuse: Threatening the Health Care Safety Net

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Thank you for joining us for day two of this important hearing. Yesterday we learned about some significant problems with the Medicaid program. At the conclusion of yesterday's hearing, we discussed efforts to correct them and to help reduce the impact that fraud, waste and abuse is having on the sustainability of this important program.

Today we will have two panels again to discuss more problems with fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid. Our first panel is here to discuss prescription drug pricing, an issue that has been a central health care policy concern the past few years. Medicaid paid nearly $30 billion for prescription drugs in FY 2004 and the cost of both health care and drugs will continue to rise.

Prescription drug pricing is a very complex area of Medicaid. As recent lawsuits and settlements have shown, drug pricing is an area of Medicaid with significant levels of waste, fraud and abuse. For example, between 2001 and 2004, the Department of Justice and the states' attorneys general recovered nearly $2.5 billion from various pharmaceutical companies. This amount includes both Medicare and Medicaid. However, these settlements are evidence of systemic, industry-wide problems that needs to be addressed.

The cases and settlements often speak for themselves: Pfizer $430 million, Schering-Plough $345 million, TAP Pharmaceuticals $875 million. And the list goes on. Most of these settlements resulted from cases filed under the federal False Claims Act. As a principal author of the 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act, I have worked to ensure that its provisions are faithfully enforced. Whistleblowers frequently risk everything when bringing false claims cases. I am pleased that our first witness of the day is a brave woman who will discuss her experiences as a whistleblower.

Our whistleblower will be followed by testimony from the Department of Justice and the Office of the Inspector General. We will hear testimony on federal oversight of the Medicaid drug pricing program, including drug pricing fraud and drug company settlements. The Office of the Inspector General will present its recent work, which will show the potential for significant savings in the Medicaid program. The drug pricing panel will also include a representative from the Texas Attorney General's Office, who will provide a state perspective on problems with prescription drug pricing. Finally we have a representative from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America who is here today to discuss the industry's perspective on prescription drug pricing.

Today's second panel will address another trend in the Medicaid program, the transferring of assets to qualify for Medicaid coverage. Six witnesses today will discuss asset transfers in the Medicaid program, including testimony from a long-term care facility representative and a resident of that facility. In addition, the Congressional Research Service will provide its background research on asset transfers and Medicaid estate planning and recovery. A representative from the Oregon Department of Human Services will testify about estate recovery efforts in Oregon. And we will also hear from the long term care industry. Specifically a representative from MetLife is here. MetLife is member of the American Council of Life Insurers. Finally we will hear from the Dean of the Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University and will view a short education video clip on asset transfers.

As I indicated yesterday, this hearing is about identifying problems and fixing them in order to maintain Medicaid as a strong safety net.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Senate Indian Affairs Committee Approves Feinstein Bill to
Restore Oversight Process for San Pablo Casino Project

“My great thanks go to Chairman McCain and the Indian Affairs Committee for passing this legislation. It is my hope that the Senate will pass the bill soon.”

The committee voted 10-2 in favor of the bill. If the legislation is approved by Congress and signed into law, the Lytton Tribe would be required to go through a two-part determination process that requires both the Secretary of Interior and a State’s Governor to sign off on plans to build a gaming facility. This process also provides for consultation with local communities and nearby tribes prior to its completion.

Background

Alarmed by the size of the proposed project, the Legislature refused to take up and approve the compact, even after the Governor scaled back the proposal to include only 2,500 slot machines.

###

For Immediate Release: Contact: Rich Chrismer Talent (202) 224-4812
Wednesday, June 29, 2005 Stacie Paxton Dodd (202) 224-0346

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

TALENT & DODD TO ANNOUNCE UNSOLVED CIVIL RIGHTS CRIME ACT

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) U.S. Senators Jim Talent (R-Mo.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Wednesday will hold a news conference to announce their legislation to create an office within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute Civil Rights-era murders. The office would also have the authority to refer any other Civil Rights crime discovered in the course of these investigations to the appropriate officials.

In addition, the office would also consult with state and local law enforcement officials and present an annual report to Congress on the progress of these investigations.

The news conference will be held Wednesday, June 29, at 2:30 p.m., in the Senate Radio and TV gallery.

WHAT: SENATORS TO ANNOUNCE UNSOLVED
CIVIL RIGHTS CRIME ACT

WHO: U.S. SENATORS JIM TALENT, CHRIS DODD

WHEN: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29
2:30 P.M.

WHERE: SENATE RADIO & TV GALLERY
S-325

###

____________________________
Erin B. Hamm
Deputy Communications Director
U.S. Senator Jim Talent (R-MO)
493 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C., 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6154
Fax: (202) 228-1518
Website: www.talent.senate.gov

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES CONTACT: Allison Dobson /Maureen Knightly

202-224-3254

*** SATELLITE ADVISORY ***

***TODAY***

Harkin, Bipartisan Coalition, and Patient Advocates

Urge Passage of Stem Cell Research Legislation

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and a bipartisan coalition of Senators stood with patients and advocates at a press conference today urging passage of stem cell research legislation and grassroots activities to build support over the July 4th recess.

The Senators were joined by patients and advocates, including Robert Klein II, founder of the Center for Spinal Cord Injury Independence, who was left paralyzed four years ago after a diving accident.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act is designed to expand the current federal funding policy for stem cell research. The legislation would allow federal funding for stem cell research using stem cell lines derived under strict ethical requirements from excess in vitro fertilization embryos, regardless of the date they were derived.

Coordinates of the satellite feed are as follows:

DATE: TODAY, June 29, 2005

TIME: 3:20-3:25 pm CDT

GALAXY: 3c

TRANSPONDER: 7

DOWNLINK: 3840

AUDIO: 6.2/6.8

# # #

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

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 joan_kirchner@isakson.senate.gov

sheridan_watson@isakson.senate.gov

Isakson on U.S. Role in Iraq:

‘What We’re Doing Is Right’

Isakson Trip to Guantanamo, Attendance At Funeral of GA Soldier

Prove That U.S. Must Stay the Course for Freedom, Democracy

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) today said his visit on Sunday to Guantanamo and his attendance on Saturday at the funeral of a Georgia soldier who died in Iraq reiterated for him how important it is that America stay the course in Iraq.

“What we’re doing in Iraq is right. It’s not only right morally but it’s right for the future of peace and freedom and democracy,” Isakson said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Isakson visited Guantanamo on Sunday and said he was struck by how much better the prisoners there are being treated as compared with how their treatment is being portrayed in the media. Isakson met with two Georgia soldiers who are serving as guards at Guantanamo who urged him to tell the American people the truth about the conditions there and about the critical intelligence the U.S. is obtaining from the prisoners being held there.

“I hope in some small way the message I brought back from those valiant soldiers will help us to remain, to stay the course against the war on terror, for democracy and freedom and in support of this country, its leadership and the liberty and freedom we all cherish and love,” Isakson said. “They are guarding the people that would take the lives of your loved ones and mine.”

Isakson also spoke about attending the funeral of 1st Lt. Noah Harris on Saturday in Ellijay where about 1,000 people came to honor the 23-year-old fallen soldier who died in Iraq. Isakson told of how Harris’ father asked at the funeral if we’ve forgotten 9/11.

“Have we forgotten that since that day there hasn’t been an attack on American soil? We went after terror wherever it exists and our nation has been safer,” Isakson said.

Note to Editors: The full text of Senator Isakson’s floor speech is available on his website: http://isakson.senate.gov.

###

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Contact: Allison Dobson/ Maureen Knightly

202-224-3254

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

**WEDNESDAY**

Harkin, Smith, Bipartisan Coalition, and Patient Advocates

Urge Passage of Stem Cell Research Legislation

Washington, D.C.--Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) will stand with patients and advocates at a press conference on Wednesday, June 29, at 10:30 a.m., urging passage of stem cell research legislation and grassroots activities to build support over the July 4th recess.

The Senators will be joined patients and advocates, including Robert Klein II, founder of the Center for Spinal Cord Injury Independence, who was left paralyzed four years ago after a diving accident.

WHAT: Press Conference on Stem Cell Legislation

WHEN: Wednesday, June 29

10:30 am EDT

WHERE: 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building

United States Capitol

Washington, D.C.

# # #

For Immediate Release: Contact: Rich Chrismer Talent (202) 224-4812
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Scott Gerber Feinstein (202) 224-9629

Talent and Feinstein Unveil Strengthened Anti-Meth Bill

Bill to limit access to cold medicine containing a key ingredient to make Meth garners support from law enforcement, major retailers, and consumers -

Washington, DC –U.S. Senators Jim Talent (R-Mo.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced broad new support for a strengthened bill that would limit access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient used to make methamphetamine.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to consider the legislation, which is modeled after the successful Oklahoma law that resulted in an immediate 80 percent drop in meth labs seized.

“There has been a tremendous shift in momentum for this legislation since Senator Feinstein and I first introduced it,” Senator Talent said. “We have always had the strong support of law enforcement, and now we are joined by a diverse group of industry leaders, including major retailers, some of whom since the introduction of our bill, have taken voluntarily steps to move products with pseudoephedrine behind the counter. Our enhanced legislation would enact the toughest standard in the country to cut off the meth cooks from the ingredient they need to make this deadly drug. By keeping products with pseudoephedrine behind the counter, we can keep methamphetamines out of our neighborhoods and schools.”

“Meth is the worst drug I have ever seen – in terms of its scope, its affects on users, and its effect on the environment,” Senator Feinstein said. “The epidemic only continues to deepen. Meth lab seizures across the nation, for instance, have doubled in the past five years – from 7,438 in 1999 to 15,994 in 2004. But the Oklahoma model offers a ray of hope. It has shown us a way to make a major dent in the production of meth. This is the major reason why so many states have followed suit, retailers have taken voluntary action, and the Judiciary Committee is poised to take up the bill. It is my hope the Committee and the Congress will approve this legislation so that we can help bring this epidemic under control.”

Senators Talent and Feinstein first introduced the Combat Meth Act in January 2005. Since that time, they have worked with law enforcement, retailers, and consumers to develop strengthened legislation that continues to place strict limitations on pseudoephedrine products while ensuring that legitimate consumers continue to have access to cold medicines.

The following individuals, organizations, and companies support the legislation:

Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies
Drugstore.com
Fertilizer Institute
Food Marketing Institute
Healthcare Distribution Management Association
Missouri Governor Matt Blunt
Missouri Highway Patrol
National Association of Chain Drug Stores
National Alliance of State Drug Enforcement Agencies
Safeway
Wal-Mart

The strengthened bill:

· Moves cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine behind the counter – Amends the Controlled Substances Act to appropriately limit the sale of medicines containing pseudoephedrine by placing them behind the counter and sets a limit on how much of such medicines one person can buy in a month – 7.5 grams.

· Requires signature and identification for purchases – The Attorney General will develop regulations to ensure uniformity.

· Creates alternate procedures for stores without pharmacies and stores in rural areas – The Drug Enforcement Administration and States will develop regulations to continue to allow cold medicine to be sold at retail stores without pharmacies and in rural areas (but which meet appropriate security criteria), consistent with the intent of the bill to limit access to pseudoephedrine.

· Creates an airport exemption – Allows retail facilities located within a commercial airport to sell cold medicine with pseudoephedrine (in liquid form or gel caps) in single packages containing no more than 360 milligrams in a 24-hour period and requires them to follow the log book procedures established by the bill.

· Sets a national standard – But allows states to determine appropriate penalties.

· Effective Date – Cold medicines containing only pseudoephedrine must be moved behind the counter within 90 days of enactment. Those medicines with pseudoephedrine and other ingredients must be moved by January 1, 2007.

· Creates a national Meth treatment center – To research effective treatments for Meth abuse.

· Authorizes $43 million for enforcement, training, and research into treatment. This includes:

o $25,000,000 for local law enforcement and federal prosecutors to bring meth manufacturers and dealers to justice
o $3,000,000 for meth treatment and research
o $5,000,000 to help children who have been affected by meth
o $10,000,000 for precursor monitoring grants

Background

Methamphetamine is perhaps the most deadly, fiercely addictive and rapidly spreading drug the United States has known. During the past decade, while law enforcement officers continue to bust record numbers of clandestine labs, meth use in communities has increased by as much as 300%. Meth is cheap, potent, and available everywhere.

The continuing proliferation of methamphetamine production continues to put a severe strain on federal and local law enforcement resources. Fighting meth requires a comprehensive approach designed to assist states, local law enforcement and prosecutors to crack down on cooks and traffickers of meth while enhancing community education and awareness and treatment options for those addicted to this dangerous drug.

States with similar laws to Oklahoma

Following enactment of the Oklahoma law last year, 7 other states have followed suit with Schedule V regulations for pseudoephedrine.

Those who have passed legislation include:

Arkansas
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Voluntary Action by Retailers

A number of major retailers have also taken voluntary action to limit access to cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine:

Target
Wal-mart
Albertson’s
Rite-Aid
Walgreen’s
CVS
K-Mart
Shopko
Longs Drugs
Safeway

###

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Reporters and Editors

Fr: Jill Gerber for Chairman Grassley, 202/224-6522

Re: Media report on Mexico’s tax on high fructose corn syrup

Da: Tuesday, June 28, 2005

According to BNA’s International Trade Daily, a World Trade Organization panel has issued a preliminary finding in favor of the United States in the WTO dispute over Mexico’s tax on high fructose corn syrup. Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Committee on Finance, has long urged Mexico to drop its discriminatory tax and comply with its international trade obligations. Grassley made the following comment on the media report describing the WTO’s preliminary decision in the case.

“I’m very pleased by the report that a WTO panel has issued a preliminary ruling against Mexico in the high fructose corn syrup dispute brought by the United States. While I haven’t seen the panel’s preliminary report, I understand it states that Mexico’s tax on beverages containing high fructose corn syrup is discriminatory and violates Mexico’s WTO obligations.

“This discriminatory tax is harming Iowa farmers and Iowa high fructose corn syrup producers. Mexico was formerly the largest export market for exports of U.S.-produced high fructose corn syrup. Due to Mexico’s WTO-illegal tax, U.S. exports of this product to Mexico have fallen to almost zero levels.

“Although I’m pleased with the reported decision of the WTO panel, the dispute settlement process isn’t over. The panel won’t release its final ruling until August. In addition, the panel’s ruling may be appealed after that time. In the end, I’m confident that the United States will prevail at the WTO. At that point, we’ll have to see that Mexico actually complies with its WTO obligations and lifts the tax. This issue is of the highest importance for Iowa. I remain committed to seeing that Mexico eliminates this discriminatory tax. And I appreciate the Administration’s work to uphold the trade rights of U.S. farmers and businesses.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: David DiMartino (202)-224-8795

June 28 2005 Jena Longo (202)-224-5765

NELSON: PASSAGE OF ENERGY BILL IS A WIN FOR NEBRASKA

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Senate approved on an 85-12 vote today, an energy bill expanding a portfolio of energy sources, focusing on domestic energy production, clean, renewable fuels development, and tax incentives for energy efficiency. The bill will now go to conference.

The bill establishes an aggressive Renewable Fuels Standard. Early in debate, the Senate adopted an amendment to require oil refiners to blend 8 billion gallons of renewable fuels, mainly ethanol and biodiesel, into the nation’s transportation fuel supply by 2012. "It’s clear that use of ethanol and biodiesel, as part of a Renewable Fuels Standard is a win-win-win situation: a win for farmers, a win for consumers, and a win for the environment,” said Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson. “The Renewable fuels standard will boost the ethanol industry and all related industries – and that’s good for Nebraska.”

The legislation also addresses climate change and carbon dioxide emissions by taking a market-driven, technology based approach to climate change by using public-private partnerships to meld together the institutional leverage of the government with the innovation of industry.

The energy bill contains tax provisions authorizing $1 billion of tax credit bonds to give entities, like Nebraska’s public power districts, clean energy financing opportunities. It also allows a deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings and new homes that reduce annual energy and power consumption.

The price of gasoline at the pumps makes renewable fuels so important. The bill gives incentives for the installation of additional refueling stations and further extends production credits for biodiesel, another important and emerging source of domestic fuel.

Soon after being elected Nebraska’s 37th Governor, Nelson formed and was the first Chair of the Governor’s Ethanol Coalition to promote increased ethanol use nationwide. The Coalition began with nine Midwest states and grew to 22 states, Puerto Rico and 2 foreign countries under his stewardship. More than 6000 Nebraskans are now employed directly or indirectly in Nebraska ethanol production. One of the first bills Nelson cosponsored as Senator was a bill to boost production of ethanol and other renewable fuels, which was the basis for the agreement in last year’s Senate energy bill. Senator Nelson received the Renewable Energy Leadership Award in 2002 for his work on that bill.

-30-

Jena Longo

Deputy Press Secretary

Nebraska's Senator Ben Nelson

Direct Line: 202-224-5765

Cell: 202-236-7739

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

June 28, 2005

HATCH ENERGY PROVISIONS PASS SENATE

Measures Would Lower Energy Costs, Spur Resource Development

Washington – The United States Senate today passed a comprehensive energy bill with several provisions sponsored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) that could, if enacted, make a real difference for consumers in Utah and throughout the country.

“Our nation needs an energy policy that lowers prices, encourages American energy independence, and promotes cleaner and more efficient energy,” Hatch said. “My provisions will address all of those things. We’re tackling three of the most significant factors in the current energy crisis: increasing domestic oil production, closing the bottleneck at our refineries, and promoting alternative energy resources. This all translates into one thing — greater supply, which will directly impact prices and our energy security.”

The Senate energy bill includes several provisions from bills Hatch has pushed in Congress:

• Clean Efficient Vehicles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies (CLEAR Act, S. 971): The CLEAR ACT provides tax incentives to consumers who purchase alternative-fuel and hybrid-electric vehicles, tax incentives at the pump for the purchase of alternative transportation fuels, and tax incentives for the purchase and installation of alternative fueling equipment.

• Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Act of 2005 (S. 1111): The Senate accepted an amendment to the Energy bill that is a slightly modified version of Hatch’s bill to encourage development of fuel from a vast untapped domestic oil reserve in tar sands and oil shale. Energy experts estimate the United States has more recoverable oil from this resource — located mainly in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming — than in the entire Middle East.

• Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act (S. 1039): This provision would provide for accelerated depreciation for new refineries or for refineries that are increasing their capacity. The economics of refining are so tough that the United States has lost nearly 200 refineries since the last one was built in the 1970s. Domestic refineries are unable to meet American demand, so the country is currently importing refined oil products to make up the difference. Hatch’s provision would allow refiners who commit to starting construction on new or expanded refining equipment before 2008 and have new facilities built by 2012 to completely write off their new equipment in the first year instead of over the current 10-year depreciation schedule.

• Geothermal and Renewable Resources (S. 1156): This provision would promote geothermal energy, a domestic energy source that could provide energy to more than 22 million homes if fully developed. Experts say Utah has one of the largest underground hot water reservoirs in the nation, and Hatch’s measure would provide tax incentives for electricity produced from renewable energy facilities placed in service before January 1, 2008.

• Mineral Leasing Act Amendment (S. 53): The provision would increase natural gas production by amending the Mineral Leasing Act to allow the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sands and a lease for oil and gas. The requirement for industry to obtain leases for both mining and gas extraction activities before gas can be extracted has hampered new production of gas in tar sand areas.

The Senate energy bill will now go before a Senate-House conference to negotiate a compromise bill. Congressional leaders are working to have the compromise bill on President Bush’s desk by August.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: MIKE DAWSON [DEWINE]
JUNE 28, 2005 (614) 469-5186
MARCIE RIDGWAY [VOINOVICH]

(202) 224-3353

DEWINE, VOINOVICH RECOMMEND

BARRETT AND ZOUHARY FOR FEDERAL JUDGESHIP

U.S. Senators Mike DeWine (R-OH) and George Voinovich (R-OH) today announced that they recommended two Ohioans to President George W. Bush for judicial positions in Ohio. The first, Michael R. Barrett, of Cincinatti, Ohio, was recommended for the position of U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. The second, the Honorable Jack Zouhary, of Toledo, Ohio, will be considered for the position of U.S. District Court Judge for the Western Division of the Northern District of Ohio.

Michael Barrett served in the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office from February 1978 through February 1984, first as Assistant Prosecutor, then as the Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Felony Trial Division, and Chief of the Special County Arson Task Force. He then became an Associate and Partner with Graydon, Head & Richey from March 1984 through December 1994. Since January of 1995, Barrett has been a practicing in the law firm of Barrett & Weber of Cincinnati, OH. Barrett also currently serves as chairman of the Hamilton County Republican Party. He will resign that post next week. Barrett graduated in 1974 from University of Cincinnati with a Bachelor of Arts degree and continued his education at the University of Cincinnati, receiving his Juris Doctor degree in 1977.

Judge Jack Zouhary has practiced law in Northwestern Ohio since 1976, functioning as an Associate and Partner with Robison, Curphey & O’Connell between 1976 through 1999. From 2000 through 2003, Zouhary was Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary for S.E. Johnson Companies, Inc., of Maumee. He then served as Of Counsel for Fuller & Henry, a Toledo based regional law firm. On March 11th of this year, he was sworn in as a Judge in the Lucas County Common Pleas Court, General Division. Judge Zouhary graduated in 1973 from Dartmouth College with a Bachelor of Arts degree and received his Juris Doctor degree in 1976 from the University of Toledo College of Law.

“We are pleased to recommend both Michael Barrett and Judge Jack Zouhary to the President,” said Senators DeWine and Voinovich.

Barrett and Zouhary, if nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, will fill current vacancies on the courts. Barrett would replace Judge Walter H. Rice, who informed the President that he was taking senior status on December 1, 2004. Zouhary would replace Judge David A. Katz, who took senior status on January 1, 2005.

###

Jeffrey C. Sadosky

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)

140 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

(202) 224-2315

(202) 228-0549 fax

Opening Statement of Chairman Chuck Grassley

Senate Finance Committee Markup of S. 1307: The Dominican Republic-Central America-United States

Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, and S.J. Res. 18: Approving the Renewal of Import Restrictions Contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Today we are meeting in executive session to consider two bills. First, we’ll take up S. 1307, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Then, we’ll consider Senate Joint Resolution 18, a joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

Allow me to address each of these bills. S. 1307 helps level the playing field for U.S. farmers and workers by implementing the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. Today, most products from Central America and the Dominican Republic enter our market duty-free. In contrast, our exports to the region face a myriad of tariff and non-tariff barriers. S. 1307 eliminates these unfair trade barriers and allows us to compete fairly in a growing and vibrant market. Passage of the bill will also help solidify fragile democracies in a region of the world that, not so long ago, was ravaged with violent political conflict. In short, this bill is manifestly in our national security and economic interests. I hope members of the committee will join me to report the bill favorably.

The bill before us today is virtually identical to legislation that the Finance Committee recommended to the President on June 14. We’ve worked hard over the past several weeks to ensure that committee members and staff have had adequate opportunity to review the bill and the Statement of Administrative Action. Therefore, I won’t go into detail on their provisions here. However, I’ll note that the Administration chose not to include a recommendation by the Finance Committee that would have expanded the current Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs to service workers. Similarly, the Administration didn’t include a recommendation by the House Ways and Means Committee, which would have required a report on the impact of the DR-CAFTA agreement on U.S. service workers. The Administration did include as part of S. 1307 a recommendation by the House Ways and Means Committee that calls for periodic reporting of labor standards in the region.

If time permits, we’ll also take up Senate Joint Resolution 18, approving continued trade sanctions on Burma. As you may recall, the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act was passed in May of 2003 in response to the Burmese government’s reprehensible attack on the National League for Democracy, including the arrest of many NLD officials. The bill contains a number of sanctions on Burma, including an import ban. As part of the bill, Senator Baucus and I insisted on including provisions for continued congressional oversight. Specifically, the import ban will expire on the anniversary of enactment, which is July 28, unless Congress enacts a joint resolution extending the import ban for an additional year. Senate Joint Resolution 18 extends the import ban for another year. Unfortunately, the situation in Burma hasn’t improved so I think extension of the ban is appropriate.

So, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to favorably report both S. 1307 and Senate Joint Resolution 18. If members have questions about either of these bills we have representatives from the administration and staff available to respond. Before I turn to Senator Baucus and the other members of the committee who wish to speak, I want to discuss process. We have a vote scheduled for 9:45 this morning on the energy bill. And at 10, the committee is scheduled to begin its hearing on Medicaid waste, fraud, and abuse. I want to ensure that each member of the committee has an opportunity to speak on DR-CAFTA if they want. The same goes for the Burma resolution. It may be unrealistic to expect we can finish up before today’s session and vote these measures out. So, we’re likely to continue today’s executive session tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. for the purpose of finishing discussions and reporting these measures out of committee.

News Release

For release: June 28, 2005 Contact: Coy Knobel, phone 202-224-3424

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

Enzi, Senate pass energy bill that benefits Wyoming

Conference committee with House version is next step

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., voted in favor of a comprehensive bipartisan energy package that would provide a plan for domestic energy production, conservation and efficiency.

“A large number of Wyoming citizens work in the energy industry and every person in the country benefits from the energy found in our state. This bill recognizes Wyoming’s important role in bringing energy to the rest of the nation and I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bill through the remainder of the legislative process,” said Enzi. “This energy bill provides a blueprint for the future of energy production in our nation. At the same time, it addresses our nation’s energy needs of today.”

The Senate energy bill passed by a vote of 85-12 and would provide a comprehensive national energy policy with the goal of expanding domestic energy production, increasing conservation and efficiency efforts while decreasing dependence on foreign oil. It would also repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 to increase investment in electricity transmission and generation.

Enzi worked to include several provisions that would specifically benefit Wyoming. One provision would allow oil refineries to expense machinery from their taxes. Another provision allows some leaseholders to recover leases that were terminated when computer problems at the Department of the Interior prevented the Department from sending yearly rental notices. The bill would also help the Shoshone and Arapaho tribes to develop their own energy resources through grants and technical assistance.

The bill will now go to a conference committee that will reconcile differences between the House and Senate energy bills. The House passed its version of the energy bill by a vote of 249-183 on April 21.

-end-

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 Immediate Release

June 28, 2005
CONTACT: Cody Wertz – Press Secretary

202-228-3630

Jen Clanahan – Deputy Press Secretary

303-455-7600

SEN. SALAZAR VOTES FOR FULL ENERGY BILL AS KEY STEP TOWARD ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Senator Ken Salazar today voted for passage of the S
Senate Energy bill. The pill passed by a vote of 85-12 with broad bipartisan support. Sen. Salazar helped craft much of the energy bill as a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

“This bill makes great strides toward gaining our energy independence and setting America free from overdependence on foreign imports of oil,” said Salazar. “The bill’s cornerstones are renewable energy, conservation, technology and balanced development. And here in the Senate the bill passed with the kind of bipartisan cooperation I promised the people of Colorado -- I’m proud to deliver on that promise today,” Sen. Salazar said.

Salazar continued, “the challenge we face now is continuing that bipartisan work as the House and Senate work out their differences in Conference. If the bipartisan spirit continues I can see no reason why we can’t send a bill to the President before August.”

The bill includes a number of provisions in which Senator Salazar played a key role and which will directly benefit Coloradans, including:

Renewable Energy: The Senate’s Energy bill includes a provision to increase America’s ethanol use to 8 billion gallons by 2012, mirroring a proposal Sen. Salazar offered while the bill was in the Energy committee. Ethanol plants are planned for Evans and Windsor and Sterling. Senator Salazar was also a cosponsor of the amendment passed on June 16 establishing the nation’s first Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require 10 percent of America’s electricity be generated from renewable resources by 2020. Renewable resources include solar, hydropower and geothermal, as well as wind energy, such as that generated by the wind farm in Lamar. The proposal was similar to Amendment 37, the clean energy/ renewable portfolio standard approved by Colorado voters in 2004;

Colorado’s Coal Resources: The Senate’s Energy bill also includes coal legislation that will allow Colorado to better develop its clean-energy resources. Under Sen. Salazar’s amendment approved by the Senate on June 23, Colorado coal will now be included as part of a high-altitude (above 4,000 feet) test program for integrated coal gasification (IGCC) technology, a cleaner use of coal. Coal accounts for 80 percent of Colorado’s electrical needs;

Oil Shale: On June 23, the Senate unanimously approved Sen. Salazar’s oil shale development amendment. Aware of the boom-bust cycle of oil shale development on the Western Slope in the 1980s, Sen. Salazar carefully tailored his proposal to require the Dept. of Energy to work with Coloradans who will be affected by this effort. It requires the Dept. of Energy to develop a long-term plan for oil shale development and refuses to set mandatory timelines for development, preventing a repeat of the 1980s oil shale rush. Colorado’s oil shale is home to an estimated 1 trillion barrels of oil. By comparison, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) contains 7.7 billion barrels of oil – one percent of Colorado’s oil shale reserves. Sen. Salazar’s oil shale legislation has been praised by Western Resource Advocates and the Wilderness Society; and

Tax Incentives: The Senate Energy bill included a number of tax incentives to benefit Colorado consumers, including a production tax credit for energy producers to promote clean energy development and a 20 percent investment tax credit for investments in clean coal technology, a $1,000 to $2,000 tax credit for contractors constructing energy-efficient homes and a 10 percent energy tax credit for homeowners making energy efficiency improvements to their homes, as well as expanded tax credits for alternative vehicles and electric vehicles.

“This bill is a win for Colorado consumers, Colorado’s rural communities and Colorado’s land and water. It is balanced and forward thinking and will help set America free from its dependence on foreign energy sources,” Sen. Salazar said. “I hope the House does not insist on putting in poison pills – as it has in the past – that will only serve to undo these wins for Colorado.”

The Energy bill has now been passed, in dramatically different forms, by the House and Senate. It next proceeds to conference committee to iron out differences before being voted upon a second time by both the House and Senate. If the House and Senate both approve the conference report, it will go on to the President’s desk for signature or veto.

# # #

Cody Wertz,

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Ken Salazar

202-228-3630 office

202-674-7656 cell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Senator Feinstein Votes For Energy Bill – But Raises Concerns About Missed Opportunity to Address Global Warming

Washington, DC – The United States Senate today approved a comprehensive Energy Bill. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) voted in favor of the bill, though she expressed some serious reservations about missed opportunities. However, the bill includes provisions to strengthen consumer protections to prevent market manipulation that Senator Feinstein has been urging since the Western Energy Crisis. Following is a statement by Senator Feinstein:

“Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman for all of their hard work on this bill. They said they were going to work to get a bipartisan bill and they accomplished their goal.

Overall, I believe that this Energy Bill will help the country meet its energy needs in a number of important ways. This bill provides strong consumer protections, aggressive energy efficiency standards, and a focus on new technologies to meet our energy needs in a more environmentally-friendly manner. Additionally, the bill takes a step in the right direction to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, especially natural gas. This is a major improvement over past energy bills, which have done nothing to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

Consumer Protections

As we learned during the Western Energy Crisis, federal energy regulators did not have enough authority to prevent widespread market manipulation. Through the course of the crisis in California, the total cost of electricity soared from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000 and $26.7 billion in 2001. The abuse in our energy markets was pervasive and unlawful.

So I am pleased to report that this bill includes provisions that I have sought over the past four years to strengthen consumer protections and hopefully prevent another energy crisis like the one we experienced in the West.

These consumer protections include:

· a broad ban on manipulation in the energy markets;

· stronger criminal and civil penalties in the energy markets to provide stronger deterrents to violations of federal energy laws;

· elimination of the unnecessary 60-Day waiting period for refunds at FERC, which may cost Californians millions of dollars;

· new provisions to make the energy markets more transparent; and

· a ban on traders who manipulated the natural gas or the electricity markets from ever trading in energy markets again.

Energy Efficiency Incentives

I am also very pleased that Senators Grassley and Baucus included in the energy bill much of the energy efficiency tax incentives that Senator Snowe and I sponsored.

The simplest, most effective thing we could do today to reduce our electricity use would be to use more energy efficient appliances, such as air conditioners, refrigerators, and clothes washers.

We know that energy efficiency works. In California, efficiency programs have kept electricity consumption flat for the past 30 years, in contrast to the rest of the United States, where consumption increased 50 percent.

During the Western Energy Crisis, California faced energy shortages and rolling blackouts, but it could have been much worse. Ultimately, the State was able to escape further blackouts because Californians made a major effort to conserve energy. This reduced demand for electricity and helped ease the crisis.

By creating incentives to reduce demand, the energy efficiency tax incentives will help us avoid power shortages and blackouts in the future. In addition, encouraging more efficient technologies will also reduce pollution and save consumers billions of dollars in the long run.

America cannot solve its energy challenges by simply adding more supplies. We must find ways to reduce demand for energy and create more efficient technologies. Including the energy efficiency tax incentives is a big step in the right direction.

Concerns

For all of those reasons, I am supporting this bill. However, I still have some major reservations about the legislation as it now stands. Among them are:

· Ethanol. The bill includes an 8 billion gallon mandate for ethanol when my State does not need it to meet clean air standards. I think this mandate is bad and costly public policy.

· LNG Siting. This bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority over siting LNG terminals. I believe States should have a strong voice in this process.

· Global Warming. Though we can already see the real effects of global warming, this bill takes no effective action to curb greenhouse gases.

· Outer Continental Shelf. This bill provides for an inventory of the resources off our shores. This is not necessary unless we plan on drilling, to which I remain very much opposed.

Essentially, this bill takes no risks whatsoever to do the right thing. And though I will vote in favor of this bill, I would like to discuss these serious reservations that I have with it.

Ethanol

I am extremely concerned about the bill’s 8 billion gallon ethanol mandate.

First, though, I would like to thank the Committee for accepting an amendment I offered to protect California’s air quality. It waives the requirement that California use ethanol in the summer months when it can end up polluting the air more than protecting it.

Despite this win for California’s air quality, I still have concerns about the impacts of mandating that refiners use 8 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012.

President Bush has said over the past few months that this Energy Bill will not do anything to reduce gas prices at the pump. I would like to add another note of caution: I hope this bill does not actually increase the price at the pump for consumers.

According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices in California have been anywhere between 4 and 8 cents higher since ethanol replaced MTBE in California’s gasoline, starting in 2003.

In May 2005, the Director of the Petroleum Division at the Energy Information Administration stated before the House Government Reform Committee that:

‘…refiners lost production capability when replacing MTBE with ethanol. This, along with continued demand growth, has contributed to price pressures. From 2000 through 2002, California retail gasoline prices averaged about 19 cents per gallon more than the U.S. average gasoline price, but in 2003 as MTBE began to be removed, California prices averaged 27 cents per gallon higher than the U.S. average, and remained at that level through 2004.’

So far this year, California’s gasoline prices are at least 23 cents higher than the national average. To be clear, adding ethanol to our gasoline has increased the cost at the pump. In addition, when the 8 billion gallon mandate is fully implemented in 2012 it will only reduce U.S. oil consumption by one-half of one percent.

Since ethanol is has a somewhat lower energy content than gasoline, more of it is required to travel the same distance. This results in a vehicle’s fuel economy being approximately 3 percent lower with ethanol-blended gasoline.

Further, this provision is both a mandate and a subsidy. Ethanol receives a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. An 8 billion gallon mandate means a $2 billion LOSS to the U.S. Treasury over today’s receipts.

I do not believe that we should be imposing this huge mandate at a time when there is already such a huge subsidy to the ethanol industry, and when the nation has such huge budget deficits. We should have either the subsidy or the mandate, but not both.

LNG Siting

I also remain concerned about the provision in the bill that provides exclusive authority over siting onshore liquefied natural gas terminals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Increased demand for natural gas means we need new natural gas supplies, and liquefied natural gas is one of the options available to us. States will be responsible for the safety of these facilities for a long time after they are sited. That is why it is so important to preserve the rights of the States to participate in the process to determine where these facilities should be located.

For LNG facilities that are sited more than three miles offshore, the Governor has the right to approve or veto a project. Yet for facilities that are located onshore, in our busy ports and near our closely-packed communities, States have less input.

That is why I offered an amendment to provide Governors the same authority for siting onshore facilities that they already have for offshore facilities. To give a remote federal agency control when States are concerned about the safety of residents near a proposed site is a mistake. I firmly believe that States should have the right to veto a project that could endanger the public safety of its citizens.

Global Warming

I would like to thank Senators Lieberman and McCain for their efforts to address the growing and imminent problem of global warming. I strongly supported their amendment to cap greenhouse gas emissions at the year 2000 levels by 2010 and implement a market-based emissions cap and trade system.

The United States has only 4 percent of the world’s population, and yet we produce 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. As the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. has a duty to act.

We have already begun to see the very real effects of global warming. The polar ice caps are shrinking, glaciers are melting, snowpacks are dwindling, and coastlines are falling away.

If we do not act, these problems will only grow worse. California depends on the Sierra Nevada snowpack as its largest source of water. It is estimated that by the end of the century, the shrinking of this snowpack will eliminate the water source for 16 million people -- equal to all of the people in the Los Angeles Basin.

Much of the world is already reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and they are counting on us to do the same. It is time that the United States – the world’s largest contributor to climate change – stepped up and took responsibility for our actions and their impact on the world. Global warming is too serious a problem for us to keep ignoring it.

Yet the Senate voted against the McCain-Lieberman amendment. We missed a big opportunity to do the right thing for our country and for the world.

Outer Continental Shelf

I am also concerned because the bill includes a provision that would allow the Department of Interior to conduct an inventory of the resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. I joined my colleagues from Florida and New Jersey to strip this provision from the bill. Unfortunately, the amendment was not agreed to.

Why would we need to inventory the resources on the Outer Continental Shelf unless we intend to drill there? I believe this provision is the proverbial ‘nose under the camel’s tent.’

I strongly oppose lifting the moratoria on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and my State is unified in its opposition as well. Our coast is too important to California’s economy and to our quality of life.

Fuel Economy

Despite soaring gas prices, this bill does not take any steps towards reducing our oil consumption, which could easily be done by holding SUVs and light trucks to the same fuel economy standards as passenger vehicles. SUVs have gained popularity to the point that they now make up more than half of new car sales in the United States. That is why I believe SUVs and light trucks should be held to the same fuel efficiency and safety standards as the smaller passenger cars they are replacing on our roads.

This would both reduce our oil consumption and imports as well as curbing greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In addition, increasing fuel economy in SUVs and light trucks would save owners hundreds of dollars each year at the gas pump.

Consumers are concerned about high gas prices, yet we do next to nothing in the bill to increase the fuel economy of our vehicles so that they use less gasoline.

Our dependence on oil is reaching critical levels. Crude oil hit a record high of over $60 per barrel this week and it is not going to fall significantly anytime soon. Crude oil is a global commodity and global oil demand is rising, especially in China and India.

In the past 5 years, China’s oil imports have doubled, and show no signs of slowing down. Chinese demand for oil is expected to double again by 2025, while its imports will quadruple to 60 percent of its total oil consumption. China is now the world’s second biggest oil consumer, behind only the U.S. And we recently heard the news that China wants to buy an American oil company.

In addition, India’s oil needs are expected to grow rapidly in the coming years. Last year alone, India’s oil consumption grew by 10 percent. Their rapidly growing economies are fueling their growing dependence on oil -- which makes continued higher prices inevitable.

The most effective step we can take to reduce gas prices is to reduce demand. We must use our limited fuel supplies more wisely. That is why I am so disappointed that the Senate did not include any provisions to increase fuel economy in the bill.

House Bill

I am pleased that the Chairman and Ranking Member were able to work together on a bill that does not roll back environmental protections, as the House bill does. I want to take a minute to point out the most egregious House provisions that I hope we will not see in a conference report. They include:

· Retroactive liability protection for MTBE producers despite the fact that the Courts have already found that they make a ‘defective product.’ This provision protects oil companies from having to pay billions of dollars to clean up the water supplies across the country that MTBE has contaminated.

Even though I am supporting the Senate Energy Bill, I will not hesitate to vote against the conference report if it includes MTBE liability protection.

· Allowing communities to get out of requirements to clean up their air if they claim that part of its problem is a result of transported air pollution. This provision severely weakens the Clean Air Act.

· Exempting the underground injection of chemicals during oil and gas development from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

· Weakening the ability of states to have a say in federal activities that affect their coasts, including limiting appeals related to pipeline construction or offshore energy development under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

· Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.

Further, the House $8 billion tax package is completely lopsided in favor of oil and gas production—only 5 percent of the $8 billion goes toward incentives for renewable energy production.

Conclusion

While I am pleased that the bill includes strong consumer protections that will hopefully prevent another energy crisis, incentives for energy efficiency, and promotes new energy technologies, I am disappointed that the bill does not do the right thing on global warming, ethanol, fuel economy, the outer Continental Shelf, or LNG siting. And so, it is with reluctance that I cast my vote in favor of this Energy Bill.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: JEFF SADOSKY

JUNE 28, 2005 BREANN GONZALEZ

(202) 224-2315

HONDA TO USE DEWINE’S “STARS ON CARS” ON WINDOW STICKERS OF 2006 MODELS

Push Continues For Measure’s Inclusion in Final Transportation Bill

U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) today joins the American Honda Motor Company as they voluntarily enact a piece of DeWine legislation included in the Senate version of the Highway bill, the “Stars on Cars Act.” Beginning with model year 2006, American Honda will begin including star safety ratings on the window stickers of their new cars.

The National Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) regularly conducts tests measuring the safety performance of vehicles in frontal and side impact crashes, as well as roll over resistance, and assigns star ratings based on those tests.

The “Stars on Cars Act” takes the common sense approach of adding government issued star safety ratings to the other information on car pricing stickers already required by law, such as cost, fuel economy and vehicle features. Graphics depicting the number of stars achieved by a vehicle in each NHTSA “New Car Assessment Program” (NCAP) test, as well as a brief explanation of their meaning, would be added to the labels if the proposed legislation becomes law. Currently, the star ratings are available on the NHTSA website; however, they are not accessible to car shoppers when they need the information the most, on the dealership lot.

“I am pleased that leaders at American Honda are taking the initiative to voluntarily include this common sense consumer education measure on the window stickers of their new cars,” said Senator DeWine. “Stars on Cars will make government issued safety measures readily available for families at the exact moment decisions about purchasing cars are made. I look forward to the day when all new cars on dealer’s lots will have star safety ratings on their window stickers, but this is a good first step in raising important consumer awareness.”

“Like Senator DeWine, American Honda is committed to safety and believes that consumers should be able to make informed decisions when purchasing a vehicle,” said John Mendel, senior vice president, American Honda Company, Inc. “The Stars on Cars proposal makes major strides in safety awareness and we are happy to voluntarily provide this information beginning on all of our 2006 model year vehicles.”

Senator DeWine’s point of sale labeling legislation, the “Stars on Cars Act” is included in Section 7257 of the Senate’s version of H.R. 3, but is not in the version passed by the House.

Currently the differences in the two versions of the Highway bill are being worked out by a conference committee.

“I hope conferees on the Transportation bill will see the importance of making this, consumer information immediately accessible, so buyers can make informed decisions when it comes to their family’s safety on the road. I urge the conference committee to include the Stars on Cars provision in the final version of the bill,” said Senator DeWine.

Congressional leaders have set a June 30th target date for completion of the conference report; however, leaders have indicated negotiations are ongoing and additional time may be needed to complete the bill.

###

Breann González

U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)

152 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington D.C. 20510

202.224.8915

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Dave Townsend/Allison Dobson

June 28, 2005 202-224-3254

Harkin Praises Passage of Senate Energy Bill

Senate lessens reliance on imported oil, increases American renewable energy use

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today praised passage of Senate legislation expanding environmentally friendly renewable energy, reducing American dependence on foreign oil and sharply increasing use of home grown energy sources. Harkin successfully included provisions in the Senate version expanding energy production from resources abundant in Iowa such as corn, soybeans, and wind. These renewable resources promise an improved outlook for the energy future of America while providing real benefits to Iowa’s economy and the nation’s environment.

“Washington is beginning to discover the many benefits of renewable resources,” Harkin said. “The Senate is strongly committed to increasing use of corn, soybeans, and windpower to meet our energy needs. That’s great news for U.S. national security, our rural economy, consumers and the environment.”

The Senate version of the energy bill contains many provisions that will utilize largely untapped energy sources from rural America. Included in the Senate bill, but not found in the House version are the following provisions:

Ø Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) of at least eight billion gallons per year, doubling the use of ethanol and biodiesel in the country by 2012. Harkin originally proposed this eight-billion gallon standard earlier this year. The RFS will create over 200,000 jobs in rural America, add $200 billion to U.S. gross domestic product, and replace over two billion gallons of imported oil. It is estimated that the RFS will expand Iowa’s economy by more than 5 percent.

Ø Renewable energy production tax credits expanding use of windpower and biodiesel. The wind power Production Tax Credit (PTC) will increase U.S. wind power production and create thousands of jobs while generating additional income for rural areas. A Harkin amendment passed enabling individual members of agricultural cooperatives to receive the PTC. The Senate version also extends the biodiesel tax credit for three additional years.

Ø Harkin Amendments: An amendment based on Harkin’s National Security and Bioenergy Investment Act of 2005 was successfully included in the energy bill providing funding to increase research, development and deployment of biobased fuels, chemicals and power. Also included were amendments promoting the production of hydrogen energy from renewable fuels such as ethanol and low interest loans for small businesses and farmers hurt by high energy costs.

Ø Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to ensure that at least ten percent of the nation’s electricity comes from renewable energy sources, such as wind power, hydrogen, solar power and biomass.

“We can reverse our heavy dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable resources right here at home,” said Harkin. “This will mean new value-added markets for farmers, increased opportunities for rural businesses, and tens of thousands of new jobs in the emerging bioeconomy.”

Passage of the legislation today sets up negotiations to reconcile differences between the Senate and House versions of energy legislation. Besides the heavy investment in renewable energy not included in the House version, the House bill also contains provisions protecting oil companies from lawsuits resulting from MTBE damage to drinking water supplies.

“It would be a shame if a free pass for oil companies on MTBE becomes the poison pill that again derails this legislation,” Harkin said. “This energy bill is simply too important for America’s future to let that happen.”

# # #

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

June 28, 2005 Alison Aikele (202) 224-7518

SENATE APPROVES LONG-AWAITED ENERGY BILL

Idaho integral in renewable energy initiatives

Washington, DC –Idaho Senator Mike Crapo voted in favor of comprehensive energy legislation today that will boost renewable energy initiatives in Idaho and lessen the nation’s foreign energy dependence. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over the financing for the national energy policy, he played an instrumental role in securing tax credits to expand nuclear power production to benefit the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). A member of the Senate Renewables and Energy Efficiency Caucus, Crapo also sponsored amendments to create a tax credit for renewable energy production for hydropower, wind, and solar power that were included in the final bill, which passed the full Senate 85-12.

“Advanced usage and increased production of renewable energy will not only relieve U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources but will also translate into lower prices for consumers and producers of energy while maintaining a clean environment,” Crapo said. “The provisions in this bill are critical to Idaho’s historically low energy costs as hydropower is a major supplier of energy to the state.”

“The United States has needed a national energy policy for years, and this bill puts us on the right track toward exploring new sources of energy while enhancing the nation’s economy. The tax package included in this bill is a critical factor in expanding production of energy sources while creating jobs and is crucial to our national and economic security. Increasing the available supply of domestic energy is important to American consumers and producers; this legislation benefits everyone.”

It has been 13 years since comprehensive energy legislation was passed by the Senate. The bill will now go to conference committee that will resolve the differences between the House-passed and Senate-passed bills.

To directly link to this news release, please use the following address:

http://www.crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=239381

###

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 June 27, 2005

DA: Monday, June 27, 2005

Following is Sen. Grassley’s schedule for June 27 – July 1.

• Sen. Grassley will meet with Iowans from the American Association of University Women; Lutheran Services of America; the Rural Iowa Independent Telephone Association; Eastern Iowa Community College; the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Technology Corridor; New Hartford; Cedar Rapids; and the Iowa School Nurse Organization.

• Sen. Grassley will meet with young Iowans from Clinton (Prince of Peace College Preparatory) and Cedar Rapids (Linn-Mar High School). The two students were selected as Presidential Scholars by the White House Commission on Presidential Scholars. The award recognizes graduating high school seniors based on academic and artistic success, leadership, and involvement in school and community activities.

Grassley will also meet with young Iowans participating in the Congressional Youth Leadership Conference and the Presidential Classroom.

• On Tuesday, June 28 at 9 a.m. (ET), Sen. Grassley will lead the Finance Committee through a mark-up of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It’s expected that the business will not be completed on Tuesday and the mark-up will resume on Wednesday. CAFTA-DR would help U.S. exporters compete for market share abroad and retain jobs in the United States. Iowa farmers would benefit tremendously by leveling the playing field and creating additional opportunities for exports. Nearly 99 percent of the food and agriculture products the U.S. imports from the region com in duty-free. At the same time, U.S. food and agriculture exports are hit with an 11 percent tariff. Some tariffs are as high as 150 percent.

• On Tuesday, June 28, and Wednesday, June 29, at 10 a.m. (ET) on both days, Sen. Grassley will lead the Finance Committee in a two-day hearing about “Medicaid Waste, Fraud and Abuse: Threatening the Health Care Safety Net.” The hearing is intended to consider how fraud, waste and abuse harm the Medicaid program. On the first day the committee will consider differences between Medicaid and Medicare oversight and how the complexity of the Medicaid program makes it difficult to oversee and account for misuse. The committee will also review various ways the states access federal Medicaid dollars. On the second day the committee will review Medicaid’s pricing and payment policies for prescription drugs and the practice of transferring assets by older individuals relying on Medicaid for long-term care needs. Medicaid is one of the biggest social programs in the federal budget and one of the largest components of state budgets, paying for acute health care and long-term care services for over 54 million low-income Americans. About half are children and over one-quarter are elderly, blind or disabled. Since 2003, Medicaid has been included by the Government Accountability Office on its annual list of programs at high risk for waste, fraud and abuse.

• On Tuesday, June 28 at 10 a.m. (ET), Sen. Grassley is expected to participate in an Agriculture Committee hearing to review the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 and other crop insurance issues. Dr. Keith Collins, the Chief Economist at USDA and Ross Davidson the Administrator at the Risk Management Agency are scheduled to testify. Grassley has been critical of Davidson’s handling of the Risk Management Agency in the past.

-30-

MEDIA ADVISORY: Contact: Howard Gantman

Monday, June 27, 2005 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Weekly Planner of Senator Dianne Feinstein

*** For Planning Purposes Only – All Times Subject to Change***

Public Hearings and Markups of Note:

Senate Military Appropriations Subcommittee – HEARING

Topic: Overseas Basing Commission Report

Witnesses:

Panel I - Overseas Basing Commission
– Honorable Al Cornella, Chairman
– Major General Lewis E. Curtis III, U.S. Air Force (Ret)
– Vice Admiral Anthony A. Less, U.S. Navy (Ret)
– Brigadier General Keith Martin, Pennsylvania Air Reserve National Guard (Ret)
– Lieutenant General H.G. Taylor, U.S. Army (Ret)

Panel II

– Mr. Philip W. Grone, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment

– Honorable Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

– Ms. Rose Likins, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

When: 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Where: 138 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Senate Indian Affairs Committee – MARKUP
Feinstein bill on markup agenda:

? Lytton Band – S.113 (Feinstein) – To require the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians to undergo the same regulatory oversight process for building a casino as any other tribe that acquired land after October 17, 1988 – the date the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was enacted.

When: 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Where: 485 Russell Senate Office Building

Senate Foreign Affairs Committee – HEARING

Topic: Nominations (Ambassadors)

Nominees to be introduced by Feinstein:

– Robert H. Tuttle to be Ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

– Ronald Spogli to be Ambassador to the Italian Republic

When: 2:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Where: 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Senate Judiciary Committee – MARKUP
Feinstein bills on markup agenda:

Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act – S.751 (Feinstein/Kyl) – To require businesses or government agencies to notify individuals if a database has been broken into and personal data has been compromised, including Social Security numbers, driver's licenses and credit cards.

The Combat Meth Act – S. 103 (Talent/Feinstein) – To require that cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine be put behind the counter and to limit the amount individuals can purchase over a 30-day period.

Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act – S. 155 (Feinstein/Hatch) – To curb gang violence by increasing criminal penalties, targeting the most pernicious aspects of gang activity, including the recruitment of children to join street gangs and providing additional funds for intervention and prevention.

When: 9:30 a.m., Thursday, June 30, 2005

Where: 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Senate Appropriations Committee – MARKUP
Topic: Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

When: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, June 30, 2005

Where: 106 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Upcoming floor action of note:

The Senate will vote on the final passage of the Energy Bill and take up the Interior Appropriations Bill and the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill on the Senate floor this week.

###

For Immediate Release: Contact: Rich Chrismer Talent (202) 224-4812

Monday, June 27, 2005 Scott Gerber Feinstein (202) 224-9629

***MEDIA ADVISORY***

TALENT-FEINSTEIN TO ANNOUNCE BROAD SUPPORT FOR STRENGTHENED BILL TO LIMIT ACCESS TO KEY INGREDIENT USED TO MAKE METH

Senate Judiciary Committee Expected to Act on Legislation This Week

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) U.S. Senators Jim Talent (R-Mo.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Tuesday will hold a news conference announcing broad support for a strengthened bill to limit access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient to make methamphetamine. The news conference will be held Tuesday, June 28, at noon, in the Senate Radio-TV gallery.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to meet Thursday to mark-up the legislation modeled after the successful Oklahoma law which saw an immediate result of 80 percent fewer meth lab seizures.

WHAT: SENATORS HOLD NEWS CONFERENCE

TO DISCUSS ANTI-METH BILL

WHO: U.S. SENATORS JIM TALENT, DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CHUCK SCHUMER

WHEN: TUESDAY, JUNE 28

12:00 P.M.

WHERE: SENATE RADIO & TV GALLERY

S-325

###

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Reporters and Editors

Fr: Jill Gerber for Chairman Grassley, 202/224-6522

Re: Final rule on doctors’ Part B drug acquisition program

Da: Monday, June 27, 2005

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) today released a final rule to provide physicians who administer Part B drugs in their offices an additional option for obtaining these drugs. The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) set payment rates for Part B-covered drugs at the Average Sales Price (ASP), as determined by data supplied by manufacturers. The ASP is a market-oriented measure of the true cost of purchasing the drug.

The second part in reforming the payment system for Part B drugs required CMS to offer physicians an option, beginning in 2006, to acquire drugs from a group of vendors who would be selected in a competitive bidding process. Under this program, otherwise known as the Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP), the vendors are responsible for billing the Medicare program and collecting any deductible and coinsurance from the beneficiary.

The physician would not bill Medicare for the drug, but would bill Medicare only for administrative services. The vendor, rather than the physician, would bill Medicare for the drug and be responsible for collecting any deductibles and coinsurance from the beneficiary.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Committee on Finance, today made the following comment on the announcement from CMS regarding the implementation of this new program.

“The first part of reforming the payment system for Part B drugs was a good step. It set the fair goals of paying accurately for drugs and not overspending Medicare’s limited resources. It also resulted in reduced costs for the beneficiaries who use these drugs.

“I hope the new Competitive Acquisition Program will be implemented without any problems. Once this program is in place, physicians will have the freedom and ability to choose how they obtain their Part B drugs. If they decide to obtain their drugs through the CAP program, it will save them valuable time and paperwork. They won’t have to collect the deductible and coinsurance. The time they spend on billing will be cut in half. That’ll leave them with more time for their patients instead of being stuck behind a desk filling out paperwork. The final rule released today accomplishes this while still creating a competitive market for certain Part B drugs.”

The final rule is in the Federal Register at:

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/public_inspection/public_inspection_list.html

For Immediate Release

Monday, June 27, 2005

CONTACT: Howard Gantman (Feinstein) 202-224-9629

Senator Feinstein Joined Senators Reid and Salazar to Urge President Bush

to Provide Adequate Support for Veterans Health Care Funding

Washington, DC – Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Senator Ken Salazar joined Dave Gorman, Executive Director of Disabled American Veterans, today to demand the Bush Administration provide the health care needs of America’s veterans.

Two months ago, Democratic members of the Senate tried to increase veterans funding by $2 billion. They were told it wasn’t needed. Now it has been disclosed that the VA is facing a $1 billion budget shortfall and cannot meet the health care needs of our nation’s veterans. When the President goes on the air on Tuesday night and addresses the nation, the Senators urged him to say how he intends to restore the urgently needed funds for the Veterans’ Administration.

“Democrats believe that if we can find billions for the latest weapons to wage war, we ought to be able to find the money we need to support the brave men and women who fight them,” Senator Reid said. “Instead of billions for Halliburton, we should be giving our troops the equipment and armor they need, and keeping our promise to America’s Veterans.”

“We have veterans coming home by the thousands, many with traumatic brain injuries, amputations and other horrible battlefield wounds that will require care for the rest of their lives,” Senator Feinstein said. "That’s why this shortfall is so bad. Earlier this year, I voted for an amendment that would have provided $1.98 billion in emergency funding to the VA. However the amendment was defeated on the floor only after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wrote a letter assuring that the VA did not need additional emergency funds this year. We now learn that the letter was dead wrong.”

Senator Feinstein also joined Patty Murray (D-WA) and 29 other Senators today calling on the President to provide the American people with the full cost of caring for veterans returning home as well as to explain to the American people how he will make up for the budget shortfall.

“We’ve known that this administration has under funded the VA for four years. It is now clear that there was a disconnect between what administration officials were telling us, and what was really going on. We need to figure out what happened and we need to move quickly to get the VA the money it needs to keep our promise to our veterans,” Senator Salazar said.

The letter is attached, and was signed by Senators Murray, Reid, Boxer, Leahy, Corzine, Lautenberg, Johnson, Rockefellar, Kohl, Kerry, Jeffords, Carper, Obama, Durbin, Salazar, Wyden, Mikulski, Feinstein, Feingold, Reed, Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Dorgan, Bayh, Stabenow, Cantwell, Harkin, Bingaman, Sarbanes, Lincoln, Dayton, Landrieu, Conrad, Biden, Pryor, Bill Nelson, and Levin.

####

June 27, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush

President of the United States of America

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

Mr. President:

As you prepare for your Tuesday evening address to the nation regarding our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we urge you to take this opportunity to level with the American people about a major cost of these conflicts - the care of our nation's veterans.

As of January 2005, over 1 million U.S. troops have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 3 and one half years. The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) annual mid-year budget review confirmed that many of these soldiers have returned home and are beginning to access the VA health care system in record numbers, placing increased demands on an already overburdened agency. Many of us saw a looming crisis and sought to take steps that would avert it.

With the recent announcement that the VA is facing a shortfall of approximately $1 billion in fiscal year 2005 it seems that our concerns are well founded. Unfortunately, the VA's current shortfall, and larger shortfalls predicted for future years, has confirmed that your Administration has not prudently addressed the budget impacts of these conflicts. We urge you to do so now. Only by confronting this problem head-on can we ensure that our veterans receive the support and healthcare they were both promised and deserve.

Adjusted for inflation, the VA is spending 25-percent less per patient than it did in fiscal year 2000. Some veterans have to wait over three years to have surgery. And some VA hospitals are only seeing veterans who have more than a 50-percent service-connected disability. The evidence that the VA cannot function under your proposed budgets and needs immediate relief to provide veterans access to quality health care continues to mount.

War is costly. This is a lesson we all know personally. As Senators we have dealt with legislation authorizing the use of military force, we have worked on spending bills to support our troops, and we have talked to the families of those who have lost loved ones. We also know that failing to provide for the men and women who have sacrificed for our freedom is wrong.

In a September 7, 2003 speech to the nation you stated, "the heaviest burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of our Armed Forces and our intelligence services. They have removed gathering threats to America and our friends, and this nation takes great pride in their incredible achievements. We are grateful for their skill and courage, and for their acts of decency, which have shown America's character to the world. We honor the sacrifice of their families."

Mr. President, we urge you to provide the American people with a full accounting of the cost of these conflicts, including the cost of caring for our veterans upon their return home, during your Tuesday evening address. We ask that you directly share with the nation how your administration will make up the VA's current FY 2005 budget shortfall of $1 billion, as well as the looming shortfall projected for the future. And, we stand ready to work with you to pass an emergency spending bill to address this shortfall before the July 4th Congressional recess.

Sincerely,

(Senators listed above)

The United States Senate

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contacts: Tara Andringa (Levin) 202-228-3685

June 27, 2005 Jen Burita (Collins) 202-224-2523

Levin, Collins Urge President to Insist Iraqis Meet their Own Political Timeline

U.S. should review our position if constitution is not adopted, say Senators

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote a letter to President Bush today, on the eve of his address to the nation regarding Iraq policy, urging him to make it clear that Iraqis must meet their own timetable for adopting a constitution -- or else the U.S. will review its position in Iraq with all our options open, including a reevaluation of our military commitment.

Letter attached.

###

For Immediate Release

Date: Monday, June 27, 2005

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

SENATE DEMOCRATS OUTLINE FOUR GOALS FOR BUSH IRAQ SPEECH

Senate Democratic Leaders Call on President to Provide Plan on Iraq, Level with American People about Tough Road Ahead

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid; Senator Joe Biden, Ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee; Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; and Senator Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, sent the following letter to President Bush today:

June 27, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We were pleased to learn that you will address the nation tomorrow about your Administration’s Iraq policy. Given the implications events in Iraq hold for our troops, their families, and this nation’s security, we look forward to hearing your remarks.

As you know, the informed consent of the American people is essential for your Iraq policy to succeed. Yet as you recently acknowledged, more and more Americans are raising questions about this policy. We believe your speech tomorrow represents a critical opportunity for you to rally the American people by clearly setting forth your plan for succeeding in Iraq and turning control of Iraq over to the Iraqi people.

We believe this objective can best be accomplished if your speech does the following four things:

(1) Provides a detailed plan for success in Iraq with clear performance benchmarks in the key areas of security, reconstruction, governance, and internationalization. By spelling out a series of specific goals in each of these areas, you will provide our troops, their families, and the American people the ability to see where we are headed and, just as importantly, the ability to assess whether we are making progress in achieving our objectives.

(2) Levels with the American people about the nature and intensity of the threat facing our troops and what additional sacrifices will be required to succeed in Iraq from our military and our taxpayers, the people of Iraq, and our allies. One of the reasons Americans are increasingly concerned about the course of events in Iraq is because they perceive a gap between the Administration’s upbeat assessments about the future of Iraq and the reality of what our troops are confronting on the ground today. In order to ensure that your Iraq policy enjoys the support of the American people, it is essential that you use tomorrow’s address to provide a frank and complete assessment of the challenges we face and the costs we are likely to incur in the days and months ahead.

(3) Declares that you will provide Congress with access to the people and information necessary to make regular Congressional oversight hearings useful. We have been engaged in Iraq for nearly 2 ½ years. Our troops and our taxpayers have sacrificed much during this period and will be asked to do much more before this war is over. As the elected representatives of the American people and a co-equal branch of government, Congress has an obligation and a right to examine our Iraq policy on a regular basis.

(4) Assures our troops that you are committed to providing them everything they need to complete their mission as quickly and safely as possible and are equally determined to keep this nation’s commitments to them when they return home. We continue to receive reports that our troops lack properly armored humvees and other essential equipment. Equally disturbing was the news that there is a $1 billion shortfall in funding for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and thousands of veterans returning from Iraq may be denied access to the timely, quality health care services they have earned.

As we have said, your Iraq policy is clearly at a critical juncture. We urge you to use tomorrow’s address to clearly spell out a way forward and level with our troops and the American people about the sacrifices that remain ahead. Mr. President, we want you to succeed in Iraq and we want to do everything we can to support you. Your success is America’s success. We can best achieve that by working together.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Carl Levin

John D. Rockefeller, IV

For Immediate Release

Monday, June 27, 2005

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley today announced U.S. Department of Labor is awarding $850,000 to Iowa Workforce Development to establish four new full service New Iowans Centers.

The Centers will be located in existing One-Stop Career Centers in Waterloo, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines and Council Bluffs. The centers will help prepare immigrants for employment in high-growth industries, meet local workforce needs and promote civic integration.

"Helping newcomers to this country find jobs and become a part of a community is an important part of helping them feel at home," Grassley said. "These funds will help smooth what can be a difficult transition by preparing immigrants for good jobs in growing Iowa industries."

New Iowans Centers will provide job placement, community service referrals, translation, language and occupational training, resettlement assistance, supportive services, small business assistance, and technical and legal assistance concerning documentation, civic responsibilities and other appropriate services.

-30-

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Dave Townsend/ Allison Dobson

202-224-3254

Statement of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

on Crop Insurance

June 28, 2005

As Prepared for Delivery

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the very important topic of the federal crop insurance program. We passed the fifth anniversary of the enactment of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act (ARPA) last week, on June 22, so this is a good time to take a look at how it has improved the program. Crop insurance is a crucial component of the farm income safety net.

“Since 2000, crop insurance participation in terms of acres enrolled has increased by seven percent, and total crop value covered has increased by more than 33 percent. With the higher premium subsidies provided in ARPA, farmers are both covering more acres and buying higher levels of coverage for acres that were already insured, which is what we intended to achieve. ARPA also invested resources in developing new products for crops for which either no policies exist or for which existing policies were deemed inadequate by producers of those crops. The Act also relaxed the restriction on providing insurance coverage for livestock operations, for which several pilot projects have been approved.

“I expect that many of the witnesses will raise the issue of the proposed rule for the Premium Reduction Plan. The Federal Register notice for that proposed rule generated several hundred comments. I understand that the majority of the comments were negative, raising concerns both about the adequacy of the proposed rule and the capacity of Risk Management Agency (RMA) to oversee how companies and agents market these discounted policies, in order to reduce the temptation for agents to focus on larger, more profitable operations while neglecting small- and medium-sized farms.

“I share those concerns, and believe that RMA should delay implementing this rule until stakeholders have an opportunity to provide input on the revised version of the rule before it goes into effect. A delay would also permit an independent analysis of the potential impact on the crop insurance program and the resources needed to monitor marketing practices.

“I also have concerns about the proposed changes to the conflict of interest rules which govern relationships between crop insurance agents and loss adjusters. Many agents from Iowa and elsewhere have objected to requirements which bar any contact between agents and adjusters, even something as routine and non-controversial as providing maps or directions to the farm where the crop loss occurred. While I understand the need for effective conflict of interest rules, some of these proposed changes seem more likely to create confusion and delay in processing farmers’ claims without really reducing wasteful or abusive practices.

“I would like to note that three of today’s witnesses hail from Iowa, and I would like to acknowledge their participation in this hearing. In order of appearance, we have Mr. Norman Nielsen from Preston, Iowa, representing the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America; Mr. Billy Rose, CEO of Crop1, located in Des Moines, Iowa; and Dr. Bruce Babcock, Director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University in Ames. Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you for testifying.

I believe that over the last several years, Congress, USDA, crop insurance companies, and agents have combined to provide a greatly improved federal crop insurance program. Certainly, Iowa farmers have embraced the program, insuring their crops to the tune of more than $5 billion in protection last year. Before we tinker with that success, let’s take a long, hard look at these matters. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.”

# # #

It will be webcast live on the committee’s website, located at http://veterans.senate.gov. It may also be audiocast on C-SPAN’s hearing’s website, located at http://www.capitolhearings.org.

Witnesses

The Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by
– The Honorable Dr. Jonathon Perlin, Veterans Affairs Under Secretary for Health
– The Honorable Tim S. McClain, General Counsel and interim Chief Management Officer

Previous announcement had the hearing starting at 10 a.m., then 10:30 a.m. The Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing schedule has been changed to allow the House of Representatives to carry out a similar hearing this morning.

Jeff Schrade, Communications Director

U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs

Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Chairman

412 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Direct: 202-224-9093 Cell: 202-680-9552 Fax: 202-228-5655

http://veterans.senate.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: JEFF SADOSKY
JUNE 28, 2005 BREANN GONZALEZ

(202) 224-2315

***SCHEDULE ADVISORY***

***FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY***

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

WHAT: U.S. SENATOR MIKE DEWINE (R-OH) AND TOP-SELLING AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER TO SUPPORT “STARS ON CARS” INITIATIVE IN THE HIGHWAY BILL

Senator DeWine will join with an automobile industry executive to speak with members of the press in support of “Stars on Cars” initiative in the Highway bill (H.R. 3). Senator DeWine’s point of sale labeling legislation, the “Stars on Cars Act” (Section 7257 of H.R. 3 as passed by the Senate), would take the common sense step of adding vehicle crash test results, in the form of star ratings, to the other information on car pricing stickers already required by law, such as cost, fuel economy, and vehicle features.

WHEN: Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.

WHERE: Senate Swamp

Russell Senate Park

Intersection of Constitution and Delaware Avenues

U.S. Capitol

Washington, D.C.

RAIN

LOCATION: SC-4, U.S. Capitol Building

###