Today's Press Releases

A House-Senate Conference Committee has approved the fiscal year 2005 Defense Appropriations Conference Report. The Conference Report provides $416.2 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the Department of Defense for functions under the House and Senate Defense Subcommittees’ jurisdiction, including $25 billion in emergency spending requested by the President for early fiscal year 2005 costs associated with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Conference Report is $1.6 billion under the President’s amended fiscal year 2005 budget request of $417.8 billion and reflects an increase of $25.4 billion over amounts provided in fiscal year 2004, excluding the fiscal year 2004 Iraq Supplemental and the $25 billion Emergency Wartime Appropriation. It also supports operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and provides the resources to prosecute the Global War on Terrorism.

The Conference Report fully funds military pay, benefits and medical programs; initiates the major recapitalization of Army and Marine Corps ground forces; supports the deployment of a national missile defense and continues investment in theater missile defenses. It continues development and procurement of major platforms such as the Virginia class submarine, the C-130, and V-22 transport aircraft, the F/A-18 and F/A-22 fighter aircraft, and the Joint Strike Fighter and provides a total of $350 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment.

Summary by Major Account:

Military Personnel $103,731,158,000

Operation and Maintenance $121,062,969,000

Procurement $77,679,803,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation $69,932,182,000

Revolving and Management Funds $2,378,836,000

Other Department of Defense Programs $20,655,510,000

Emergency Wartime Appropriation $25,000,000,000

Major Issues:

Military Personnel:

· The Conference Report fully funds the 3.5% military pay raise proposed in the President's budget, and increased levels for Basic Allowance for Housing, eliminating service members' average out-of-pocket housing expenses from 3.5% to zero in fiscal year 2005.

· The Conference Report provides $14.7 million for 154 Active Guard Personnel to support 7 additional Weapons of Mass Destruction/Civil Support Teams, resulting in a total of 55 teams by the end of FY 2005.

Readiness Accounts:

· The Conference Report fully funds key readiness programs critical to the Global War on Terrorism: land forces training, tank training miles, helicopter flying hours, ship steaming days, spare parts, and Air Force and Navy flying hour programs.

· The Conference Report fully funds the Department’s Environmental Restoration programs at $1.3 billion, and includes $50 million above the budget request for cleanup at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).

Ground Forces Recapitalization:

· The Conference Report provides $1.5 billion above the President’s budget request to the Army and Marine Corps for the recapitalization of combat and tactical vehicles, helicopters, and ammunition production. Of this amount, $235.8 million is directed to National Guard and Reserve equipment.

· This initiative accelerates the process of restocking our ground forces’ inventory that is being decimated by ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

· Amounts provided for this major ground forces recapitalization include:

o $625 million for procurement and fielding of one additional Stryker brigade

o $332.9 million to modernize the Army truck fleet

o $114 million for Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and an additional $34 million to initiate the Bradley Integrated Modernization Program (BIM)

o $10.5 million for M113 Carrier Modernization

o $63.6 million for 12 Army National Guard Blackhawk helicopters

o $143 million for 8 CH-47 Chinook helicopters

o $51.4 million for Army ammunition

Major Aviation Programs:

· Army

The Conferees approve the termination of the Comanche helicopter program and redistribute funding to other Army aviation programs.
As part of the Conferees’ ground forces recapitalization initiative, $63.6 million is added above the budget request for 12 additional Army National Guard Blackhawk helicopters for a total of 39 Blackhawks in FY 2005, and $143 million is provided for the procurement of 8 CH-47 Chinook helicopters.

· Navy/Marine Corps

The Conference Report provides $2.9 billion for 42 F/A-18 fighters, $846.6 million for 8 Marine Corps V-22 transport aircraft and $211.5 million for 2 E-2C Hawkeye surveillance aircraft, as requested in the budget.
The Conference Report funds 2 UC-35 airlift aircraft, and 2 C-37s, one aircraft above the budget request.
The Conference Report adds $15 million for the acquisition of Joint Primary Air Training System (JPATS) aircraft.

· Air Force

o The Conference Report provides $3.6 billion for procurement of 24 F/A-22 fighters, and $2.7 billion for 15 C-17 aircraft, an addition of $158 million and one C-17 aircraft above the budget request. The Conferees fully fund procurement of 3 Air Force V-22 Ospreys.

o For advance procurement, the Conference Report provides $110 million for F-15 fighters. The Conference Report also includes $100 million for a “Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund”.

o The Conference Report provides $30 million above the budget request for a total of $176.6 million for Predator UAVs.

o The Conference Report adds $60 million for the continued development of the B-2 and a next-generation bomber program.

· Joint Strike Fighter

The Conference Report recommends $4.4 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter development program, an increase of $97 million from fiscal year 2004 levels.

· Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles

The Conference Report provides $586.5 million for the Joint Unmanned Combat Aerial System (JUCAS) program.

· VXX Executive Helicopter

o The Conferees reduce funding for the VXX Executive Helicopter by $220 million due to program schedule delays.

· Multiyear Procurement

As a result of the Air Force having entered into multiyear contracts for the C-17 and C-130 aircraft that permit incremental funding of these programs and put future budgets at risk through excessive government liability, the Conference Report revises provisions relating to future multiyear procurement contracts. These changes will require that any future multi-year programs must be budgeted and executed as fully funded production programs, and must limit the government’s exposure in terms of expected production levels, follow-on contracts and termination liability.

Army Future Combat System (FCS):

· The Conference Report provides $2.9 billion for the Army’s Future Combat System, the Army’s premier modernization effort. This amount is an increase of $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2004 and a decrease of $268 million to the budget request.

· The Conference Report fully funds the requested amount for the Non Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) and directs its fielding by not later than 2010.

· The Conference Report also establishes a new funding line for the Non Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS) and includes $58 million for this effort.

Shipbuilding Programs:

· The Conference Report provides a total of $11.1 billion for shipbuilding programs, an increase of $240 million over the budget request. The Conference Report fully funds amounts requested for fiscal year 2005 production ships, including one Virginia-class submarine, three DDG-51 destroyers, one LPD-17, and two T-AKEs. An additional $150 million is provided for initiation of the LHA-R program, $50 million is provided for modernization of DDG-51s, and $84.4 million is provided in advance procurement funding for construction of the second DD(X).

· Regarding future ship development, the Conferees provide $953 million for the next-generation CVN-21 carrier and $457.1 million for the Littoral Combat Ship, an increase of $105 million over the budget request to fully fund construction of the first vessel. The conferees also provide $1.4 billion for the DD(X) program, including $221 million of the funds requested for advance procurement of the first DD(X) ship.

Missile Defense Programs:

· The Conference Report provides $10 billion for missile defense programs, an increase of $1 billion from fiscal year 2004 levels, and a decrease of $183 million from the budget request.

· This amount includes $4.6 billion for ground-based midcourse missile defense in support of fielding a national missile defense initial operational capability in the fall of 2004.

· For theater missile defense, the Conferees provide $937.6 million for production, modification and continued development of Patriot PAC-3 missiles and the next-generation MEADS system.

Space Programs:

· The Conference Report provides $599 million for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS-High), an increase of $91 million over the request; and provides $511 million for Enhanced Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) procurement.

· Development funding for the Advanced Wideband System (also known as Transformational Satellite Communications) and Mobile User Objective System programs are reduced due to technical maturity and the need for risk reduction.

· Funding for the Space-Based Radar program is reduced to $75 million, with direction to return this effort back to the technology development phase.

Weapons/Missiles:

· The Conference Report fully funds the PAC-3 procurement program.

· The Conference Report adds $24 million for Tactical Tomahawk missiles.

Defense Health Program:

· The Conference Report provides a total of $18.2 billion for the Defense Health Program, an increase of $2.5 billion over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.

· This amount includes $150 million for breast cancer research, $85 million for prostate cancer research, and $10 million for ovarian cancer research.

· The Conferees also provide $19.2 million to improve amputee care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including $10 million for prosthetic limb development and applied collaborative research.

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities:

· The Conference Report provides $906.5 million for Department of Defense Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. This is a $71.9 million increase over the fiscal year 2004 enacted level.

· The Conference Report adds $18 million for National Guard State Counter-Drug support programs above the budget request.

Emergency Wartime Appropriation:

· The Conferees provide $25 billion for operational costs in Iraq and Afghanistan in an Emergency Wartime Appropriation, available to the Department immediately upon the enactment of the Conference Report. These funds are appropriated into the following accounts:

Military Personnel $1,250,000,000

Operation and Maintenance $20,205,000,000

Procurement $1,384,000,000

Defense Working Capital Funds $1,478,000,000

Defense Health Program $683,000,000

$25,000,000,000

· Manpower:

o The Emergency Wartime Appropriation provides $1.3 billion for additional manpower costs stemming from the Global War on Terrorism.

o The Emergency Wartime Appropriation provides a total of $126.1 million to fund permanent increases for military personnel in Family Separation Allowance (FSA) from $100 to $250 per month, and in Imminent Danger Pay (IDP) from $150 to $225 per month.

o The Emergency Wartime Appropriation provides $683 million for the Defense Health Program. These funds will cover additional costs incurred by the military medical system, including costs associated with improving medical readiness for Ready Reserve members and their families.

· Force Protection/Equipment

The Emergency Wartime Appropriation provides $1.3 billion for critical force protection requirements, including $587 million for Army and Air Force Up-armored HMMWVs and $250 million for Army and Marine Corps Bolt-on Armor kits, and funds equipment for the restructured Army brigades that will be rotating into theater.
The Emergency Wartime Appropriation provides $79 million for Navy aircraft survivability and reliability equipment.
The Emergency Wartime Appropriation provides $100 million for Iraqi Captured Enemy Ammunition Demilitarization. The additional funding is to help ensure that newly discovered weapons caches are secured and disposed of before they become available to enemy combatants.
The Emergency Wartime Appropriation provides $50 million for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account, and $100 million for the Coast Guard in support of DOD operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

· Oversight

o The Conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report within 60 days of enactment of this legislation on the allocation of these funds, with quarterly reports submitted thereafter. These quarterly reports shall include detailed accounting of obligations and expenditures of appropriations provided in this Title for the continuation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a listing of equipment procured using funds provided in this Title.

The Conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees regarding military structure, training, and job specialties for handling prisoners and managing prisons, and related matters.
o The Conferees direct classified and unclassified reviews regarding U.S. financial assistance to the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and alleged intelligence compromises involving the INC.

###

CONTACT: DON STEWART
(202) 224-0704 office (202) 365-6702 cell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 20, 2004

FLAG PROTECTION AMENDMENT CLEARS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Bipartisan constitutional amendment now moves to the Senate floor for a vote

WASHINGTON –The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bipartisan constitutional amendment Wednesday allowing Congress to create legislation protecting the flag of the United States. U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the Constitution subcommittee and original co-sponsor of the amendment (S.J. Res. 4) called the vote “an important step toward providing constitutional protection for our national symbol.”

The amendment passed by a vote of 11 to 7. Cornyn’s subcommittee approved the amendment on June 2 by a vote of 5-4. The constitutional amendment states: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” S.J. Res. 4 was introduced by Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and is co-sponsored by a bipartisan majority of 55 other senators. The amendment now moves to the full Senate for consideration, where 67 votes are required for passage.

“The flag deserves constitutional protection, and legal scholars agree that this amendment is the only way to restore the law as it existed for most of our nation’s history,” Chairman Cornyn said. “In times of national crisis and triumph alike, it is the United States flag that Americans look to with reverence and unity. No other American symbol has been as universally honored.”

Until recently, 48 states have had laws on the books protecting the flag, most of them patterned after the Uniform Flag Act of 1917. The federal government enacted its own law in 1967, and Congress reaffirmed that law in 1989 with the support of 91 Senators. The power to protect the flag was eviscerated in 1989, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued the first of two decisions, both decided by a narrow 5-4 majority, declaring that flag desecration constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment. [See Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990).]

Several Supreme Court Justices have supported the constitutionality of flag protection laws. Justice Byron White, for example, wrote that the First Amendment does not forbid laws protecting the flag. That view has also been expressed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Hugo Black, Justice Abe Fortas, Justice John Paul Stevens, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Smith v. Goguen (1974), in a decision authored by Justice Lewis Powell, that “nothing prevents a legislature from defining with substantial specificity what constitutes forbidden treatment of United States flags.”

Sen. Cornyn chairs the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Property Rights, where the constitutional amendment will be referred. He is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee and served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Ilene Zeldin, (202) 224-6654
Tuesday, July 13, 2004 <http://hollings.senate.gov>

Senator Hollings Legislation on Home Fire Safety
To Be Discussed at Commerce Committee Hearing Wednesday

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A hearing to discuss the progress the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is making in mandating fire safety standards for common household items will be held at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, July 14, in Senate Russell 253.

U.S. Senator Fritz Hollings, along with eight co-sponsors, introduced the American Home Fire Safety Act (S 1798) last October, which would require the Commission to establish new fire resistant standards for items that are involved in residential fires: mattresses, upholstered furniture, candles, and bedding.

“We want to see if the Consumer Product Safety Commission is doing its job,” Senator Hollings said. “If they aren’t making progress in reducing the number of home fire deaths, we will make it for them by moving our legislation.”

Senator Hollings said there is overwhelming evidence new standards would save lives. More than 2,600 Americans die in residential fires annually. Seventy-five percent of all fire deaths occur in residences. It is estimated fires cause $3.5 billion annually in residential property loss.

“I am glad to see the Commission’s recent progress on upholstered furniture, but I still have concerns because historically they have been slow to address this issue,” Senator Hollings said. “More than 20 years have passed since the Commission has addressed product fire safety. There is no more time to waste."

Testifying at the hearing will be Harold Stratton, Chairman, the Consumer Product Safety Commission; John Dean, Vice President, National Association of State Fire Marshals; Norman Chapman, Executive Vice President, Inman Mills; Andy Counts, Chief Executive Officer, American Furniture Manufacturers Association; Bob Higgins, President, National Candle Association; and Al Klancnik, Group Vice President, Serta.

Co-sponsors of Senator Hollings’ legislation are Senators John Breaux (D-LA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Bill Nelson (D-FL). The legislation is aimed at reducing the combustibility of household items that most often fuel home fires.
–30-

TUESDAY, July 13, 2004

Floor Statement of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle

On the High Cost of Prescription Drugs

We face a real crisis in our country involving the rising cost of prescription drugs. Last year, Congress passed a bill that was supposed to solve that crisis. Seven months later it is clear that it is not working and prices are going up as fast as ever. We should not and we must not accept that.

We have an obligation to consider new ideas, to search for new solutions. President Roosevelt was fond of saying: "Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But, by all means, try something."

A couple of weeks ago my friend Senator Pryor from Arkansas was speaking here. He suggested that we follow a "do right" approach to our work. I completely agree. As we tackle issues, we should ask ourselves a simple question: Are we doing right by America? In the case of prescription drugs, I would ask the question: Are we doing right by America's seniors? The answer, unfortunately, is no.

According to a report by the AARP, the cost of the most-prescribed brand name prescription drugs has risen above the rate of inflation for each of the past 4 years, steadily eroding the fixed incomes of seniors. Last year the cost of drugs rose three times the rate of inflation. But as bad as that was, this year appears to be even worse. The AARP revealed recently that during the first quarter of 2004, drug prices rose more than 3 ½ times the rate of inflation and there is no end in sight. The typical senior will pay $191 more for drugs this year than in 2003.

Statistics cannot do justice to the hardship this is placing on Americans.

Not long ago my office was contacted by a man whose name is Stan Pitts. Stan's diabetes has left him virtually blind and unable to work. Controlling his illness requires 13 different prescriptions. In all, his monthly drug bill is $1,267. When he could no longer work as a computer technician, Stan went on disability, which paid him $1,162 per month. It is not much, not even enough to cover his drug costs, but it still disqualified him from receiving any other assistance, including food stamps, housing, and Medicaid.

There are no good answers for Stan today. All he can do is try to balance his needs and his income as long as he can. If he does not take his medicine, his illness will worsen and he will eventually die. If he doesn't pay his rent, he will be out on the street. So he alternates. One month he pays for his medicine. The next month he pays his rent, and so on. This only delays the inevitable. Eventually, he will be evicted and eventually there will be nothing left to sell or exchange to pay his drug bill. That is the future waiting for Stan Pitts, and it will be the future for thousands of more Americans unless we do something.

The White House and congressional Republicans seem content to rest on their Medicare and drug card program. Since its introduction 2 months ago, seniors have expressed concern that it is too confusing, it doesn't cover their medications, and it doesn't protect them against price gouging. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that whatever discounts the cards might have provided have already been factored into drug company pricing strategies. In fact, drugmakers have already raised prices so much that the so-called discounts offered by this program will do little more than return the drugs to their original prices.

Families USA recently concluded that families are worse off today with the drug card than they were in 2001, when the President took office. Furthermore, the official Web site established to help simplify the program for seniors has only made the problem worse. The prices are actually inaccurate. The information on the Web site is confusing and very unhelpful. Last week we learned that many of the pharmacies listed as participants in fact do not participate at all. Some are no longer in business and their windows are boarded up.

Seniors have been thrust into a maze of contradicting information. Even those who navigate it successfully will have few, if any, savings to show for their efforts. One couple from Rapid City who recently wrote me found the whole process, in their words, "foolish." They wrote: "This solution is not a benefit to the senior citizens, but instead is an economic boon for the drug companies...." So rather than participate in the drug card program, they have started buying their drugs from Canadian pharmacies. They do not like to break the law, but they say they will have no other choice. The drug they need is 60 percent cheaper in Canada than it is here.

This family is not alone. Pharmaceutical companies charge American consumers the highest prices in the world. Some medicines cost American patients five times more than they cost patients in other countries. In effect, our citizens are charged a tax simply for being American. As a result, millions of Americans are having trouble affording lifesaving medications.

Seniors should not be made to feel like criminals just because they cannot afford a $1,000-per-month drug bill. It is wrong that seniors are left to struggle alone, and what makes it worse is the fact it is totally unnecessary. The good news for America's seniors is we can do right by them. There are low-cost alternatives that dramatically reduce the price of prescription drugs. We know, for instance, that by enabling Americans to reimport medications safely from other industrialized countries, we can bring down drug costs immediately. At the same time, we should be able to take advantage of the method the VA has already used to reduce drug costs, and employ the unrivaled purchasing power of the Government to negotiate better prices for 41 million Americans.

The administration opposes each of these commonsense measures. Apparently, the White House is so committed to protecting the profits of pharmaceutical companies it is negotiating trade pacts that would increase the drug costs of other countries. Rather than running up the pharmaceutical costs of other countries, the administration should work with us to lower the price to Americans.

The fact is there is no mystery to the problem of bringing down drug costs. There is no hidden secret, no puzzle to solve. We can do right by our seniors by making a simple choice. Let's put their interests ahead of the demands of the drug companies and HMOs. By taking simple commonsense steps, we can bring the cost of drugs and health care within reach of every American. When we do that, we will know we have done right by America.

I yield the floor.

democrats.senate.gov

MEDIA ADVISORY: CORRECTION

MEDIA ADVISORY: The news release “Crapo Honored For Cutting Taxes” dated July 13th, 2004, from the office of Senator Mike Crapo contained an error. The news release states in paragraph two that the Senate had “prevented a repeal of the Death Tax.” The sentence should read, “We also accelerated a repeal of the Death Tax and blocked an attempt to rollback tax cuts.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Maureen Knightly/ Jennifer Carrier

July 13, 2004 202-224-3254

Statement of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

on a Report Detailing the Loss of Overtime for American Workers

Three Former DOL Officials Release Analysis of New Overtime Regulations

“This independent review of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) final overtime regulation confirms what we knew all along—many American workers will lose their right to overtime pay. The report, authored by three former DOL officials who worked under Republican and Democrat administrations, verifies that these new vague regulations will harm rather than protect the fair pay interests of American workers and their families.

“The former DOL officials determined that the Bush Administration’s rules remove existing overtime protection for large numbers of employees that are currently eligible to receive overtime pay. In fact, the report reveals that in every instance where DOL has made some sort of change to the existing rules, it has weakened the criteria for overtime exemptions.

“Since passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, overtime rights and the 40-hour workweek have been sacrosanct--respected by presidents of both parties as an incentive for job creation, since it encourages employers to hire more workers, instead of requiring current employees to work the 40-hour workweek without extra pay. But nothing is sacred to the Bush administration. The Bush administration’s new overtime rules weaken this protection, discourage new hires, and hurt those who already have jobs, at the very time when the nation is in desperate need of more job creation.

“By exempting a greater proportion of the workforce from receiving overtime, the new overtime regulations are clearly an assault on American workers. American workers deserve an iron-clad guarantee that their overtime rights are safe. If Mr. Bush and his Department of Labor are sincere in their stated desire to preserve overtime, they can prove it by supporting my legislation to guarantee that workers who are entitled to overtime pay as a result of their job duties now will not lose that right under the new rules.”

A copy of this report titled “Defining and Delimiting the [Minimum Wage and Overtime] Exemptions for Executive, Administrative Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees” is available upon request.

# # #

TUESDAY, July 13, 2004

Senators Seek Answers on Alleged Secret Prisoner Swap

Over DoD, Justice, and CIA objections, Bush Administration allegedly approved three-way deal to return five terrorism suspects to Saudi Arabia

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - In a letter to the President, five Senate leaders have requested that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice brief all senators about the alleged release to Saudi Arabia of five terrorism suspects who were being held at Guantanamo Bay. Allegedly, the prisoner release occurred around the time of the invasion of Iraq and was part of a secret, three-way prisoner swap to satisfy important allies.

The Senators asked the President to direct Dr. Rice to provide answers to nine questions surrounding the alleged prisoner exchange.

The letter was sent by the Senator Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic Leader, Senator Harry Reid, the Assistant Democratic Leader, and Senators Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Carl Levin, and Jay Rockeller, the Ranking Democrats on the Senate Foreign International Relations, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, respectively.

A copy of the letter is attached.

###

democrats.senate.gov

Check enzi.senate.gov later today for pictures and more information.

News Release

For release: July 13, 2004 Contact: Coy Knobel, phone 202-224-3424
Web address: enzi.senate.gov Email: Coy_Knobel@enzi.senate.gov

Enzi celebrates bison with coin commemoration
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senators Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., are bringing back the bison.
The American bison, a distinct symbol of the West, has come full circle from its once near extinction and today is a thriving population according to Enzi who is introducing legislation to celebrate the nation’s first conservation efforts that have led to the restoration of a single animal species.
“The amazing feat of restoring a species that dwindled to less than 1,000 in the nineteenth century is an achievement that needs to be commemorated. Their numbers stand at more than 500,000 strong today,” Enzi said. “By restoring the bison image on the nickel we are helping to show that the bison is an enduring symbol of Native Americans, the Western heritage, and the will of the American people.”
Enzi sponsored the Bison Nickel Restoration Act of 2004 which would extend the American 5-Cent Design Continuity Act of 2003 to require that one of the two new designs for the nickel temporarily feature an image of a bison for six months. If Enzi’s bill passes, the new coins will be minted and put into circulation in 2005 or 2006.
Bison are raised in all 50 states and the bison industry has become a viable commercial enterprise for many ranchers who produce one million pounds of bison meat that Americans consume every month. According to a United States Department of Agriculture census 90 Wyoming ranches raised 12,580 bison for agricultural purposes during 2002.
Bison conservation efforts first began with President Theodore Roosevelt and the National Bison Society in 1905, the first United States conservation effort to restore a single species from extinction. Yellowstone National Park is home to the last remaining wild buffalo herd that has grown to over 4,000.
July is National Bison Month.
-end-

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman, Sen. Feinstein, 202/224-9629

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 Blake Zeff, Sen. Schumer, 202-224-7433

Senators Feinstein and Schumer Call on President Bush to Help Renew Assault Weapons Ban Before it Expires in Two Months

- Senators also release extraordinary letter from Presidents Ford, Carter, and Clinton
urging President Bush to make renewal a top priority -

Washington, DC B With exactly two months and fewer than 14 legislative days before the federal assault weapons ban expires, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) today implored President Bush to take an active role in seeing that the ban is renewed.

President Bush has said that he supports the ban and supports its reauthorization, but up to this point he has done nothing to ensure that it is renewed. Unless Congress and the President Act, the ban will expire on September 13, 2004.

“It is my hope that the President and Congress find the courage to stand up to the NRA and instead listen to law enforcement all across the nation who know that this ban makes sense and saves lives,” Senator Feinstein said. “But the clock is ticking. There are only two months and fewer than 14 legislative days between now and September 13. If we do not act, this ban will expire, and these guns will come back and flood the streets of America. I implore President Bush to help stop that from happening.”

“The President is throwing water on the effort to renew the assault weapons ban and breaking a promise he made in his 2000 campaign, proof positive that the NRA controls his gun policy,” Senator Schumer said. “For the President to say he's for the assault weapon ban but then act against it is not being straight with the American people. The fact of the matter is that there is no legitimate use for these weapons. That was true in 1994, it's true today, and to let the assault weapons ban expire just as we are realizing its benefits would be a major setback in the crime reductions we've had over the last decade.”

At the same time, the Senators released a letter from Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton urging President Bush to make the renewal of the assault weapons ban a top priority. (See attached)

The letter states: “At a time when terrorism continues to be a serious threat, it is even more imperative that we renew the Assault Weapons Act and limit access to military-styles weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips…there are not many legislative days left for Congress to renew the law. We urge you to make reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Act a top priority for your Administration and spur Congress to action.”

Separately, the Consumer Federation of America and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence released ten new state polls showing that strong majorities of Americans support banning assault weapons, regardless of geographic area, gun ownership, union membership, and NRA support.

Facts about the Assault Weapons Ban

· The bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Senators Dianne Feinstein, John W. Warner (R-VA), and Charles Schumer (D-NY), would extend the current ban on the manufacture and importation of 19 types of assault weapons (and many other by characteristic) by an additional 10 years. Unless Congress acts, the ban will expire on September 13, 2004.

· The Senate has already gone on record in support of renewing the ban. In a bipartisan vote in March, Senators approved a straight 10-year renewal of the current ban as an amendment to a bill being pushed by the National Rifle Association giving gun manufacturers and dealers protection from civil lawsuits. But the NRA scuttled its own bill at the last minute in order to prevent the extension from becoming law.

· Almost three-fourths of the American people and two-thirds of gun owners support renewing the ban.

· Ten new state polls released today confirm that there is widespread support for renewing the ban. The polls found that 72 percent of midwesterners support for renewing the ban and that 67 percent of people from the southwest supporting renewing the ban.

· Every major law enforcement organization in the country supports renewing the ban, as do countless civic organizations.

· The ban works – the rate of crimes committed with banned assault weapons has dropped by two-thirds since the ban took effect almost ten years ago.

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

July 13, 2004 Eric Rasmussen (202) 224-7518

CRAPO HONORED FOR CUTTING TAXES

American Conservative Union applauds Senator’s voting record

Washington, DC – Idaho Senator Mike Crapo’s consistent votes to cut taxes and ensure budget discipline have earned him top honors for the fifth straight year from a Congressional watchdog group in Washington, DC. The American Conservative Union (ACU) awarded Crapo its Best and Brightest of 2003 Award for his votes on a number of issues including taxes, health care, and defense.

“We considered a number of critical issues in the Senate during 2003,” Crapo said. “From judicial appointments to tax cuts, the Senate considered legislation important to Idahoans and the nation as a whole. Despite opposition by some who would keep taxes high, the Senate succeeded in passing a bill that reduced taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. We also prevented a repeal of the Death Tax and an attempt to rollback tax cuts. In addition to economic concerns, the Senate also provided for national security, through our homeland security initiatives, and authorizing testing of important weapons systems. The input from Idahoans throughout the process was invaluable.”

“Senator Crapo is a man who has stood up day in and day out for conservative values,” said David Keene, Chairman of the ACU. “He has worked for tax cuts, a smaller and less intrusive federal government and a strong defense. We have enjoyed working with him. He is one of the best and the brightest in the Senate.”

This year’s awards were based on votes on nineteen bills considered important by the ACU. These bills and issues included the Budget Resolution, marriage penalty, taxes on investment, nuclear weapons development and the repeal of the Death Tax. To be considered for the award, Senators must score 85 percent or higher on votes considered important by the ACU. This year, Senator Crapo scored an 89 percent. He has a lifetime score of 93 percent.

The ACU has conducted the annual rankings since 1971. For more information on this year’s awards, as well as the votes used to rank members of the Senate, visit: http://www.conservative.org/.

# # #

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator - Texas
CONTACT: DON STEWART

(202) 224-0704 office (202) 365-6702 cell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 13, 2004

AMERICANS ARE WATCHING MARRIAGE VOTE

‘Not showing up will be seen as a vote against traditional marriage’

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, made the following statement Tuesday regarding the potential that some Senators may not be present for the vote to support traditional marriage:

“The American people are watching this vote, and Senators will send a message to their constituents Wednesday when the roll is called. I think a yes vote will be a vote in favor of traditional marriage, and a no vote or an 'I didn't care enough to show up' vote will be perceived as against traditional marriage.”

Sen. Cornyn has chaired three hearings on marriage in the Senate, including one last September on whether the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act is in peril, another in March on whether an amendment to the Constitution is necessary, and the third hearing, also in March, addressed specific amendment language that has been introduced in the Senate.

At the September hearing, legal experts predicted that there would be lawsuits across the country challenging all traditional marriage laws as unconstitutional, including the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Legal experts and senators across the political spectrum agree that the only way for Congress to reverse an incorrect federal constitutional ruling is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Sen. Cornyn chairs the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Property Rights, and is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.

www.cornyn.senate.gov

[WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday held a hearing examining the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, which ruled that the state of Washington’s sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional because they allowed a judge – rather than a jury – to consider factors influencing a defendant’s sentence. Senator Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.), the ranking Democratic member of the panel, along with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the chairman, called the hearing to consider the implications the ruling could have on the current guidelines. Sen. Leahy’s statement from the hearing this morning follows.]

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Hearing on Blakely v. Washington and the Future of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

July 13, 2004

The Supreme Court’s ruling last month in Blakely v. Washington threatens to crumble the very foundation of the Federal system of sentencing guidelines that Congress established 20 years ago in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. At that time, members of this Committee took the lead in crafting the Sentencing Reform Act. Today, we must revisit that landmark legislation in light of the Blakely decision.

At the start, I want to thank our witnesses for coming today to help us try to make some sense out of the Court’s decision. We have two very distinguished panels of experts and I look forward to hearing the testimony.

At issue in Blakely was the constitutionality of a State sentencing system that allowed the judge to impose an “exceptional” sentence in a kidnapping case above the standard guideline range because the judge found the defendant’s conduct involved “deliberate cruelty.” In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia, the Court held that this sentencing scheme violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because “the maximum sentence a judge may impose” can only be based on “the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.”

Unfortunately, Justice Scalia’s opinion raises more questions than it answers. Cogent dissents by Justice Breyer and Justice O’Connor articulate many of the critical issues that will now flood our already burdened criminal justice system, starting with whether Blakely applies to the Federal Guidelines. The Seventh Circuit and several district court judges have already ruled that Blakely dooms some if not all of the current Federal guidelines system. The Fifth Circuit held that the Guidelines survive Blakely. The Second Circuit effectively punted, certifying the question to the Supreme Court.

While we may disagree with Justice Scalia’s opinion, we must recognize that a majority of the Court has spoken. Like the federal judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys who must now grapple with the scope and impact of the Blakely opinion, we in Congress are concerned.

I hope that today’s hearing will be helpful. I look forward to hearing from the experts and practitioners who are testifying before us about what aspects, if any, of the Federal sentencing system can or are likely to survive the Blakely decision. We need to explore what will happen to the thousands of criminal cases that are currently pending, and to the hundreds of thousands of cases resolved pre-Blakely.

Twenty years after the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act, we must remind ourselves about the core values and principles that explained the bipartisan popularity of the original Federal Guidelines concept. The 1984 Act was enacted against a history of racial, geographical, and other unfair disparities in sentencing. Congress sought to narrow these disparities while leaving judges enough discretion to do justice in the particular circumstances of each individual case. The task of harmonizing sentencing policies was deliberately placed in the hands of an independent, expert Sentencing Commission.

The Guidelines as originally conceived were about fairness, consistency, predictability, reasoned discretion, and minimizing the role of congressional politics and the ideology of the individual judge in sentencing. Blakely threatens a return to the bad old days of fully indeterminate sentencing when improper factors such as race, geography and the predilections of the sentencing judge could drastically affect the sentence. While I favor Federal judges exercising their discretion to do individual justice in individual cases, I do not want to see a return to the bad old days.

We must also avoid moving too far in the other extreme. In recent years, Congress has seriously undermined the basic structure and fairness of the Federal Guidelines system with posturing and ideology. There has been a flood of legislation establishing mandatory minimum sentences for an ever-increasing number of offenses, determined by politics rather than any systemic analysis of the relative seriousness of different crimes.

There has been ever-increasing pressure on the Sentencing Commission and on individual district court judges to increase Guidelines sentences. This culminated in the PROTECT Act, in which this Congress cut the Commission out altogether and rewrote large sections of the Guidelines Manual, and also provided for a judicial “black list” to intimidate judges whose sentences were insufficiently draconian to suit the current Justice Department.

We are all familiar with the assault on judicial independence known as the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act. The Feeney Amendment was forced through the Congress with virtually no debate, and without meaningful input from judges or practitioners. That process was particularly unfortunate, given that the majority’s justification for the Feeney Amendment – a supposed “crisis” of downward departures – was unfounded. In fact, downward departure rates were well below the range contemplated by Congress when it authorized the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, except for departures requested by the government. But having a false factual predicate for forcing significantly flawed congressional action has become all too familiar during the last few years.

The attitude underlying too many of these recent developments seems to be that politicians in Washington are better at sentencing than the Federal trial judges who preside over individual cases, and that longer sentences are always better. Somewhere along the line we appear to have forgotten that justice is not just about treating like cases alike; it is also about treating different cases differently.

Blakely raises real practical problems that unfortunately threaten to clog our Federal courts with procedural and constitutional nightmares. But we can use it as a springboard to discuss Federal sentencing practices thoughtfully. As we analyze Blakely’s implications, we are well advised to keep the simple principles of the 1984 Act in mind. We must respect the wisdom and good faith of Federal judges, while maintaining the safeguards of structure and transparency to their exercise of discretion. We must remember that consistency and predictability to sentencing are admirable goals. And we must avoid the further politicizing of sentencing.

I look forward to working with the Chairman and other interested Members of this Committee and with our counterparts in the House.

# # # # #

CONTACT: David Carle / 202 224 3693

Tracy Schmaler / 202 224 2154

Copies of the report are available at the Senate Document Room or through your usual channels:

Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq together with Additional Views

S. Report 108-301

Thanks,

Sarah (Ross) Little

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Kansas

202-224-4774

202-224-3514 fax

sarah_little@roberts.senate.gov

109 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

NEWS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF U.S. SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

For Immediate Release Mike Tracy (202) 866-7001

July 13, 2004 Dan Whiting (202) 224-8078

U.S. TRADEMARK PROTECTION SOUGHT

Hearing held on Craig’s bill to safeguard U.S. trademarks in Cuba

WASHINGTON, DC – The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing today on S. 2002, a bill aimed at protecting U.S. companies with trademarks registered in Cuba. Idaho Senator Larry Craig is the sponsor of the legislation and a member of the Committee.

Over the course of today’s hearing, Senator Craig and others discussed the issue of Section 211 of the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The World Trade Organization has ruled that Section 211 is inconsistent with U.S. intellectual property obligations. Since 1931, the U.S. and Cuba have reciprocally honored intellectual property rights as parties to the General Inter-American Convention on Trademarks, and Section 211 violates that agreement. S.2002 brings the U.S. into compliance with international trade laws by repealing Section 211.

Senator Craig said, “The U.S. and Cuba have a long-standing partnership on intellectual property rights. My legislation protects that and the 5,000 registered trademarks from over 400 U.S. companies in Cuba.”

Among other things, S.2002 restores full authority to the U.S. court system to settle trademark disputes involving Cuba. “As a Senator, I have an obligation to ensure U.S. courts maintain their authority to adjudicate matters involving intellectual property rights. S.2002 reaffirms this vital role,” remarked Senator Craig.

Under the Trade Sanctions Reform Act of 2000, the U.S. Department of Agriculture encourages U.S. exporters of food products to register their trademarks and brand names in Cuba. Those exporters are now selling trademarked products in Cuba, and their marks, as well as other U.S. marks long registered in Cuba, are endangered by the retaliation Section 211 invites from the Cuban government. Consequently, dozens of U.S. companies have endorsed S. 2002, including such Idaho employers as Micron and Boise Cascade.

Senator Craig said, “Protecting the interests of American businesses abroad is central to promoting economic growth in this country. Selling more than we consume is the very definition of a vibrant economy. Repealing Section 211, as S.2002 does, is crucial to the protection of U.S. business interests in today’s Cuban market and the much larger market we will see when the embargo is eventually lifted.”

For more information on S. 2002 and today’s hearing, please visit http://craig.senate.gov.

[30]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Bob Stevenson (202) 224-4445

July 13, 2004 Amy Call (202) 224-1865

Nick Smith (202) 224-3355

FRIST COMMENTS ON AFRICAN TRADE BILL SIGNING

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) today made the following statement after President Bush signed the African Trade and Opportunity Acceleration Act of 2004 (AGOA III) into law:

“The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) has brought hope, jobs and a future to hundreds of thousands of Africans, and I commend the President for signing this important extension of that legislation into law. The AGOA Acceleration Act (AGOA III) builds upon and furthers that much-needed and valued policy.

“This is a win-win situation for the United States, Africa and the world. Not only has AGOA created new investment and opportunity for U.S. businesses, it has helped create an estimated 150,000 African jobs, pump more than $340 million into African economies, and forge a place for Africa in the global trade market. I hope other countries will look to the success of this program and reexamine their trade preferences toward Africa and the benefits of trade relations in the region.”

-30-

04-167

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Contact: Maureen Knightly/ Jennifer Carrier

July 13, 2004 202.224.3254

***TODAY***

**MEDIA ADVISORY**

Harkin, Former DOL Official to Discuss Independent Review of Overtime Regulations

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) will hold a conference call with reporters on Tuesday, July 13 to discuss the results of an independent review of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) final overtime regulation by three former DOL officials. An author of the review will also participate in the call.

This independent review confirms that the new DOL overtime regulations will harm rather than protect the interests of American workers.

WHO: Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Former DOL Official

WHAT: Conference Call with Reporters on Overtime

WHEN: 2:00 PM EDT

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

HOW: Please contact Jennifer Carrier in the Harkin press office to participate at 202-224-3254 or jennifer_carrier@harkin.senate.gov.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Senators Feinstein, Leahy, Akaka

Introduce Bill to Curb International Small Arms Sales

Washington, DC – Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) have introduced legislation to address the growing threat of small arms and light weapons.

“The proliferation of small arms and light weapons threaten peace and stability around the world,” Senator Feinstein said. “From Afghanistan to Bosnia, and Rwanda to Haiti, these weapons kill innocent civilians, undermine economic growth and harm U.S. national security interests. With hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops deployed around the world in peacekeeping and security operations, small arms and light weapons directly threaten the lives of our American military personnel. It is incumbent upon this Congress and this Administration to do everything in its power and use every tool at our disposal to protect our troops.”

There are an estimated 639 million firearms in circulation around the world. Each year 300,000 people are killed by these small arms – a majority of those killed are civilians.

States including Afghanistan and Iraq have become a haven for these weapons. Over ten million small arms and light weapons were collected during the Taliban’s rise to power in Afghanistan and significantly contributed to that state becoming a refuge for terrorists and a threat to U.S. national security interests. In Iraq, news reports indicate that there are more than 50 inadequately-secured weapons sites which contain 650,000 tons of rifles, missiles, ammunition, and other war material.

The legislation introduced on July 8 by Senators Feinstein, Leahy and Akaka would:

· express the Sense of Congress that the United States should enter into negotiations for comprehensive international agreements on small arms;

· urge the President to conclude an international agreement on the marking of small arms and light weapons for international export;

· call on the President to implement the Program of Action of the 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects and require a report on its implementation;

· affirm U.S. policy to maintain the highest standards for the management and transfer of small arms and light weapons exports, and that it is U.S. policy to refrain from exports that could be used in internal repression, human rights abuses and international aggression;

· require the President to report to Congress on the grant of any license for the export of small arms and light weapons in the amount of $1 million or less to a country where there is a clear risk the article will be used to commit human rights abuses;

· direct the President to establish and maintain a registry of the serial numbers of small arms and light weapons that require a license for international export; and,

· require a report from the Secretary of State on states who have not cooperated in programs related to small arms and light weapons.

(also, as a reminder, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer plan to speak about 11:30 a.m. today on the assault weapons ban and hold a news availability immediately afterwards in the Senate Radio-TV Gallery. For further information, call Howard Gantman or Scott Gerber at 202-224-9629)

July 13, 2004 Tuesday
Home Edition

SECTION: CALIFORNIA; Metro; Editorial Pages Desk; Part B; Pg. 12

LENGTH: 387 words

HEADLINE: Reload the Assault Gun Ban

BODY:

Two months from today, the federal assault weapons ban dissolves like a wisp of gun smoke. Even though he proudly carried the National Rifle Assn.'s seal of approval in 2000, President Bush says he supports renewing the 10-year-old ban, but he has refused to push Congress in that direction. His word to congressional leaders would matter greatly now, just as his continued silence suggests that he values the NRA's support over Americans' safety.

The NRA's strategy is to get its friends in Congress to run out the clock on the assault weapons ban. Toward that end, House leaders have blocked any vote on bills to extend the ban for another decade, and a Senate bill amended with renewal language died in March. Yet congressional leaders are pushing for votes on time-wasting wedge issues such as proposed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and flag desecration.

The 1994 ban bars the manufacture and importation of 19 specific semiautomatic gun models and others with similar features. These aren't hunting weapons, unless you consider a classroom full of 7-year-olds or swing-shift workers at a factory to be prey.

The NRA loudly insists that the law is flawed because it bars some guns while allowing nearly identical weapons that have been cosmetically tweaked. That's absolutely correct. But when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the 1994 ban, proposed a more inclusive ban, like California's, which defines assault guns by their generic characteristics, the NRA crushed it. It also killed her effort to close a loophole in the current law that allows importation of high-capacity bullet clips. If the federal law does expire, California's assault gun ban would stay in effect. But there would be no bar against Californians buying these weapons of mass destruction in Nevada or elsewhere.

Bush justifies the war in Iraq by insisting that it has made this nation safer. But the president and his congressional allies risk making American cities and towns far more dangerous by their shameful failure to renew the assault gun ban. They have just 61 days left.

To Take Action: Contact President Bush at (202) 456-1414 or president@whitehouse.gov; Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, (202) 224-3344 or frist.senate.gov; House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, (202) 225-2976 or www.house .gov/hastert/.

LOAD-DATE: July 13, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MEDIA ADVISORY

Contact Brian Hart/Aaron Groote

July 13, 2004

BROWNBACK TO CHAIR HEARING ON ADVANCES IN ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH

All media welcome

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback will chair a hearing to investigate recent successes with adult stem cells on Wednesday, July 14 at 2:30 p.m. in the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. This hearing had been postponed twice but is now scheduled for Wednesday.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

2:30 p.m. Eastern

253 Russell Senate Office Building

“Adult Stem Cell Research: Successes in the Field”

Witnesses include patients who were previously paraplegic who can now walk with the aid of braces, a patient who has been effectively cured of Parkinson’s, doctors who have successfully treated spinal cord injuries and Parkinson’s with adult stem cell therapies, as well as academicians.

Brownback is chairman of the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

-30-

Sam Brownback
United States Senator - Kansas
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
http://brownback.senate.gov

The fire referred to in the press release, “COLEMAN INTRODUCES VETERANS BENEFITS OUTREACH LEGISLATION” that took place at the National Personnel Records Center in Missouri happened in 1973, not 1974 as stated in the release.

Thank you.

___________________________

Andy Brehm

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Norm Coleman

Telephone: 202.224.5641

Fax: 202.224.9640

Mobile: 202.247.7636

JOHN CORNYN

United States Senator - Texas

CONTACT: DON STEWART
(202) 224-0704 office, (202) 365-6702 cell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 12, 2004

SENATE CONTINUES DEBATE ON MARRIAGE

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, addressed the Senate on Monday afternoon as the debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment and the importance of defending traditional marriage continues.

Sen. Cornyn has continually played a leading role in the marriage debate. He has chaired three hearings on marriage in the Senate, including one last September on whether the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act is in peril, another in March on whether an amendment to the Constitution is necessary, and the third hearing, also in March, addressed specific amendment language that has been introduced in the Senate.

Audio of Q/A with Sen. Cornyn and his remarks on the Senate floor is available for download in MP3:

http://www.senate.gov/src/radio/files/Cornyn_John_117/cornynstatementsfma7-12.mp3 (Full transcript is below)

= = =

Marriage: The Social Consequences

U.S. Senate Floor - 7/12/2004

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes about the social impact of the marginalization of the American family and traditional marriage over the past years. First, I want to address specifically some of the questions that have been raised both here in this Chamber and in the media and by others who have asked two main questions that seem to be coming back time and time again. One is: why can't we leave this issue to the States? Secondly, there are those who ask: why now? Why do we need a Federal constitutional amendment now before the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down traditional marriage laws? And then I would like to address more of the social consequences of what we are seeing.

First, the idea of leaving this decision to the States, while an appealing concept in theory, as a practical matter is impossible. Indeed, as I and others on this floor have said so on many occasions in talking about this issue, it has been decisions out of the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the Federal Constitution and creating a broad right of personal autonomy that have, even addressing the marriage context and relationships between people of the same sex as well as traditional couples and the institution of marriage, it is that broad rationale that has now been bootstrapped by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Goodrich case to create this right, this right that did not exist in 1780 when John Adams wrote the Massachusetts Constitution, but all of a sudden was discovered some 224 years later by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Of course, the Massachusetts Supreme Court was not the one who dreamed up this right. We have to give credit where credit is due. And that is to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, in the Roemer case out of Colorado, and then in the Lawrence v. Texas case last summer.

It would be nice if we could say, for those of us who do believe in the primary authority of the States in all matters except insofar as the Constitution mandates that it is a Federal Government responsibility, I would at first blush find it appealing to be able to leave matters like this and others to the States. But we know as a practical matter that that is impossible; first, because of the likelihood that the current challenges to State marriage laws under the Federal Constitution may succeed under the framework, under the roadmap that has been laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. And those challenges currently exist in Utah, Florida, and Nebraska. So no matter what State laws exist, obviously the Federal Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, has supremacy. That is what the supremacy clause is all about.

So while it may be appealing to say that we would like to leave this matter up to the States, the very real and present risk is that a Federal court, interpreting the Federal Constitution, will strike down all State marriage laws that stand in the way of same-sex marriages under the rationale used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence, as embraced by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in interpreting their State constitution in the Goodridge case.

But there is also another practical consideration, and that is on May 17, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court called traditional marriage a "stain that must be eradicated," terming it "invidious discrimination" and without rational basis, when they embraced this revolutionary and radical notion, redefining the traditional institution of marriage after these many years, they didn't just affect the rights of people within the confines of the State of Massachusetts.

What happened, of course, is that couples came to Massachusetts from other States and took advantage of the laws of Massachusetts -- at least insofar as interpreted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court -- and said they wanted to be married and then move back to the States where they live. Indeed, we know that happened. Same-sex couples have come to Massachusetts and married and returned to their States in 46 different States.

So to suggest that what happens in Massachusetts stays in Massachusetts is wrong, as a practical matter. But the problem is, of course, that now we know there are a handful -- I think at last count perhaps 9 or 10 -- of challenges to State laws restricting marriage or protecting traditional marriage by those who were married in Massachusetts -- same-sex couples -- who then moved back to their home State and filed a lawsuit in their State courts seeking to force their State to recognize the validity of that same-sex marriage.

As I and others have talked about on numerous occasions, the fact is, this is part of a national litigation strategy by those who would seek to overturn traditional marriage between a man and a woman. And we are not playing offense on this issue; we are playing defense in trying to defend traditional marriage against this national litigation strategy.

So those are just two reasons it is putting your head in the sand to say that this is a matter that is just limited to one State. As a practical matter, we saw on television in San Francisco where one mayor and local officials, in violation of California law, invited people to come there and get married. Now, of course, that issue is balled up in litigation pending before the California Supreme Court. So this is not a local issue confined to the States, nor is it a matter that can be handled, practically or legally or otherwise, by individual States, no matter how hard they might try.

The other question that has been raised is, Why now? The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled traditional marriage to be unconstitutional and required same-sex marriages a national constitutional matter -- not yet. Although it is clear in the hearings that we had in the Senate Judiciary Committee that using the tools that the U.S. Supreme Court provided in these cases that I have already discussed, clearly there is a path mapped out, and the logical conclusion of the rationale used in those decisions is to strike down traditional marriage as we know it.

But the question is, Why now? Some said, well, this may happen -- I was talking to one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle at about noon. He said: Well, this may happen in 3, 4, or 5 years, but it is not an imminent threat right now. So why in the world would we seek to amend the Constitution at this time?

Well, I point, by way of practical example, to what is happening in Massachusetts today. The decision to embrace this radical redefinition of marriage on May 17 was not put to a vote of the people of Massachusetts; it was an edict from the supreme court of that State. But once we saw that the elected representatives of the people of Massachusetts decided to meet and discuss this issue, well, we have seen that they have chosen to reject the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and to protect traditional marriage. The problem is, in Massachusetts, their law requires two successive sessions of the Massachusetts Legislature to meet and agree on the constitutional amendment before it can be passed by the people, effectively meaning that there is no constitutional amendment in that State possible until 2006.

In the meantime, what are the people to do? Well, the people of that State and their elected representatives are watching this progression of same-sex marriages because the Supreme Court of Massachusetts demanded it and ordered it. Even though it is going to ultimately be overruled by the people, in the meantime you are going to have a couple of years in which couples -- same-sex couples -- are going to seek to be married and be officially married under the laws of Massachusetts, only to have it then prohibited in 2006 going forward.

Well, I would think that people who ask why now would see that as an example of why it is important to do it here and now -- before the Federal courts in this country adopt the reasoning of that Massachusetts case.

We know the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. We know it is reserved for special cases, and the burden on someone who would seek to amend the Constitution is very high -- a two-thirds vote of the Congress and three-quarters of the States having to vote to ratify. And that is appropriately so. But it is, as we have discussed, the only way that we the people can have a vote and can have a voice on this important issue, especially once the Federal courts, under the guise of interpreting the Federal Constitution, were to hold otherwise.

We know just from the history of those 27 amendments that they take a long time to pass. So we know if, in fact, a Federal court today were to hold that traditional marriage violated the Constitution, then the American people were to decide, through their elected representatives, to pass a constitutional amendment, we may find ourselves in effectively the same box that the people of Massachusetts find themselves in now, where in that case you have effectively a 2-year period in which same-sex couples are getting married under the auspices of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and to effectively not be able to undo this example of a very aggressive judicial activism. So the same situation would apply under the Federal Constitution because of the amount of time it usually takes to get a Federal constitutional amendment to pass.

So those are two questions that come up that I wanted to address specifically. But I must also say, Mr. President, that I have been profoundly disappointed at the silence that has been basically the only response we have heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I truly believe that they would prefer that this issue would just go away and that it not draw too much attention because they know if the American people get energized on this issue, they will agree with those of us who believe that traditional marriage and families are worthy of protection by virtue of this constitutional amendment.

They are hoping that nobody pays very much attention, that it will sort of slide by, and that they will not feel the negative repercussions of their objection to this important amendment and the protection of traditional family and traditional marriage through this process.

I wish rather than just not saying very much at all or anything, they would come to the floor and actually debate the issue. If they think they have a strong case, if they think that reason and justice and logic are on their side, I say: let's talk about it.

This is sometimes called the world's greatest deliberative body, but it is hard to have very much deliberation, it is hard to have very much debate if the opponents to this amendment simply boycott the debate and hope the issue passes without many people paying much attention. It is hard to have much deliberation if they are able to succeed, as I said, in their only goal: avoiding the wrath of the people for failing to take what steps we have within our means and ability to protect traditional marriage.

Last March, I chaired a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution regarding the decision I mentioned a moment ago, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. The Goodridge decision had not actually been handed down last September when we first had that hearing. But in the interim, between that time and this, of course, in March and then May, we had the Goodridge decision handed down which has resulted in an explosion of litigation across America.

During those hearings, both in September and then later on -- we actually had a total of three hearings in the Subcommittee on the Constitution -- we had some thought-provoking testimony. But at the hearing in March, I was personally moved by the sentiments of Pastor Daniel de Leon of the Templo Calvario Church in California and the testimony of Rev. Richard Richardson of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Boston whom we were honored to have in attendance.

Both testified they would rather be at home working with the members of their congregations rather than having to come to Washington to testify why it is important to defend traditional marriage. But it is because of the work they do, because they see the results in the decline of marriage and traditional families in their communities every day that they believe traditional marriage is so important and worth defending.

Some say we are not likely to win this vote that, as I understand, could happen on Wednesday on this issue. Regardless of the outcome of this amendment at this time, I believe it is important we have a national discussion on the importance of marriage and a discussion that is based on facts.

We have heard a lot of people talk about the benefit of marriage for adults. We have heard some discussion about hospital visiting rights and inheritance rights, even though many of these issues could be solved simply by a matter of contract between the parties involved. We have learned that people who want to can actually enter into arrangements that will achieve the results they want short of marriage by signing a few simple documents.

We have even heard some discussion about government benefits, even though with these benefits come burdens, and the actual financial ramifications of these benefits are a matter for debate.

Yet I have heard little conversation about what I believe to be the most important issue that is related to what we are discussing, and that is the benefits of marriage for children. It is easy for some people to step back and say this issue does not affect them, but the facts, the social science research that we see from other countries demonstrates otherwise.

This research shows us that this issue affects everyone but particularly children. None of us can, if we are to claim to be in good faith about this debate, ignore these facts and these examples, nor should we, I believe, be neutral or merely stand on the sidelines.

Scandinavia, as we have heard before, has treated same-sex households as marriage for more than a decade. This practice was instituted in Denmark in 1989, in Norway in 1993, and in Sweden in 1994. The direct reaction to these decisions was relatively small. Few people, it seems, were actually interested in the new arrangements, in the new rights they achieved to marry a person of the same sex, and to this day, the number of participating households is rather low.

But the greatest effect was not upon those who sought this new institution but on the society at large. Sad to say, there has been an enormous rise of family dissolution and out-of-wedlock childbirth. Today, about 15 years after Denmark created this new institution, a majority of children in Scandinavia are born out of wedlock, including more than 50 percent in Norway and 55 percent of the children in Sweden, and in Denmark, a full 60 percent of first-born children have unmarried parents.

In Scandinavia, as a whole, traditional marriage is now an institution entirely separated from the idea of child rearing or childbearing, and it is an incidental union, no longer an important one, much less a unique one.

Scandinavia is not alone. In the Netherlands, during the mid-1990s, the rate of out-of-wedlock childbirth began to shoot up by an astonishingly high rate of 2 percentage points a year, a rate matched by no other country in Europe.

By 2003, the out-of-wedlock birthrate had nearly doubled to 31 percent of all Dutch births. It is no coincidence that these were the years when the social debate over legalizing same-sex marriage was the loudest in the Netherlands.

During Holland's drive for same-sex marriage, advocates in Parliament and elsewhere openly scorned the idea that marriage ought to be defined by its childbearing and child rearing character. Of course, there is always a risk that if you spend a decade telling people that marriage is not about family and it is not about children that they might just start believing you. But that is apparently what happened in the Netherlands. The Dutch people simply stopped getting married, even when they had children. When it is no big deal, marriage becomes just another choice on a menu of relationship options, and the children pay the price.

Respected British demography Kathleen Kiernan drew on the Scandinavian case to form a four-stage model by which to gauge a country's movement toward Swedish levels of out-of-wedlock births.

She said in stage 1 the vast majority of the population produces children without marriage, such as in Italy. In the second stage, cohabitation is tolerated as a testing period before marriage, and it is generally a childless phase, such as we currently have in America. In stage 3, cohabitation becomes increasingly acceptable, and parenting is no longer automatically associated with marriage. While Norway was once at this stage, recent demographic and legal changes have pushed it into stage 4, along with Sweden and Denmark.

In the fourth stage, marriage and cohabitation become practically indistinguishable, with many children, even most children, born and raised outside of traditional marriage. According to Kiernan, once a country has reached a stage, return to an earlier phase is very unlikely.

As you can see, Mr. President, the dissolution of marriage is passed on to children, to the next generation, and the devaluation of marriage as an important institution continues.

In America, the results could be even more significant than in Scandinavia or the Netherlands because after all we already have a significant problem of out-of-wedlock childbirth in our own country. When the example of traditional marriage is removed, when cohabitation and marriage are equally respected and when childbearing is no longer something that ought to ideally come in the context of traditional marriage, I fear the problem of single-parent households will only worsen.

We have a wealth of social science research from hundreds of sources over the course of decades which consistently reflects both the positive ramifications for children of a stable, traditional marriage, and the negative effects of family breakup, including divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth. Marriage provides the basis for the family, which remains the strongest and most important social unit.

As we have heard, countless statistics and research attest to the fact that when marriage becomes less important because it is expanded beyond its traditional definition to include other arrangements, that untoward consequences such as greater out-of-wedlock childbirths occur. People simply regard marriage as less significant and certainly, by definition, no longer unique.

Let me be clear. There are literally thousands, tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of single parents in this country who do a heroic job of raising their children in single-parent households. Nothing I have suggested is meant at all to disparage the great work they do. It is only to point out what social science and common experience would tell us is true, and that is, if possible, the optimal condition to raise any child, in terms of the family in which they are raised, is a family that is intact and where they have a loving father and a loving mother.

We recognize there are circumstances where that is not possible for a variety of circumstances for every child, but that should not deter us from seeking the optimal situation for every child if it is, in fact, possible.

Here in America we made the decision we ought to particularly encourage and support those who marry and have children. This, of course, is not a partisan issue. That is one reason why I am so disappointed by the silence with which we are met on the other side of the aisle, talking about this important issue. In fact, it was one of the most distinguished Democratic Members of this body, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who argued more than a decade ago that we must stop "the breakup of family inevitably" as best we can. He said: “The principle social objective of American National Government at every level...should be to see that children are born into intact families and that they remain so.”

We don't raise our neighbors' children as our own, but we do help all the children in every community every time we affirm and reinforce the importance of traditional marriage, through our speech, by our actions, in our culture, and by our laws. It is a position reinforced through our laws and our practices, and I believe it is right. Government should not be neutral, nor should it pretend to be neutral when it comes to children and families.

Most Americans take for granted that traditional definitions of family and marriage as we know them will always exist but that, as we have seen, is a mistake. We see in Scandinavia and the Netherlands why that assumption would be a mistake. Now we see that same development occurring in one of our States and being spread through litigation throughout the country.

The American people are not persuaded that this radical redefinition of marriage is needed or that it is a good thing. When given the opportunity to express themselves, they have always supported traditional marriage clearly and forthrightly.

I, for one, believe that a national discussion of this issue is a good thing. Those of us on the side of traditional marriage must not flinch and we should not back down and we should not allow people to paint our motivations as hateful or hurtful because, indeed, they are not.

We recognize two simple propositions simultaneously in this country. One is the essential dignity and worth of every human being. But, second and at the same time, we recognize that we see enormous benefits to our children, to society, and to all of us by preserving the traditional institution of marriage. We are merely seeking to defend the fundamental bedrock of our society, the wellspring of families and the welfare of children. That is what we are for. We, who have the responsibility of serving in elective office, have the duty to act to protect marriage as a social good, not to ignore this issue until it is too late.

Some believe traditional marriage itself is about discrimination, that all traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional and therefore must be abolished by the courts. They align themselves with four justices in Massachusetts who contend the traditional institution of marriage is "rooted in persistent prejudices" and "invidious discrimination" and not in the best interests of children.

These activists, out of the mainstream as they are, accuse others of writing discrimination into the Constitution. Yet they are the ones who are willing to write the American people out of our constitutional democracy.

Now that the threat to traditional marriage is a Federal threat, a Federal constitutional amendment is the only way to preserve traditional marriage laws nationwide before it is too late. We need stable marriages and stable families. The institution of marriage is just too important to leave to lawyers and lawsuits and to chance.

Unless and until the American people are persuaded otherwise, we have a duty as their representatives to defend the laws they have passed, indeed the laws that we have passed, such as the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and not let extremists in the courts or outside them reshape society according to their own whim. We can be confident in the fact that a constitutional amendment is the most representative process we have in American law.

There is no possible response to this judicial activism, to this rewriting of the Constitution by judicial fiat, but an amendment. Give the States a voice. Give the people a voice. They deserve no less on such an important issue.

I suggest the burden of proof is on those who seek to experiment with traditional marriage, an institution that has sustained society for countless generations. The experimenters must present their case to us, that the radical new social unit they propose is good for the community, is good for families, and most of all good for children. Thus far, the laboratory where this experiment has already been run, in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, has given us nothing but disastrous results.

I yield the floor.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEWS RELEASE

Contact Brian Hart/Aaron Groote

July 12, 2004

BROWNBACK COMMENTS ON FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT FROM SENATE FLOOR

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today spoke from the Senate floor in support of the federal marriage amendment and defended the need to protect the future of traditional marriage and American families. Brownback is a cosponsor of the amendment and has long championed issues which protect and elevate marriage and children. Below are select excerpts from his comments:

If the movement for civil unions and same-sex marriage succeeds, we may well be dealing a fatal blow to an already-vulnerable institution. It is possible to lose the institution of marriage in America. And that is precisely the hidden agenda of many in this cultural battle: To do away with the traditional definition of the family entirely.

Once the process of ‘defining marriage down’ begins, it is but a short step to the dissolution of marriage as a vital institution altogether. I thing it is incumbent on this Senate to protect the institution of marriage from attempts to redefine it out of existence, and to vote for this constitutional amendment.

I have no doubt that it is imperative that we act now, by means of a constitutional amendment, to protect marriage. This action has been made necessary not by election year politics, but by the reckless actions of a judiciary bent on radical social experimentation.

Let there be no mistake: The stakes in this battle over the future of our culture are enormous. On our reaction to this threat hinges not only the future of marriage, but our future as a self-governing people. This is not a battle over civil rights; it is a battle over whether marriage will be emptied of its meaning in contradiction to the will of the people and their duly elected representatives. When activist judges show no regard for legal intent or precedent, using their positions to achieve policy goals, they must be resolutely opposed - and impeached when necessary at both the federal and state level. In fundamentally altering the definition of marriage and changing duly approved marriage laws, these judges show contempt for the democratic process itself.

The choice is clear: Either we amend the Constitution and protect the rights of the people to self-determination in this process, or the Constitution will be amended, in effect, by the edict of judges. The time has come to act. If we continue to let activist judges and social radicals determine the fate of marriage, the battle may be lost.

A vitally important part of this debate is to study the social science data regarding what happens when sexuality and children are taken outside of the context of marriage, and what happens when marriage declines as an institution as a result of a culture in which divorce, out-of-wedlock births, cohabitation, and single parenthood have become a social norm. One of the central questions before our society right now is whether this course is desirable and, if not, what can be done to avert it.

Particularly important is what the social science evidence has to tell us about how children have been affected by the weakening of the institution of marriage over the last 40 years. It is incumbent on those of us who deal with public policy issues to investigate this trend and its consequences for society.

A very wise man, the late Democratic senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once wrote that “the central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. Senator Moynihan also wrote that “the principle objective of American government at every level should be to see that children are born into intact families and that they remain so.”

Marriage is at the center of the family, and the family is the basis of society itself. The government’s interest in the marriage bond—and the reason it treats heterosexual unions in a manner unlike all other relationships—is closely related to the welfare of children.

Government registers and endorses marriage between a man and a woman in order to insure a stable environment for the raising and nurturing of children. Social science on this matter is conclusive: Children need both a mom and a dad.

Good children are raised in non-traditional settings. Many healthy children are raised in difficult circumstances and many single parents struggle heroically to raise good children. Still, the social science is clear. The best place for a child is with a mom and a dad. Both are needed, and both must be encouraged.

Study after study shows that children do best in a home with a married, biological mother and father. And the government has a special responsibility to safeguard the needs of children; the social costs of not doing so are tremendous.

This is a crisis for both our children and our country—the fact that so many children are growing up without fathers. It has been exacerbated by the decline of the institution of marriage:

· Children who grow up without their fathers are two to three times more likely to fail at school, and two to three times more likely to suffer from an emotional or behavioral problem. They are five times more likely to be poor; nearly 80 percent of all children suffering long-term poverty come from broken or never married families.

· As teenagers, fatherless children are more likely to commit crime, engage in early and promiscuous sexual activity, and to commit suicide.

· Less than half of all teenagers currently live with their married biological mothers and fathers.

· This year, approximately one million children will endure the divorce of their parents and an additional 1.2 million will be born out-of-wedlock. Altogether, the proportion of children entering broken families has more than quadrupled since 1950.

The experience of other nations demonstrates that the imposition of same-sex marriage and civil unions leads to a weakening of marriage. As scholar Stanley Kurtz has shown, in Scandinavia, the system of marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships established in the late 1980s has contributed significantly to the ongoing decline of marriage in that region. In the Netherlands, same-sex marriage has increased the cultural separation of marriage from parenthood, resulting in a soaring out-of-wedlock birthrate. Kurtz warns that same-sex “marriage” could widen the separation between marriage and parenthood here in the United States, and perhaps undo the progress we have made in arresting the once seemingly inexorable trend towards higher rates of illegitimacy among some communities in the United States.

In a letter released just last Thursday addressed to “parliaments around the world debating the issue of same-sex marriage,” a group of Dutch scholars raised concerns about gay marriage’s negative effects on the institution of marriage in The Netherlands. The scholars suggested that “there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands.” They concluded, “At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.”

-30-

Sam Brownback
United States Senator - Kansas
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
http://brownback.senate.gov

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington

For Immediate Release
July 12, 2004
Contact:
Charla Neuman
202-224-8277
202-309-3447 (cell)

Cantwell on Bush Administration’s Efforts to Dismantle Roadless Rule

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell today expressed growing frustration over the Bush Administration’s ongoing efforts to overturn the U.S. Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

“Our national Roadless areas are part of America’s treasured natural heritage and deserve national protection, not a piecemeal, state-by-state approach.

“Despite hearing from over two million Americans who said they support the Roadless Rule, this Administration has sought to dismantle the Rule since its first days in office.

“In a time of record deficits, the Bush Administration should not be forcing American taxpayers to subsidize logging roads and timber sales while ignoring the Forest Service's $10 billion backlog on existing road repairs.”

Cantwell is the main sponsor of the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which would permanently protect Roadless areas.

Ironically, the Bush Administration announced the end of the Roadless Rule in Idaho on the heels of two studies that showed the best hunting and fishing is in the state’s Roadless areas.

In Washington state alone there are 2,015,000 acres of National Forest system lands that qualify for protection as Roadless areas.

# # #

Media Advisory: Contact: Howard Gantman, Sen. Feinstein, 202/224-9629
Monday, July 12, 2004 Blake Zeff, Sen. Schumer, 202-224-7433

* * * * * News Conference * * * * *

Feinstein, Schumer Call on President Bush to Help
Them Renew the Assault Weapons Ban

- Two months, or 14 legislative days, before the ban will expire,
unless Congress and the President act -

Washington, DCB On Tuesday, July 13, 2004 -- two months to the day before the federal assault weapons ban is set to expire -- Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) will implore President Bush to take an active role in seeing that the ban is renewed.

The Senators will deliver speeches on the Senate floor at 11:30 a.m. and then take questions immediately following at a media availability in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery.

President Bush has said that he supports the ban and supports its reauthorization, but up to this point, he has done nothing to ensure that it is renewed. Unless Congress and the President Act, the ban will expire on September 13, 2004.

Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Time: 11:30 a.m. – Feinstein/Schumer deliver speeches on the Senate floor
Approx. 12:00 Noon – Media availability in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery

The ban prohibits the manufacture and importation of 19 specific military style assault weapons, including the Tec-9 and Mac-10, as well as the manufacture of copycat weapons.

Facts about the Assault Weapons Ban
· In a bipartisan vote in March, the U.S. Senate approved a straight 10-year renewal of the current ban as an amendment to a bill being pushed by the National Rifle Association giving gun manufacturers and dealers protection from civil lawsuits. But in a bizarre twist, the NRA scuttled its own bill at the last minute in order to prevent the extension from becoming law.

· Every major law enforcement organization in the country supports renewing the ban, as do countless civic organizations.

· Almost three-fourths of the American people and two-thirds of gun owners support renewing the ban.

· The ban works – the rate of crimes committed with banned assault weapons has dropped by two-thirds since the ban took effect almost ten years ago.
###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Monday, July 12, 2004 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Senator Feinstein Opposes Federal Marriage Amendment

-- Marriage should be left up to states --

Washington, DC – The U.S. Senate today continued to debate the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the U.S. Constitution to state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Following are the remarks U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) delivered on the floor of the Senate against this proposal:

“Mr. President, I wish to make an argument directly contrary to the arguments just presented by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. I do not consider myself an expert on marriage. I have been married for a long time. I have one daughter, three stepdaughters, and five grandchildren. I celebrate marriage. I understand the difficulties in working to keep it together. But I believe this is a waste of time.

The votes are not present to submit this amendment to the States. The timing is just a few months before an election, and family law has always been relegated to the States. This essentially would be the first departure from that.

My argument today is based on my understanding of the law. My understanding of what is happening in the States indicates to me that the States are well able to handle the issue of marriage on their own. The tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Marriage is not once mentioned in the Constitution. Most authorities believe it to be a power reserved to the States.

As early as 1890, that is 114 years ago, in In Re Burrus, the United States Supreme Court, in a child custody dispute, stated:

The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States.

Later, in a 1979 Supreme Court decision, Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, the Court stated in dicta:

Insofar as marriage is within temporal control, the States lay on the guiding hand.

Furthermore, the courts have long held that no State can be forced to recognize a marriage that offends a deeply held public policy of that State. States, as a result, have frequently and constitutionally refused to recognize marriages from other States that differ from their public policy. Polygamous marriages, for example, even if sanctioned by another State, have consistently been rejected. Marriages between immediate family members have also been rejected by States, even if those marriages are accepted in other parts of the country. In no case that I know of has the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution been used to require a State to recognize a type of marriage that would violate its own strong public policy. So States have been on their own with respect to family law, including marriage.

Even as we consider the Federal Marriage Amendment, we see that the States are taking their right and powers as they relate to family law and marriage very seriously. Thirty-three States have passed their own Defense of Marriage Acts, banning same-sex marriages, and five have passed ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriages.

My own State, California, passed a Defense of Marriage Act in the year 2000. Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of Californians, 61 percent. The California Family Code now states that:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

That is the law of my State. That policy statement trumps all local and other law.

Earlier this year, the mayor of my city, Gavin Newsom, of San Francisco, decided this law was unconstitutional and ordered the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. These actions did not go unnoticed, and the California State Supreme Court subsequently enjoined the county clerk from issuing any further marriage licenses, and the county complied. Oral arguments were heard on the cases on May 25, and the State Supreme Court will issue its decision within 90 days.

However, I want to make clear, crystal clear, that the Court is not deciding on the constitutionality of Proposition 22, which said that marriage shall be between a man and a woman. Rather, the Court issued orders to show cause in Lewis v. Alfaro and Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, limited to the following issue: Were the officials of the city and county of San Francisco exceeding or acting outside the scope of their authority in refusing to enforce the provisions of Family Code sections 300, 301, 308.5, and 355 in the absence of a judicial determination that those statutory provisions are unconstitutional? In other words, acting in defiance of the statewide referendum?

The orders to show cause are specifically limited to this legal question, and they do not include the substantive constitutional challenge to the California marriage statutes themselves. The marriage statute, therefore, is not in jeopardy of being overturned.

When we look around, we see that California is not the only State where people are speaking out about same-sex marriage. In fact, a lively debate is taking place throughout the country.

On July 6, the Washington Times ran an article entitled, ‘Marriage Gets a Boost in Michigan.’ The article notes that the supporters of traditional marriage in Michigan recently turned in approximately 475,000 signatures to put a State constitutional amendment before the voters this November. An organizer of the effort was quoted to say:

The people responded. They’re tired of politicians and activist judges making changes without having a voice. This gives them a voice.

The article goes on to say:

Michigan’s achievement marks a four-for-four victory for those who want marriage amendments on the November ballot.

Montana, Oregon and Arkansas will place similar measures on their ballots this November. Mr. President, your own State will have one on the ballot. North Dakota and Ohio are collecting signatures necessary for ballot measures.

As you can see, the States have taken up the just powers accorded to them by the Constitution of the United States and are responding to this issue, and that is as it should be.

The Family Research Council reported in a press release on July 9:

[A]n unprecedented nine States already have State constitutional amendments on the ballot this fall and that number is expected to increase to at least 14 States. Thirty-eight States have previously gone on record stating marriage is between one man and one woman. The people are making their voices heard in their States but unfortunately that is not enough.

Yet in the words of the Family Research Council, these actions by States are ‘unprecedented’ and show that a process is, indeed, taking place throughout the country and that the people are active participants. Through that process, the people do have a voice and they are being heard. I believe interference from Washington in this political process is premature, unnecessary, and not in the context of the Constitution of the United States.

In light of this, it appears that proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment disregard the debate occurring in the States and point only to Massachusetts and the fact that marriage licenses are being issued legally to same-sex couples there. They argue that the same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, the first State to allow such marriages, are what is driving the need to enshrine in the Constitution language that marriage is between a man and a woman. I disagree.

Even in Massachusetts, the State legislature has begun work on a State constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages but allow civil unions. This amendment is certainly not guaranteed to pass, but it is clear that the people of Massachusetts are dealing themselves with the issue as was intended and, again, it would seem without the need of assistance from Washington.

Because several dozen States have already passed a prohibition on same-sex marriage, it seems clear that in those States an argument could be made that strong public policy would lead to a refusal to recognize out-of-State same-sex marriages.

So it is not a problem demanding an immediate solution. There is a process taking place in the States throughout the country as was envisioned by the Constitution. For us to act now is not only premature but it isn’t going to work because the votes are not here.

So why are we doing this? Why are we doing this when we have only passed one appropriations bill? Why are we doing this when last week we just had a briefing on the impact of terrorism on this Nation and we haven’t passed a Homeland Security bill? Why are we doing this when the Constitution has reserved family law to the States and when States by the dozens have already taken up the issue and passed, either by legislature or by vote of the people, marriage amendments? Why are we doing this?

The only answer I can come up with is because this is political. It is to drive a division into the voters of America, into the people of America, one more wedge issue at a very difficult time to be used politically in elections. Everybody in this body knows they are nowhere close to 67 votes. If there were a motion to proceed, there might not even be enough votes for a motion to proceed.

Why are we doing this? Why are we stirring up the Nation? I probably have 53,000 pieces of mail on this subject alone. People do not understand that the Constitution relegates family law to the States, and has relegated the issue of adoption, marriages, and everything having to do with family law to the States.

My daughter happens to be the supervising judge of the family court in San Francisco. You can talk to any judge and see just that. The States have responded. It is not as if the States have ignored those issues. More than 36 States -- more than three dozen States -- have passed legislation, and 8 are moving shortly.

For the life of me, I don’t understand what honest motive there is in putting this in front of this body to philosophically debate marriage on a constitutional amendment that is not going to happen, and which is enormously divisive in all of our communities.

I hope my colleagues will exercise prudence and tread carefully with our Constitution. I don't think we want to put out an amendment -- I don’t think we can, but let us say with some change and there were 67 votes, as the Senator from Pennsylvania correctly said, it then has to go to a vote of three-quarters of the State legislatures. When three-quarters of the States have already taken action, why would they ratify this? I think it is a useless exercise.

I have been on the Judiciary Committee long enough now to be able to take an issue and see if it is properly before us. I don’t believe a constitutional amendment reserving the right of marriage to a man and a woman is properly before us because I believe that is an area clearly relegated to the States, and the States are exercising that right.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor.”

###

NEWS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF U.S. SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

For Immediate Release Mike Tracy (208) 342-7985
July 12, 2004 Dan Whiting (202) 224-8078

BUSH ADMINISTRATION RELEASES ROADLESS AREA RULE
Craig joins Secretary Veneman in announcing rule in Boise

BOISE, ID – Idaho Senator Larry Craig joined Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and Under Secretary Mark Rey in Boise today to announce a new rule for roadless areas in our national forests. The proposed rule comes after several lawsuits and years of uncertainty about the management objectives for the 60 million acres of roadless area in the country – nearly 1/3 of our national forests.

“The Clinton roadless rule further polarized the public land debate, with the only benefactors being the fundraisers of environmental groups,” said Craig.

“The Bush Administration is wiping the slate clean and erasing Clinton’s legacy of locking-up our land,” continued Craig. “Mandating state input and a localized management plan fosters collaborative conservation and improves forest health.”

Craig emphasized the importance of a diversity of management objectives, “Our forests require a mosaic of management principles – from wilderness to roadless to active management. With roadless areas comprising nearly 1/3 of our national forests, their management is a significant factor. President Bush recognizes a broad dictate for 60 million acres doesn’t cut it – the plans have to be localized.”

Craig chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, which has oversight of the National Forest System. He was the chair when the Clinton Administration’s roadless rule was proposed and enacted, and he held several oversight hearings on that rule. He may holding hearings on the new criteria, depending on the public reaction to them.

More information on the rule can be found at http://www.usda.gov.

As this process moves forward, information will be available on Craig’s website, http://craig.senate.gov, on how the rule will affect Idaho.

ATTENTION RADIO NEWSROOMS: Audio from the press conference will be available after 6:00 p.m. Eastern at http://craig.senate.gov.

[30]

For Immediate Release

Contact: Courtney Schikora (202) 224-1028

July 12, 2004

MEDIA ADVISORY:

SENATOR TED STEVENS & MARVEL ENTERPRISES INTERNET SAFETY INITIATIVE FEATURING MARVEL’S SUPER HEROES

Spider-Man, The Hulk, And Captain America Headline Innovative, Multi-Tiered Campaign To Promote Internet Safety And Stop Online Piracy

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Marvel Enterprises Inc.’s world-famous Super Heroes including Spider-Man, The Hulk, Spider-Girl and Captain America have teamed up with Wired Safety a recognized global leader in Internet law, privacy and policy, to fight a new breed of villains – Internet predators, cyber-stalkers and online identity thieves.

Through a unique arrangement, Marvel and Wired Safety, the world’s largest Internet safety and education organization, will develop a groundbreaking program designed to help parents and their children use the Internet safely, wisely and responsibly. The program will be unveiled on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 in the Capitol in S-207, The Mansfield Room at 6:00 PM.

“The Marvel Super Heroes and Wired Safety have created a wonderful website that children of all ages may use to educate themselves and others about Internet security and to ensure everyone knows about online safety issues,” said Stevens. “Our children are so technologically savvy that they are moving around on the web and can get into trouble. Wired Safety and Marvel Comics are trying to ensure that our children are equipped with the proper tools to navigate the web safely.”

The primary elements of this initiative include: stage shows starring the Marvel Super Heroes that will travel to community centers, malls, schools, state fairs and other destinations across the country; a new website, InternetSuperheroes.org, an in-school Internet safety curriculum program; and a series of custom comic books each tackling a specific topic related to safe and responsible Internet use.

“The Marvel Super Heroes are instantly recognizable and are highly trusted by children and parents alike. They make for the ideal characters to help promote Internet security and educate everyone on key online safety issues,” said Peter Cuneo, Vice-Chairman, Marvel Enterprises, Inc. “In bringing together our widely known Marvel characters and Parry’s expertise in Internet safety, we have developed a terrific program that educates kids and parents about Internet piracy and predators as well as promoting responsible and private surfing in a fun and engaging way.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

July 12, 2004

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Tom Steward (202) 253-4481

COLEMAN INTRODUCES VETERANS BENEFITS OUTREACH LEGISLATION

MN Senator seeking to ensure that veterans eligible for disability benefits receive them

Washington, DC—Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) today introduced the Veterans Benefit Outreach Act of 2004, legislation designed to help ensure that disabled veterans receive the benefits they deserve. It’s estimated that 572,000 veterans nationwide are not receiving the benefits they are entitled to due to lack of communication from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In other words, they simply don’t know these benefits are available to them. Coleman’s legislation would require the VA to conduct annual outreach efforts to educate all veterans about the benefits they have at their disposal.

“When we ask men and women in uniform to fight for freedom, our nation promises in return to take care of them when they return,” Coleman said. “Providing basic health care is the least a grateful nation can do, and we do it gladly for our veterans. Tragically, there are veterans suffering from injuries inflicted on the battlefield that are not out receiving the assistance they need and deserve because they simply don’t know about the benefits available to them. This legislation is an important first step forward in solving this very serious problem.”

Coleman’s legislation would also allow for the appeal of veterans benefits claims that were denied by the VA due to the loss of records resulting from a 1974 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in Missouri.

“The VA needs to continue to work to ensure that men and women disabled by battle are receiving the benefits they deserve,” Coleman concluded. “The 1974 fire was not the VA’s fault, but in order to keep credibility with veterans, the VA needs to establish a process that allows veterans whose records were lost in the fire to receive the benefits they’re entitled to. I know this problem firsthand, as my own father, a proud veteran of World War II, lost his files in that fire.”

###

___________________________

Andy Brehm

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Norm Coleman

Telephone: 202.224.5641

Fax: 202.224.9640

Mobile: 202.247.7636

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Matt Hartwig/Maureen Knightly

July 12, 2004 202-224-3254

HARKIN OPPOSES RULE TO OPEN ROADLESS AREAS IN NATIONAL FORESTS

WASHINGTON – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today expressed disappointment in the Department of Agriculture’s proposed rule to open previously roadless areas to road construction, and ultimately, logging activity. The proposed rule from USDA would require governors to petition the Secretary of Agriculture to keep roadless area protection of forests intact.

“Iowans have long supported roadless areas in our pristine national forests. Unfortunately, this administration is bent on ignoring public opinion in favor of increased logging,” said Harkin. “I fully support increasing cooperation between state and federal governments, but this rule unnecessarily exposes millions of acres of pristine wilderness to road construction, vehicle traffic, and logging activities.”

Harkin has joined with 13 other senators in cosponsoring legislation to ensure protection of the remaining roadless areas in our national forests.

“The current rule protecting roadless areas strikes a fair balance conserving important wildlife habitat while allowing for resource extraction in other parts of the forest,” said Harkin. “This proposed rule is one more example of this administration’s efforts to weaken environmental protections in favor of the wishes of big business.”

# # #

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Contact: Maureen Knightly/ Jennifer Carrier

July 12, 2004 202.224.3254

**MEDIA ADVISORY**

Harkin, Former DOL Official to Discuss Independent Review of Overtime Regulations

This independent review confirms that the new DOL overtime regulations will harm rather than protect the interests of American workers.

WHO: Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Former DOL Official

WHAT: Conference Call with Reporters on Overtime

WHEN: 2:00 PM EDT

Tuesday, July 12, 2004

HOW: Please contact Jennifer Carrier in the Harkin press office to participate at 202-224-3254 or jennifer_carrier@harkin.senate.gov.

# # #

For Immediate Release
Contact: Rachel Reiter (202)224-4224
Monday, July 12, 2004

Nebraska Receives $586,290 for Historic Preservation Project

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) announced today that the Nebraska State Historical Society will receive $586,290 from the U.S. Department of the Interior.

"In order to learn from the past, we must preserve it for future generations to study and appreciate. This funding will help the State Historical Society preserve Nebraska’s treasures," Hagel said.

The funding will assist the Nebraska State Historical Society in the survey, protection, and preservation of Nebraska’s irreplaceable architectural, cultural, and historical heritage. The funding is contingent upon a 60 percent match from the State of Nebraska.

-30-

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Susan Wheeler (202) 224-5150
July 12, 2004 Lindsay Nothern (208) 334-1776

CRAPO: LOCAL CONTROL IS IN THIS ROADLESS RULE

Washington, DC - Idaho Senator Mike Crapo supports President Bush’s new Roadless proposal announced today in Boise because it offers more local input and local options than the previous Roadless rule. Crapo says offering state governors the opportunity to influence management of roadless areas is a critical component to making local input work.

“This new Roadless initiative begins with a much stronger chance to succeed because it offers local input and suggestions from stakeholders, land use managers, local elected officials, and state leaders,” Crapo said. “Collaborative efforts closest to the ground are the key to wise public lands management and eliminating gridlock. A top-down, one-size fits-all national policy was not the way to proceed. This approach, that recognizes local input and differences among areas, makes for much stronger land use policy.”

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Bob Stevenson (202) 224-4445

July 12, 2004 Amy Call (202) 224-1865

Nick Smith (202) 224-3355

FRIST SCHEDULE FOR JULY 12 - 16

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The following is U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s schedule for July 12-16:

Monday, July 12

2:45 p.m. Press Conference, Federal Marriage Amendment, S-207

Tuesday, July 13

8:35 a.m. Speech, National Hispanic Leadership Summit, Hyatt Regency, 400 New Jersey Ave, NW Washington, DC

9:30 a.m. Bill Signing, African Growth and Opportunity Act, The White House

-30-

04-166

Senator Dianne Feinstein is expected to speak shortly (about 1:40 p.m.) on the Senate floor against the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MEDIA ADVISORY

Contact Brian Hart/Aaron Groote

July 12, 2004

BROWNBACK, CORZINE TO HOLD NEWS CONFERENCE DECLARING GENOCIDE IN SUDAN

Will introduce legislation declaring the situation in Sudan genocide

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Sam Brownback and Jon Corzine will hold a news conference Tuesday to discuss the introduction of legislation declaring the dire situation in Sudan as genocide. Brownback will show a short video he taped while in the Sudan, as well as still photos and drawings from Sudanese children depicting the Janjaweed on horses firing weapons at people, and planes shooting at villages. Brownback and Corzine are introducing a concurrent resolution that has been introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Donald Payne of Ohio.

News conference to discuss legislation declaring genocide in Sudan

Tuesday, July 13

11:00 a.m. Eastern

Senate TV Gallery, S-325

Due to the location of the press conference, only Senate-credentialed media and Congressional staff may attend. Media wishing to be credentialed should contact the Senate TV Gallery at (202) 224-6421.

Brownback recently returned from the Darfur region of Sudan and issued a report with recommendations for the international community to deal with the dire human rights situation there.

Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, and government forces continue their violent campaign against Darfur’s Black African population. Reports indicate that some 200,000 refugees have fled to Chad, and over 1 million have been displaced inside the region. USAID Director Andrew Natsios claims that, “Even in a best-case scenario, under optimal conditions, we could see as many as 320,000 people die. Without optimal conditions, the numbers will be far greater.” Some reports estimate that the final death toll could reach 1 million if humanitarian organizations are unable to deliver aid.

Brownback personally visited five refugee villages and saw thousands of burned-out homes.

Invited speakers include Sens. Brownback and Corzine, Reps. Payne, Cummings of MD (Chair of the Congressinonal Black Caucus), and Conyers of MI.

-30-

Sam Brownback
United States Senator - Kansas
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
http://brownback.senate.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MEDIA ADVISORY

Contact Brian Hart/Aaron Groote

July 12, 2004

BROWNBACK NEWS CONFERENCE WITH RELIGIOUS LEADERS TO DISCUSS FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

All media invited

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback will hold a news conference with over 40 religious leaders Tuesday to discuss the importance of the federal marriage amendment.

News Conference on Federal Marriage Amendment

Tuesday, July 13

10:00 a.m. Eastern

S-237, the Mansfield Room, U.S. Capitol

Religious leaders who will speak at the news conference include:

Reverend Monsignor William P. Fay, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Pastor Thomas L. Rogers, Triumphant Baptist Church of Hyattsville, MD

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Union of Orthodox Rabbis and the Rabbinical Alliance

Reverend Andres Ruiz, International Center of Revival of Arlington, VA

Reverend Samuel Lee, Korean Central Presbyterian Church of Vienna, VA

Dr. Barrett Duke, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention

-30-

Sam Brownback
United States Senator - Kansas
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
http://brownback.senate.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MEDIA ADVISORY

Contact Brian Hart/Aaron Groote

July 12, 2004

BROWNBACK TO ADDRESS MARRIAGE ON SENATE FLOOR AT 5:00 TODAY

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback will speak on the Senate floor today at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the importance of a federal marriage amendment. Brownback will highlight the evidence provided by social science as to how children have been affected by the weakening of the institution of marriage over the last 40 years.

Brownback will also share the experience of other nations, which demonstrates that the imposition of same-sex marriage and civil unions leads to a weakening of marriage overall. For example, in Scandinavia, the system of marriage-like same-sex registered partnerships established in the late 1980s has contributed significantly to the ongoing decline of marriage in that region.

The speech will be carried live on C-SPAN 2.

Brownback speech on importance of marriage

Monday, July 12

5:00 p.m. Eastern

Senate floor

Live on C-SPAN 2

-30-

Sam Brownback
United States Senator - Kansas
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
http://brownback.senate.gov

July 12, 2004

BURNS TO HOLD WEEKLY PRESS CALL

WASHINGTON- U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) announced today that he will host another press call this week to keep the media informed about things that are happening in Congress.

This will be an open forum for reporters to ask questions and take comments for their use.

To participate in the upcoming week’s press call on Wednesday, July 14th at 12:00 noon EST, 10:00am MT, please contact Grant Toomey at 202-224-6137.

###

Grant Toomey
Deputy Press Secretary
Senator Conrad Burns
187 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202.224.6137 Phone
202.224.8594 Fax

The Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies will hold a field hearing on the Employee Free Choice Act – Union Certification on Friday, July 16 at 1:00 p.m. in the State Capitol Building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

The scheduled witnesses are:

Panel I

Arthur Rosenfeld, General Counsel

National Labor Relations Board

Panel II

Sarah Fox, Esq., Bredhoff and Kaiser

Testifying on behalf of the AFL-CIO

Charles Cohen, Esq., Partner, Morgan Lewis

Testifying on Behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Eileen Connelly, Pennsylvania State Legislative Director

Service Employees International Union

Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney

National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation

Panel III

Workers with Personal Experiences

Supporting and Opposing Union Representation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MEDIA ADVISORY

Contact Brian Hart/Aaron Groote

July 12, 2004

BROWNBACK HEARING TO EXAMINE MAIL-ORDER BRIDE ABUSES

Hearing will discuss link between human trafficking, international marriage brokers, and mail-order brides

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback will hold a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs examining abuses in the mail-order bride industry. Witnesses at the hearing, including Senator Maria Cantwell, will discuss the links between international marriage brokers, mail-order brides, and human trafficking.

Hearing on Human Trafficking: Mail-Order Bride Abuses

Tuesday, July 13

3:00 p.m. Eastern

419 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Witnesses:

Senator Maria Cantwell

The Honorable John Miller, Trafficking in Persons Office, State Department

Michele Clark, Protection Project

Donna Hughes, University of Rhode Island

Suzanne Jackson, George Washington University Law School

-30-

Sam Brownback
United States Senator - Kansas
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
http://brownback.senate.gov

MEDIA ADVISORY

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) will chair a Senate Children and Families Subcommittee hearing to examine a proposal to give middle- to low-income students a $500 scholarship to follow them to the school of their parents’ choice – a “Pell Grant for Kids.” The hearing will be Thursday, July 15 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 430.

WHO: U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Children and Families Subcommittee Chairman

WHAT: Children and Families Subcommittee Hearing -
Pell Grants for Kids: It worked for Colleges. Why not K-12?

WHEN: Thursday, July 15
10 a.m.

WHERE: Senate Dirksen Building, Room 430

Witnesses will include:

Michael Bell, Assistant Superintendent School Choice and Parental Options
Miami-Dade County Public Schools - Miami, Florida

Catherine Hill, Parent
DC Parents for School Choice - Washington, DC

Paul Peterson, Program on Education Policy and Governance Director
Harvard University - Cambridge, MA

Ellen Goldring, Professor of Education Policy and Leadership
Vanderbilt University - Nashville, TN

Robert Enlow, Executive Vice President for Programs & Development
Friedman Foundation - Indianapolis, Indiana

John Kirtley, Vice Chairman
Alliance for School Choice - Tampa, Florida

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Bob Stevenson (202) 224-4445

July 9, 2004 Amy Call (202) 224-1865

Nick Smith (202) 224-3355

MEDIA ADVISORY

FRIST TO ADDRESS NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

Frist Speech at 1:00 p.m. / Reception at 12:00 p.m.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) will address the National Press Club on Monday, July 12, at 1:00 p.m. to discuss his vision of the future of health care in America.

He will discuss the direction that health care is headed and his views on the necessary policies needed to ensure patients and consumers have access to more affordable, higher quality health care through greater information, choice, and control.

WHO: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN)

WHAT: Address the National Press Club on the future of health care in America.

WHEN: Monday, July 12: 12:00 p.m. Reception; Speech at 1:00 p.m.

WHERE: National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW

-30-

04-165

For Immediate Release: Contact: Chuck Kleeschulte, Comm Director
July 9, 2004 (202) 224-9306; H 301/292-2260; Cell 202/253-9964

MURKOWSKI APPLAUDS FOREST SERVICE FOR PROCEEDING WITH THREEMILE, GRAVINA TIMBER SALES IN TONGASS FOREST
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Noting the severe shortage of available timber for harvest in the Tongass National Forest, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski today applauded the decision of the Forest Service to proceed with the Threemile and Gravina timber sales in the southern Tongass.

The Forest Service today signed the record of decision allowing the 665-acre Threemile sale on Kuiu Island, about 20 miles southwest of Kake, to proceed. The sale is intended to offer about 19.5 million board feet of timber for harvest. The Forest Service also announced today that it will be issuing the final Environmental Impact Statement and record of decision for a Gravina Island timber sale by mid August. That sale, which eventually will involve 1,800 acres offering up to 38 million board feet of timber, is located on Tongass Narrows, across from Ketchikan.

“Given the serious shortage of available timber in the region because of environmental lawsuits that have tied the region’s timber program into knots, it is wonderful news for the citizens of Southeast that the Forest Service has worked so hard to iron out the environmental concerns and is proceeding with both sales. I know the service has worked hard to limit the effects of the Threemile sale on Kuiu Island and has worked even harder to protect deer habitat for subsistence users in planning the Gravina project.

“Both timber sales show that resource development can proceed without harming the forest environment in Southeast. The sales also prove that forest development to support the local and the state’s economy are vital if Alaska is to have a balanced economy,” said Murkowski, noting that the Threemile sale should produce up to 86 direct jobs, while the Gravina project should generate nearly 240 jobs in the future.

Murkowski, while acknowledging that the sales are partially in areas once covered by the Clinton era “roadless” rule, said that 92 percent of the Tongass is protected in roadless, wild and undeveloped condition, while only 300,000 acres of the 9.6 million covered by the initial roadless rule will ever be affected. “The Tongass is not being over developed. All that is happening is that some harvesting is being allowed to permit family-run sawmills to keep operating and producing some jobs in the region,” she said in supporting the decision. ###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Maureen Knightly/ Jen Carrier

July 9, 2004 202.224.3254

HARKIN ANNOUNCES BOOST FOR

DES MOINES AIRPORT

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As part of his continual support of Iowa airport improvements, Senator Tom Harkin announced today that the Des Moines International Airport will receive more than $1.2 million to enhance runway safety.

“Maintaining a quality airport with efficient, safe runways is important to the economic health of a community,” said Harkin. “This funding will provide important safety improvements to a runway at the Des Moines International Airport.”

The funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation will be used to move an airport service road and fence to meet safety standards.

###

Statement by Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV

ON THE

Public Release of the Senate IntelLIGENCE Committee Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq

July 9, 2004

There is simply no question that the mistakes leading up to the war in Iraq rank among the most devastating intelligence failures – with the most grave consequences – in the history of our nation.

Our men and women in uniform are serving with distinction, but the fact is that the Administration at all levels, and to some extent the Congress, used bad information to bolster the case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorized that war if we knew then what we know now.

On September 11, our government didn’t connect the dots. In Iraq, we are even more culpable, because the dots themselves didn’t exist.

Tragically, the intelligence failures set forth in this report will affect our national security for generations to come. Our credibility is diminished, and we have fostered a deep hatred of Americans in the Muslim world. Our standing in the world has never been lower. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before.

I do want to add a few words to Chairman Roberts’ remarks about the specifics of the report – a report that I believe is absolutely outstanding. It is a tribute to the staff, to Chairman Roberts and to all of my colleagues on the Committee.

We worked well together, and we worked through our differences, because we understood that the very security of our nation was at stake. We kept the investigation moving forward even when we weren’t getting cooperation from the Administration. In the end we produced a report that garnered unanimous committee support – something nobody would have predicted at the outset.

Which isn’t to say that there aren’t areas of disagreement – there are, especially on the question of whether the Administration pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions.

And there is real frustration over what’s not in this report, since the whole question of whether intelligence was hyped or misused by policymakers has been relegated to a Phase II effort.

Yet even with those disagreements, the report is absolutely first-rate. Our investigation was objective; our findings are detailed; and our conclusions are devastating.

We found that the intelligence judgments regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs were not supported by the underlying intelligence. Those judgments overstated what analysts knew and then failed to explain relevant uncertainties and events.

The report points out that the Intelligence Community began with a presumption that Iraq had the weapons, never fully questioned that assumption, and then viewed virtually every bit of ambiguous information as supporting the premise that weapons were there.

On the other hand, our report found that the Intelligence Community’s judgments were right on Iraq’s ties to terrorists, which is another way of saying that the Administration’s conclusions were wrong. There was no formal relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda and there was no evidence of Iraqi complicity or assistance in al-Qaeda terrorist attacks, including 9-11.

Importantly, this report underscores the need for reforming the Intelligence Community. In the last two years, the Committee has now produced two major reports – the 9/11 inquiry and this Iraq report – in the last two years highlighting flaws in our intelligence system. The specific problems identified by these two reviews are different, but together they paint a devastating picture. We can and must act now to correct these flaws.

I believe the next step is to have the acting Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin back before the Committee at a hearing open to the public to explain how the Intelligence Community is addressing the shortcomings outlined in our report.

Then we need to develop reform legislation. We need to put one person in charge of the Intelligence community; integrate the work of the 15 agencies conducting intelligence work; improve our human intelligence; mandate red teams (people whose job it is to challenge analysis); and better insulate the intelligence community from political pressure.

With threat levels continuing to rise, the time for reform is now.

Finally, while the report does an excellent job of pointing out the Intelligence Community’s shortcomings, I must say again that it is still an incomplete picture of what occurred during the national debate over the decision to invade Iraq.

Regrettably, the scope of our investigation was divided into two phases. The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was exaggerated by Bush Administration officials was relegated to the second phase of the Committee’s investigation, along with other issues related to the intelligence activities of Pentagon policy officials, pre-war intelligence assessments about post-war Iraq, and the role played by Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.

The Bush Administration’s primary justification for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was based on three assertions: one, that Iraq had stockpiled and weaponized chemical and biological weapons; two, that Iraq was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon; and three, that Iraq might use its alliances with terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, to use these weapons to strike at the United States.

On the first two points of the Administration’s case for invasion, the Committee report details how each of the pillars in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate – assessments of Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, biological, and delivery programs – was built upon a weak foundation of intelligence and analytical assumptions, unable to support the collective weight of the document’s key judgments.

The October weapons of mass destruction estimate -- which was produced only after members of our Committee requested it -- was hastily cobbled together in three weeks using stale, fragmentary, and speculative intelligence reports and was replete with factual errors and unsupported judgments.

These analytical failures were then compounded, in my view, by Administration officials who undertook a relentless public campaign prior to the war which repeatedly characterized the Iraqi weapons programs in more ominous and threatening terms than the Intelligence Community analysis substantiated.

Similarly, Administration statements on Iraq’s links to terrorism and al-Qaeda– the third justification for war against Iraq – implied a cooperative, operational relationship, including links to the September 11th plot that the Intelligence Community did not believe existed.

In short, we went to war in Iraq based on false claims.

During a critical time in our Nation’s history – an 18-month period spanning the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003 – the credibility of the Intelligence Community was significantly compromised.

A capable, independent Intelligence Community is an essential piece of our national security mosaic. For it to be compromised at a time when America must decide whether send our servicemen and women into combat created a dangerous gap in the information the Congress and the American public desperately needed.

This cannot happen again.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Friday, July 9, 2004 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

***** SATELLITE FEED/ RADIO FEED *****

Senators Feinstein Urges Reform of Intelligence Community

-- Calls on Senate to approve legislation creating a Director of National Intelligence --

Washington, DC – The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today issued a report that found serious errors the collection and analysis of pre-war intelligence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and ties to al-Qaeda. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s remarks on the report can be accessed via satellite feed.

The report was unanimously approved by the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Senator Feinstein is a member of that committee and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security.

To reform the intelligence community, Senators Feinstein has introduced legislation (S. 190) to create a Director of National Intelligence with the statutory and budgetary authority to oversee our nation's intelligence-gathering efforts.

Among other reforms, the bipartisan legislation would separate the current position of Director of Central Intelligence (currently held by one individual, who both runs the CIA and the intelligence community as a whole) into two positions: a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to lead the all segments of the Intelligence Community and a Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCIA) to serve as head of the CIA.

Satellite Feed

Time: 1:25 – 1:35 p.m. PDT

Coordinates: Galaxy 3, Transponder 7

Downlink Frequency 3840

C Band

Actuality

Senator Feinstein=s remarks can be accessed via radio actuality line at 800/511-0763. After dialing that number, you can access the Senator=s statement by then dialing pin number 6671.

###

SPECTER & SANTORUM ANNOUNCE
FUNDING FOR PA FIRE COMPANIES

Washington, D.C.- Senator Arlen Specter, a member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Rick Santorum, Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, announced today that the Department of Homeland Security has approved funding for several fire companies in Pennsylvania.

“Our Pennsylvania firefighters risk their lives every day to ensure the safety of millions of people,” Senator Specter said. “This grant will help assure their protection as they safeguard our communities. I commend the Office of Domestic Preparedness for recognizing this priority and for its continued support of the nation’s fire services.”

“This funding provides our first responders with the training they need to provide the communities of Pennsylvania with the best protection possible,” said Senator Santorum. “It is important that local fire departments and emergency personnel are outfitted with the equipment, tools and skills they need to provide services and support to their communities in times of need.”

These grants are the sixth round of funding from the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) and the United States Fire Administration’s Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program. Congress approved $750 million in direct assistance for the 2004 program to support firefighters throughout the country.

This program is designed to provide an opportunity for the U.S. Congress and ODP to enhance fire service in locations across the country by providing funding for firefighting operations, firefighter safety, EMS delivery, vehicle purchase, and prevention programs.

Grants have been approved for the following companies in Pennsylvania:

$213,804 for Lamar Township Volunteer Fire Co. Inc. in Clinton County.
$162,909 for Central City Fire Department in Somerset County.
$155,700 for Hazle Township Volunteer Fire & Rescue Co. in Luzerne County.
$117,000 for Houtzdale Fire Company No. 1 in Clearfield County.
$112,939 for Harmony Township Volunteer Fire Department in Beaver County.
$112,500 for Nescopeck Township Volunteer Fire Co. #1, Inc. in Luzerne County.
$105,270 for Charleroi Volunteer Fire Department in Washington County.
$89,897 for South Ward Fire Company in Schuylkill County.
$89,568 for Lionville Fire Company in Chester County.
$69,685 for Gratz Area Fire Company No. 1 in Dauphin County.
$66,247 for Chicora Independent Hose Company in Butler County.
$59,212 for Volunteer Fire Company of Indianola in Allegheny County.
$58,496 for Marion Volunteer Fire Company in Franklin County.
$48,773 for Community Fire Company Landingville in Schuylkill County.
$45,864 for Wilkes-Barre Township V.F.D. in Luzerne County.
$38,391 for Hose Company No. 1 in Wayne County.
$29,270 for Greenpoint Fire Company in Lebanon County.
$28,152 for New Beaver Borough Volunteer Fire Department in Beaver County.
$26,150 for Acosta Volunteer Fire Department in Somerset County

# # #
Subject: Senator Feinstein on Sunday public affairs programs

Senator Feinstein will appear on the following public affairs programs this Sunday. Check your local listings for airtime:

ABC - THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS_Topic: Senate Intelligence
Committee report on Iraq, with Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

CNN - LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER_Topics: The presidential
election, the Senate intelligence report, Iraq WMDs. Guests Include: Lynne Cheney, Vice President Cheney's wife; Sens. Olympia Snow, R-Maine, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; David Kay, former chief
U.S. weapons inspector.

CNBC - TOPIC A WITH TINA BROWN: Topic: The Senate Intelligence Report. Guests include Dianne Feinstein, D-Callif., Richard Shelby, R-AL, and Steve Coll, managing editor of the Washington Post.

Here is the text of the Senator's floor speech from this AM.

M_. President, I rise today to start what I hope will be a constructive debate on my amendment, S.J.Res. 40, the Marriage Amendment, which states:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Before making my formal comments I’d also like to express my sincere gratitude to my colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment. It has taken countless hours of study and discussion to get to this point and each of our cosponsors has shown courage and commitment to protecting marriage. I’d also like to express my appreciation to the Majority Leader for his commitment and leadership. Without the support of Senate leadership the public may never have had an opportunity to address this vitally important issue in a democratic body.

Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. The definition of marriage crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology and ethnicity. Marriage is embraced and intuitively understood to be what it is. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

As an expression of this cultural value, the definition of marriage is incorporated into the very fabric of civic policy. It is the root from which families, communities, and government are grown. Marriage is the one bond on which all other bonds are built. This is not some controversial ideology being forced upon an unwilling populace by the government, it is in fact the opposite. Marriage is the ideal held by the people and the government has long reflected this. The broadly embraced union of a woman and a man is understood to be the ideal union from which people live and children best blossom and thrive.

As we have heard in hours upon hours of testimony in various Senate committees over the last two years, marriage is a pretty good thing. A good marriage facilitates a more stable community, allows kids to grow up with fewer difficulties, increases the lifespan and quality of life of those involved, reduces the likelihood of incidences of chemical abuse and violent crime, and contributes to the overall health of the family. It is no wonder so many single adults long to be married, to raise kids, and to have families branching out in every direction.

Today there are numerous efforts to redefine marriage to be something that it isn’t. When it comes to same-gender couples there is a problem of definition. Two women or two men simply do not meet the criteria for marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years. Marriage is, as it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. American society has come to recognize the stability and commitment of same-gender couples in a way unimaginable in many other countries. In some states partnership laws and civil union statutes have been created - contractual bonds among same-gender couples - to symbolize and codify these relationships. Some cities and states have elected to express this legal recognition while others have not. Some employers extend benefits to same-gender partners while others do not. In virtually every town and city, America’s tolerance and respect for diversity is second to none in the world. I believe that our democracy continually, systemically expresses these values.

Marriage, however, is what it is. It is a union between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians are entitled to the same legal protections as any one else - gays and lesbians have the right to live the way they want to - but they do not have the right to redefine marriage.

I believe the framers of the Constitution felt that this would never be an issue - and if they had it would have been included in the U.S. Constitution. Like the vast majority of Americans it would have never occurred to me that the definition of marriage, or marriage itself, would be the source of controversy. A short time ago it would have been wholly inconceivable that this definition - this institution that is marriage - would be challenged, redefined or attacked. But we are here today because it is. Traditional marriage is under assault. I say assault because the move to redefine marriage is taking place not through democratic processes such as state legislatures or the Congress or ballot initiatives around the nation. This assault is taking place in our courts and often in direct conflict with the will of the people, state statute, federal statute, and even state constitutions.

Activists and lawyers have devised a strategy to use the courts to redefine marriage. This strategy is a clear effort to override public opinion and the long standing composition of traditional marriage and to force same-sex marriage on society.

Over the course of the last ten years traditional marriage laws have been challenged in courts across the nation. Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia have all seen traditional marriage challenged in court. Cases are pending today in eleven of those states. But this is not a strategy based on tilting at windmills. It is a strategy that has been employed with a good deal of success.

The first success in this legal strategy was in Vermont in 1999. The Vermont State Supreme Court ordered state legislators to either legalize same-sex marriage or create civil unions. The second, and to date the most widely covered success in the effort to destroy traditional marriage, came more recently in the state of Massachusetts where four judges forced the entire state to give full marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This edict came despite the fact that the populace of Massachusetts opposed this redefinition of marriage and despite the fact that no law had ever been democratically passed to authorize such a radical shift in public policy. Proponents of same-sex marriage have shopped carefully for the right venues, exploited the legal system, and today stand ready to overturn any and all democratically crafted federal or state statute that would stand between them and a new definition of humanity’s oldest institution.

The question of process is very important in this debate - it is in fact the very heart of this debate. While recent court decisions handed down by activist judges may not respect the traditional definition of marriage, these decisions also highlight a lack of respect for the democratic process. No state legislature has passed legislation to redefine the institution of marriage. Not one. Any redefinition of marriage has been driven entirely by the body of government that remains unaccountable and unelected - the courts.

Many colleagues do not feel we should be talking about marriage in the Senate. I say we must. Our government is a three branch government. The Congress is the branch that represents the people most directly. We have a duty to, at the very least, discuss the state of marriage in America. If we do not take this up, if we do not overcome procedural hurdles and objections we abdicate our responsibility. We will allow the courts sole dominion on the state and future of marriage. This Senate, the world’s most deliberative body, must provide a democratic response to the courts.

Legislatures across the country have joined the Congress in recent years in affirming a 1996 law called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA defines marriage at the federal level as a union between a man and a woman and essentially prohibits one state from forcing it’s will on another on the question of marriage. This bipartisan legislation passed with the support of more than three-quarters of the House of Representatives and with the support of eighty-five Senators before being signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. To date thirty-eight states have enacted statutes defining marriage in some manner, and four states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. These state DOMAs and constitutional amendments, combined with Federal DOMA, should have settled the question as to the democratic expression of the will of the American public. As I outlined before, these laws - these expressions of the public - have been ignored by the activist courts.

State court challenges in Massachusetts or Vermont or Maryland may seem well and good to those concerned with the rights of states to determine most matters, a position near and dear to my heart. These challenges, however, have spawned greater disrespect, even contempt, for the will of the other states than any of us could have predicted. It seems to me that there are long-term implications for both Federal DOMA and the rights of states to define unions through either state DOMA or the state constitutional amendment process. It is clear to me that we are headed to judicially mandated recognition of same-gender couples regardless of state or federal statute.

The same-sex marriage proponents achieved some success in Vermont and Massachusetts by forcing the hand of those state’s legislatures. The national effort to redefine marriage has also been buoyed by decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2003 the Court inferred that a right to same-sex marriage could be found in the U.S. Constitution in Lawrence v. Texas. A variety of experts, including Justice Scalia and Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe, forecast that this decision points to the end of traditional marriage laws - including federal and state DOMAs. The Massachusetts court relied heavily on the Lawrence decision to strike down that state’s traditional marriage law in the Goodridge case. The court further specifically threatened and questioned the validity of DOMA and traditional marriage laws around the nation.

When Goodridge took effect on May 17 of this year, same-sex couples became entitled to Massachusetts marriage licenses. In anticipation of Goodridge, a handful of local officials in New York, California and Oregon began issuing licenses to same sex couples in February and March. To date, through the combined efforts of lawless local officials and those licenses issued in Massachusetts, couples from at least 46 states have received licenses in those jurisdictions and returned to their home states. These 46-plus states are state and federal DOMA challenges just waiting to happen. A couple will file for recognition - sue for recognition - under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. What we know about the Lawrence decision, that all traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional, dooms those state DOMAs.

There is a case pending in Seattle today to force recognition of an Oregon marriage license. More of these cases are expected and we look forward to nothing less than a patchwork of marriage laws, crafted by judges and forced on to one state from another outside the democratic process, regardless of the will of the voters.

It is important to highlight what is going on in the state of Nebraska where an even more odious turn of events is unfolding. Nebraskans passed a state constitutional amendment, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, that passed with seventy percent of the vote. The ACLU and the Lambda Legal Foundation are now suing Nebraska in a federal court to undo the will of the voters. According to testimony in the Senate Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, whose office moved to dismiss the case and was denied, the language in the Court’s order signals that Nebraska will very likely lose the case at trial. I find it chilling that the will of an entire state, expressed democratically, may be undone by a federal judge in an unelected position and tenured for life.

So we find ourselves here today, seeking to debate an amendment to the United States Constitution that reads in its entirety as follows:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Our amendment defines marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures around the world. This text further defines that any establishment or non-establishment of civil unions or partnership laws be created democratically, by the states themselves, and not by courts.

I have said it time and time again and I say here today for the record - the amendment does not seek to prohibit in any way the lawful, democratic creation of civil unions. It does not prohibit private employers from offering benefits to same-gender partners. It denies no existing rights. What our amendment does is to define and protect traditional marriage at an appropriate level - the highest possible level - the Constitution. Importantly, the consideration of this amendment in the Senate represents the discussion of marriage in America in a democratic body of elected officials. This is something too long denied this important topic.

I have heard from those who claim this amendment discriminates against people. That the very definition of marriage is somehow a tool for oppression. To those who believe that our marriage protection amendment is discrimination, I would ask them this - do you truly believe that marriage - the traditional and foundational union between a man and a woman - is discrimination? Is it discrimination to hold as ideal that a child should have both a mother and a father?

I also feel it is important to make clear that on the question of federalism and states’ rights I stand where I always have. While an indisputable definition of marriage will be a part of our Constitution, all other questions will be left to the states. Gregory Coleman, former Solicitor General of the State of Texas, testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution last September and made the following statement on this matter:

Some have objected to a proposed constitutional amendment on federalism grounds. These concerns are misplaced. The relationship between the states and the federal government is defined by the Constitution and, a fortiori, a constitutional amendment cannot violate principles of federalism and states’ rights. A federal constitutional amendment is perhaps the most democratic of all processes - because it requires ratification by three-fourths of the states - and simply does not raise federalism concerns. The real danger to states’ rights comes from the recognition of un-enumerated constitutional rights in which the states have had no participation.

I share those sentiments and cannot express them any more clearly. We stand today at the commencement of the most democratic, most federalist process in all our government. Those around the country who have watched as activist courts have wildly disregarded these principles I say to you, watch the Senate. Watch the House of Representatives. Watch your elected officials and see where they stand on this most important debate. This body and that on the other side of the Capitol represent the American people more fully and completely than any other and it is time we make this discussion truly national and truly democratic.

Those of us serving in the Congress understand that there is a great deal of emotion on both sides of this issue, and not every one of us will agree on this matter. It is my hope that we can agree that in matters concerning marriage, the most fundamental of all social institutions, that this debate can not take place exclusively in the courts. The democratic process compels this Congress to discuss marriage and what is taking place - the judicial redefinition of marriage.

Marriage, the union between a man and a woman, has been the foundation of every civilization in human history. This definition of marriage crosses all bounds of race, religion, culture, political party, ideology and ethnicity. It is not about politics or discrimination, it is about marriage and democracy. It is incumbent upon us to remember that and to move forward.

***********************************************
Stephen Myers
Deputy Press Secretary
Office of Senator Wayne Allard
521 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-5941

The following are Senator Feinstein's prepared comments for the news conference at 1:30 p.m. today:

· The bottom line of the report presented today is that the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, as well as statements to Congress and the American people, by the Administration regarding both Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to al-Qaida, were inaccurate, deeply flawed and just plain wrong.

· Because Iraq was the first case of preemptive war by the United States an important lesson was learned. That lesson is that preemption is a failed policy unless intelligence is accurate enough to be actionable. In this case it was not.

Three important judgments made by intelligence analysts were contained in the NIE and they were all faulty:

1. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons.

2. Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX.

3. Production and weaponization of Iraq's offensive BW program were more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."

· The bottom line is that neither the military examination of more than a thousand priority sites nor the interim findings of Dr. David Kay, and his successor, have produced evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the weaponization of chemical or biological elements, or their deployment to battlefield commanders.

· The intelligence was both bad and wrong. Let me give you three examples:

· The Secretary of State read before the world at the United Nations, a considerable discussion of the presence of mobile, biological warfare vans in Iraq, based on four sources, which he carefully described.

· The fact of the matter is that all four sources were not credible and that the analysis of those sources should have picked that up.

· A second instance involved the analysis of the Iraqi small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program. The Air Force analysts who had the expertise in this area said the most likely mission for the small UAVs was as aerial targets or for reconnaissance missions. However, their analysis was ignored.

· And third, in the review of the aluminum tubes, Department of Energy analysts, the acknowledged experts in nuclear technology, found that the aluminum tubes were not suitable for a nuclear program and the State Department’s analysts agreed.

· However, CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysts believed these items were intended to be used for a nuclear program. Here there was a difference between agencies and there was no real meaningful process to determine who was right, what the sources were and reconcile the differences.

· One major reason for the pre-war intelligence being both bad and wrong was structural and functional failures within the Intelligence Community.

· As the committee report notes, there was “a combination of systemic weaknesses, primarily in analytic trade craft, compounded by a lack of information sharing, poor management, and inadequate intelligence collection.”

· The Committee’s report proves, beyond all doubt, that the present arrangement of collection and analysis between agencies and departments must change.

· The functional flaws in the Intelligence Community include the absence of any or adequate “red teaming,” and peer review–a procedure to reconcile differing departmental and analytical views.

· There were real problems in the process used to connect the dots. By this, I mean, that analysts are not provided adequate information about human sources to be able to fully assess their credibility.

· Now, the Committee’s report does not acknowledge that the intelligence estimates were shaped by the Administration. And in my view, this remains an open question that needs more careful scrutiny.

· Unless Administration officials, from the President on down, had information not made available to the Senate Intelligence Committee, there was clearly an exaggeration of either an “imminent” or “grave and growing” threat to the American people.

Director of National Intelligence

· What has become clear to me is that the Intelligence Community needs to be restructured and it’s procedures need to be redefined, improved, with a new management structure.

· To this end we have proposed the establishment of a Director of National Intelligence, who would be a true head of our 15 intelligence agencies with both budgetary and statutory authority.

· Equipped with meaningful budget and personnel authority, this Director would provide the focused, independent and powerful leadership the Intelligence Community badly needs.

· This position is one of the most important recommendations by the Joint Congressional Inquiry on 9/11.

· Currently, one person leads the Central Intelligence Agency and at the same time nominally oversees the entire Intelligence Community.

· But he has only limited budget and management authority over the myriad other agencies. In fact, 80 percent of the intelligence budget is under the control of the Secretary of Defense.

· It is time to put somebody in charge of the entire Intelligence Community and give him the authority to accomplish the job.

Conclusion

· The Senate vote on the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq was difficult and consequential based on hours of intelligence briefings from Administration and intelligence officials, and the classified and unclassified versions of the National Intelligence Estimates.

It was based on trust that this intelligence was the best our Nation’s intelligence services could offer, untainted by bias, and fairly presented. In this case it was not.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Friday, July 9, 2004 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Senators Call for Effective Tobacco Regulation

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today joined with seven Senators to request that any tobacco buyout proposal include meaningful and effective Food and Drug Administration oversight of tobacco products.

Following is the text of the letter Senators Feinstein, Tom Carper (D-DE), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) Patty Murray (D-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent to Majority Leader Bill Frist and Minority Leader Tom Daschle on Wednesday:

July 7, 2004

The Honorable Bill Frist The Honorable Tom Daschle

Senate Majority Leader Senate Minority Leader

U.S. Capitol, Room S-230 U.S. Capitol, Room S-221

Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Frist and Senator Daschle:

We are writing out of concern for the tobacco buyout provision that was included in the House foreign sales corporation/extraterritorial income tax (FSC/ETI) bill because it does not include effective Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of how tobacco products are manufactured, marketed and sold. The five-year, $9.6 billion tobacco buyout provision is not only worse for tobacco growers than pending legislation in the Senate, but it does nothing to protect public health and to reduce tobacco’s tremendous toll in health, lives and money. If a tobacco buyout plan moves forward, we cannot support any proposal that does not also include meaningful and effective FDA oversight of tobacco.

We believe there is a better way to both protect public health and help tobacco growers by passing legislation that will give meaningful and effective FDA authority over tobacco products and a responsible tobacco buyout paid by tobacco companies, not the taxpayers.

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. With more than 440,000 deaths per year related to smoking and approximately 4,000 children under age 18 who will try smoking for the first time every day, the Senate must not let the opportunity to pass FDA regulation of tobacco go by. Public and private health care spending on smoking in the U.S. totals an astonishing $75 billion annually.

We hope that we can work with you to ensure that any proposal that includes a tobacco buyout also contains meaningful and effective FDA oversight of how tobacco products are manufactured, marketed and sold. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein

Tom Carper

Dick Durbin

Frank Lautenberg

Joseph Lieberman

Patty Murray

Debbie Stabenow

Ron Wyden

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Friday, July 9, 2004 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Statement of Senator Feinstein on

House Passage of CALFED Legislation

Washington, DC – With both chambers of Congress close to an agreement on legislation to modernize California’s water supply infrastructure, the House approved its version of the CALFED legislation today.

Following is Senator Feinstein’s statement on the legislation:

“It is critical that we enact a CALFED bill into law this year. My whole focus right now is shaping a bill that can pass both the House and the Senate. I believe the House-passed bill will need some changes before it can pass the Senate.

At the same time, we have made considerable progress through our bicameral negotiations. I applaud Chairman Pombo, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Napolitano and others in the House who have helped narrow the gap between the House and Senate bills.

I fully expect we can work out the remaining differences in short order. My staff continues to have daily conversations with key House and Senate committee staff to get this done.

If we fail to act to address California water needs, we will face a crisis, which could be devastating. The electricity crisis we faced will be a forerunner to a crisis with water. But if we can enact a CALFED bill, our actions now can help prevent a crisis later.”

The House and Senate bills would:

· Authorize $389 million over six years in new programs.

· Study major new off-stream reservoirs, including the nearby Upper San Joaquin storage project, which might involve a dam at Temperance Flat, raising Friant Dam, or another storage project in the area.

· Study additional storage projects including enlarging Los Vaqueros reservoir, raising Shasta Dam, and building Sites Reservoir.

· Include major projects to improve water quality, particularly in the Bay-Delta area, and a new authorization for the Environmental Water Account, which ensures enough water is available for the needs of fish without reducing the supply for farmers.

· Provide for conveyance, water recycling, desalination, and ecosystem restoration projects.

Both bills would require the Secretary of the Interior to submit an annual statement showing that the program is implemented in a balanced manner.

###

Below is a letter from Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) sent on Friday seeking the release of all or portions of recently completed reports on (1) the FBI translator program, (2) allegations made by a former FBI contractor regarding problems in the translator unit and (3) information obtained by the FBI prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Leahy and Grassley received word earlier this week that two of the reports had been completed but were classified. In 2002, it was the two senators who made the request to the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office to investigate the FBI contractor’s allegations.

+++++

July 9, 2004

The Honorable John Ashcroft The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III

Attorney General Director

United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington D.C. 20530 Washington, D.C. 20530

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine

Inspector General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Suite 4322

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft, Director Mueller, and Inspector General Fine:

It is our understanding that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Justice has completed two investigations and is near completion of a third on issues that we have followed closely. These investigations relate to the following topics:

(1) Specific allegations made by a former contract linguist, Sibel Edmonds, about problems in the FBI translation program. Sens. Leahy and Grassley requested that the OIG investigate these allegations in a June 19, 2002, letter.

(2) An audit of the FBI’s overall translation program, initiated by the OIG after its review of the allegations made by Ms. Edmonds was underway; and

(3) Information obtained by the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that was not acted upon, or not acted on in the most effective and efficient manner. We understand that this report includes a focus on the FBI’s handling of the so-called “Phoenix memo”; the FBI’s handling of information about Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person who has been charged in connection with the 9-11 attacks; and the FBI’s investigation of and handling of information about two of the 9-11 hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, about whom both the FBI and CIA had information regarding their links to terrorism. Sen. Grassley, in a May 15, 2002, letter to Inspector General Fine, requested that his office investigate the FBI’s handling of the Phoenix memo.

The Justice Department and FBI, as the agencies of origin for the information in the reports, decide what information is classified in such reports. We have been informed that all three of these reports are classified and that there are no plans at this time for the OIG to release to the public any unclassified information about these reports. As a result, the information gathered in these investigations, which is of significant public interest and is critical to effective Congressional oversight of the FBI and other Federal agencies, will not be made available to the public.

We understand that the OIG has shared its findings with the 9-11 Commission, an action we suggested earlier this year, and one that we commend. Nonetheless, we respectfully request that these reports be released in some form to the public. If the reports must remain classified for security reasons, we request that one of the following steps be taken, and we present the following options in the order of preference: release an unclassified version of each of the reports, release a redacted version of each of the reports, or release an unclassified summary of each of the reports.

The importance of these investigations to the relevant oversight committees of Congress—particularly the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held hearings on the FBI’s handling of pertinent information collected prior to 9-11—cannot be overstated. Indeed, in recent months questions have been raised by ourselves, by the 9-11 Commission, and by the media about the competency and abilities of the translation program at the FBI—concerns that should reverberate in the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI. The FBI itself has provided alarming information about problems in the translation program during briefings to congressional staff. Yet two years after the allegations made by Ms. Edmonds triggered two investigations, we are no closer to determining the scope of the problem, the pervasiveness and seriousness of FBI problems in this area, or what the FBI intends to do to rectify personnel shortages, security issues, translation inaccuracies and other problems that have plagued the translator program for years. The findings of the investigation into pre-9-11 intelligence are of equal importance as we strive to understand how important clues were overlooked and how we can protect Americans by preventing such failures from occurring in the future.

While we recognize that information is designated as classified because government officials believe its disclosure could harm national security, a serious and open-minded consideration of declassification, to some degree, is in order. The Justice Department and FBI have declassified information related to the 9-11 terrorist attacks and other national security issues numerous times over the past few years. The following are examples of such declassifications.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s review of the FBI’s Moussaoui investigation, in particular, and the process of obtaining Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, in general, the Justice Department and FBI declassified the procedures, known as the “Woods Procedures,” used by the FBI to process FISA applications.

In 2002, the Justice Department and FBI declassified a letter by FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley to FBI Director Mueller. This letter raised concerns about the handling of the Moussaoui case at FBI headquarters and regarding official FBI statements about the case.

The Justice Department and FBI also agreed to declassify information in the Joint Intelligence Inquiry report of its investigation into the 9-11 attacks. This report contains an extensive discussion of the three issues examined in the OIG review of the FBI’s handling of information and investigations prior to the 9-11 attacks.

More recently, in April 2004, the Justice Department declassified memos and documents written by then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, regarding “the wall” restricting communication between agents investigating criminal violations and agents investigating intelligence and terrorism matters. These documents and memos were released in the course of a 9-11 Commission hearing and posted for a period on the Justice Department’s Web site.

While the needs of national security must be weighed seriously, we fear that the designation of information as classified in some cases serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability. We hope that is not the case here. Releasing declassified versions of these reports, or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public’s interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight. To do otherwise could damage the public’s confidence not only in the government’s ability to protect the nation, but also in the government’s ability to police itself.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this serious matter. While we understand that declassification can require a lengthy review process, we ask that you at least reply by July 15, 2004, indicating whether you intend to release declassified versions of the reports, parts of the reports, or to provide classified summaries.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY CHARLES GRASSLEY

Ranking Democratic Member United States Senator

cc: The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman

Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton,

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States

+++++++

CONTACT: David Carle / 202 224 3693

Tracy Schmaler / 202 224 2154

For Immediate Release: Contact: Chuck Kleeschulte, Comm Director
July 9, 2004 (202) 224-9306; H 301/292-2260; Cell 202/253-9964

MURKOWSKI WELCOMES SECOND GROUP OF ALASKA INTERNS TO WASHINGTON OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski this week welcomed 10 Alaska high school seniors to Washington, students who will work as interns in her Washington office for the next month.

Murkowski formally kicked off the second session of her 2004 summer intern program, a program coordinated by Alaska Pacific University and financed privately, by chatting with the recently graduated Alaska high school seniors. The interns will be performing a variety of administrative and legislative duties in the senator’s Washington office, while also attending seminars and touring the nation’s capital. The interns also will “shadow” the senator during her daily schedule and participate in other social events.

“This is a wonderful opportunity for young Alaskans to see first hand the workings of Congress. I know how much I learned about Congress and American government during my time in Washington during college. An internship in Washington allows students to take with them a better understanding of how our laws are made and the problems that face our society. These experiences can truly help them in their future careers,” Senator Murkowski said.

The students attending the second session, from July 3 to July 31, are:

· Tyler Miller of Fairbanks. She is the daughter of Linda and Michael Miller and attended Austin E. Lathrop High School.
· Stephanie Abrego of Anchorage. She is the daughter of Sandra Abrego and attended East Anchorage High School.
· Brooke Leslie of Wrangell. She is the daughter of Wilma and James Leslie and attended Wrangell High School.
· Brittany Burton of Anchorage. She is the daughter of Tamara and Jeff Burton and attended Robert Service High School.
· Jessica Fulton of Anchorage. She is the daughter of Teresa Coplin and attended Holy Rosary Academy.
· Ki Jung Lee of Anchorage. She is the daughter of Bong and Jang Lee and attended West Anchorage High School.
· Edward Mertz of Juneau. He is the son of Margo Waring and Douglas Mertz and attended Juneau-Douglas High School.
· Shane Martinez of Metlakatla. He is the son of Michele Gunyah and Marty Martinez, Sr. and attended Metlakatla Junior-Senior High School.
· Adam Brauner of Anchorage. He is the son of Christine and David Brauner and attended Lumen Christi High School.
· And Ross Wise of Palmer. He is the son of Mary Fogel and Troy Wise and attended Colony High School.

The interns are being housed in the dorms of George Washington University in Northwest D.C., a short subway ride from the Senator’s office.

###

News Advisory
Date: July 9, 2004

Senator Mike Enzi Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Coy Knobel (202) 224-3424 Kate Dando (202) 224-5852

Senators announce bison coin legislation
Washington, D.C. - To celebrate continued efforts to restore the American bison from near extinction to a now thriving population, U.S. Senators Mike Enzi and Ben Nighthorse Campbell are unveiling a proposal to commemorate the bison.
The senators, Dave Carter from the National Bison Association and Bob Pickering of the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyo. plan to unveil the legislation Tuesday, July 13 and speak on the heritage, conservation and future roles of the American bison.
Harvey, a live bison is also expected to attend.
Who: Senators Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo.
Dave Carter of the National Bison Association
Bob Pickering of the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming
Harvey the bison
What: Bison currency bill news conference
Where: Senate Swamp, next to the northwest side of the Russell Building
When: Tuesday July 13, 10 a.m.

For Immediate Release: Contact: Chuck Kleeschulte, Comm Director
July 9, 2004 (202) 224-9306; H 301/292-2260; Cell 202/253-9964

MURKOWSKI WELCOMES DECISION OF SBA TO REVAMP PROPOSED REGULATIONS DEFINING THE SIZE OF SMALL BUSINESS
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski today thanked the U.S. Small Business Administration for stopping its efforts to implement a new definition of what constitutes a small business, giving the agency time to develop better definitions that won’t harm Alaska small businesses.

The SBA this spring proposed wholesale changes in its regulations defining size standards for “small business.” The goal was to simplify the definition of what constitutes a small business, cutting the number of standards to 10 from the dozens of different standards now in effect. The change is important because it would affect which businesses can receive government assistance in a variety of contract, business counseling and financial assistance areas.

In general, the SBA proposed to revise the current standards that classify small businesses as ones with 37 or fewer employees, shifting to different 10-employee-based standards with a cap on revenues. The new standards would have disqualified up to 34,100 businesses nationwide from SBA assistance, with the food and construction industries being most affected.

Murkowski in a June applauded the goal of simplifying the size standards, but said changing the rules to an employee and receipts based standard was very unwise for Alaska businesses because the receipts levels did not take into account the higher costs of doing business in high-cost areas like Alaska. She also noted that the rules could well harm the chances for Alaska Native Corporations to be classified as small businesses and thus stopping them from benefiting from SBA programs – as Congress intended when it created the 8(a) contracting mechanisms for Alaska Native firms.

“These changes are a worthy goal, but the proposed standards are not prudent,” said Murkowski in June. Earlier this week the SBA informed Murkowski that it was withdrawing the proposed rules and would study the issue before attempting to draft new size rules. “We are here to serve small business owners, (which) is why we are going to step back and study this rule further,” said Allegra McCullough, SBA Associate Deputy Administrator for Government Contracting. ###

For Immediate Release: Contact: Chuck Kleeschulte, Comm Director
July 9, 2004 (202) 224-9306; H 301/292-2260; Cell 202/253-9964

MURKOWSKI: SENATE PASSES PROGRAM TO COMBAT YOUTH SUICIDE

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski today welcomed Senate passage Thursday of legislation that would set up a grant program to states to develop programs to prevent youth suicide.

Murkowski was an original co-sponsor of legislation (S. 2634) that provides grants to states to develop and implement state strategies to reduce both pre-teen, teen and college-age youth suicide rates. The law, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, named in honor of the son of Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, provides funding to education systems, juvenile justice systems, local governments and private, non-profit entities that are engaged in activities focused on mental health outreach and treatment and suicide prevention and intervention.

State and local groups are allowed under the law to fund a variety of programs related to suicide prevention and intervention, including screening programs for youth that identify mental health and behavioral conditions that place youth at risk for suicide. The act also establishes a federal Suicide Technical Assistance Center that will provide guidance to state and local groups to implement state strategies to reduce youth suicide, that aid for data collection and evaluation. The program also provides grants to colleges and universities to establish or improve their mental health outreach and treatment centers to enhance their focus on youth suicide prevention and intervention.

“For a state like Alaska, which leads the nation in youth suicide rates, this program is truly important. It will provide more federal resources so that schools and community groups can do a better job of screening our children who are depressed or mentally at risk of suicidal behavior. This is a vital step to improve teen suicide prevention and intervention efforts,” said Murkowski in support of the law that now heads to the House for its review.

The Senator noted that Alaska based on the most recent data has a total suicide rate that is more than double the nation as a whole (25.5 compared to 11.2 per thousand population). Suicide is the second leading cause of death for Alaskans ages 15-24, barely behind all unintentional causes combined (accidents, illness, etc) and the third leading cause for children aged 5 to 14, according to the Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics

The law authorizes $10 million for state grants and $5 million for aid to colleges in FY 2005, $20 million and $7 million grants respectively in 2006, $30 million and $10 million grants respectively in 2007 and more funding in later years, but not to exceed $100 million per year during the life of the suicide prevention program.
###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEWS RELEASE

Contact Brian Hart/Aaron Groote

July 9, 2004

BROWNBACK STATEMENT ON FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF IRANIAN STUDENT PROTESTS

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today made the following statement on the fifth anniversary of massive student protests in Iran.

“Five years ago, on July 9, 1999, the students of Iran marked a turning point in Iran’s opposition movement. That evening the mullahs sent its police forces to attack the dormitories of Tehran University. By morning three students were dead, and many more had been beaten and arrested.

“But the regime’s attack, far from stopping the students’ movement, pushed the resentment of the Iranian people to a breaking point. Students leapt into action by the thousands, overtaking streets and staging sit-ins in major cities throughout Iran for several consecutive days. The upheaval was quickly put down by the regime, but it announced the birth of a nationwide opposition movement.

“Opposition groups and student unions have since emerged in great numbers in the wake of July 1999. While they may have appeared to be spontaneous and without identified leaders, they agreed on a general consensus for the future of the Iranian nation: the establishment of a secular state, and basic civil liberties such as freedom of the press. United by these goals, they began demanding for the first time the complete removal of the Islamic theocracy.

“Since then, little has changed, but the atmosphere inside Iran has grown more stifling. The ruling clerics have gone out of their way to protect their conservative way of life, have closed reformist newspapers, arrested and tortured opposition leaders, and dispatched their young religious vigilantes, known as Bassijis, to break up student demonstrations. The reforms that the ‘moderate’ Khatami seemed to represent have all but disappeared.

“On this anniversary, we remember the sacrifices made by the students on behalf of the people of Iran and take this opportunity to encourage them to continue fighting for freedom. To the students and the people of Iran, we say to you, we have not forgotten you. We will never forget you. Free people in the United States and around the world unite with your cause for freedom. We stand with their silent struggles and long for a day when freedom and liberty will prevail.

“We will never forget you.”

-30-

Sam Brownback
United States Senator - Kansas
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
http://brownback.senate.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mike Buttry
Friday, July 9, 2004 (202) 224-4224

Statement by Senator Chuck Hagel on the Release of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Report on Pre-War Intelligence
Hagel: “Our Intelligence Community Infrastructure must be
Rebuilt and Reformed”

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, released the following statement regarding the Committee’s release of their report on the quality and quantity of pre-war intelligence:

“This report is the first phase in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s oversight of the U.S. intelligence community’s work in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Our report is unflinching and comprehensive in its findings. Chairman Roberts and Vice-Chairman Rockefeller deserve enormous credit for their leadership in this first phase of our investigation. We will continue to work on the second phase of our investigation into the use of pre-war intelligence and reforms for the intelligence community.

“We are facing 21st Century threats with a 20th Century intelligence infrastructure. Our intelligence community structure must be rebuilt and reformed. This effort is critical for America’s security.”

The complete Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report can be found at http://intelligence.senate.gov/.

-30-

July 9, 2004 Contact: Kevin Schweers (202) 224-9767
MEDIA ADVISORY
Sen. Hutchison Hosts Hispanic Leadership Summit
WASHINGTON - Next week more than 300 Hispanic leaders will meet in Washington for a two-day gathering hosted by U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to discuss a range of policy matters with senior members of Congress, Bush Administration officials and others.
*** All events listed are open to the media. ***
MONDAY, JULY 12, 2004
5:30 - 7:00 pm Welcome Reception - Senator Hutchison makes brief remarks
Guest Speaker: The Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President of the United States
325 Russell Senate Building
Washington, DC

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2004
All events listed below will take place at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, 400 New Jersey Ave, NW, Washington, DC

8:00 - 8:15 am Welcoming Remarks by Senator Hutchison

8:15-8:30 am Remarks by His Excellency Elías Antonio Saca
President of the Republic of El Salvador

8:30 - 9:30 am Briefing on the U.S. Senate Agenda
Remarks and Q&A featuring
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D.
Senator Hutchison, Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman
Senator Pete Domenici

9:30 - 10:20 am Briefing on the U.S. House of Representatives Agenda
Remarks and Q&A featuring
U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
U.S. Representative Henry Bonilla
U.S. Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart

10:20 - 11:40 am Economic Growth: Creating Jobs and Opportunities in the 21st Century
Remarks and Q&A featuring
Hector Barreto, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration
Senator Jon Kyl, Senate Republican Policy Chairman
J.R. Gonzales, Acting President and CEO, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

11:40 am - 12:00 pm Keynote Remarks
The Honorable Lynne V. Cheney

12:15 - 1:00 pm Luncheon (Regency A Ballroom)

1:20 - 2:30 pm Health Care: Ensuring Better Access, Benefits, Choices and Healthy Lifestyles
Panel and Q&A featuring
Dr. Francisco G. Cigarroa, President, UT Health Science Center at San Antonio
Cecilia Pozo Fileti, MS, RD, FADA, President, Latino Health Communications
Dr. Jane Delgado, Ph.D., M.S., President, National Alliance for Hispanic Health
Dr. René Rodriguez, President, Interamerican College of Physicians & Surgeons

2:30 - 3:40 pm Education: Meeting the Needs of Every Family
Remarks and Q&A featuring
Senator Orrin Hatch, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Adam Chavarria, Exec. Director, White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics
Maria Hernandez Ferrier, Deputy Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education

3:40 - 4:00 pm Summit Wrap-Up/Adjournment
Senator Hutchison

--END--

For Immediate Release Contact: Wendy Morigi

July 9, 2004 (202) 224-6101

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Below are the Additional Views of Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) and Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq. Senator Rockefeller’s statement will be forthcoming.

Additional Views

Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV,

Senator Carl Levin and Senator Richard Durbin

During a critical time in our Nation’s history -- an 18-month period spanning the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003 -- the credibility of the United States Intelligence Community was significantly compromised.

A capable, independent Intelligence Community is an essential to our national security. For it to be compromised at a time when America must decide whether to commit the lives of our servicemen and women to combat created a dangerous gap in the information we desperately needed. The shaping of intelligence analysis over these eighteen months has not only called into question the basis for America’s military action in Iraq but it has damaged our standing in the eyes of the world and raised questions about the credibility of future intelligence assessments.

Phase one of the Committee’s report on U.S. pre-war intelligence on Iraq details how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Intelligence Community as a whole often failed to produce accurate intelligence analysis on alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist organizations.

Regrettably, the report paints an incomplete picture of what occurred during this period of time. The Committee set out to examine ten areas of investigation relating to pre-war intelligence on Iraq and we completed only five in this report. The scope of our investigation was divided in a way so as to prevent a complete examination of all the matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction at one time.

The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was used or misused by Administration officials in public statements and reports was relegated to the second phase of the Committee’s investigation, along with other issues related to the intelligence activities of Pentagon policy officials, pre-war intelligence assessments about post-war Iraq, and the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi, which claims to have passed “raw intelligence” and defector information directly to the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President.

As a result, the Committee’s phase one report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which Intelligence Community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when policy officials had already forcefully stated their own conclusions in public.

* * *

Despite clear indications throughout 2002 that the Bush Administration intended to take military action against Iraq that would bring about a regime change in Baghdad, including quite probably the pre-emptive use of force, the Intelligence Community was caught flat-footed. Inexplicably, it took requests by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to the Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet in September 2002 calling for production of a National Intelligence Estimate on alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -- the cornerstone of the Administration's case for invading Iraq -- for the Intelligence Community to be roused from its analytical slumber.

The resulting classified National Intelligence Estimate, prepared in just three weeks time, was a rushed and sloppy product forwarded to members of Congress mere days before votes would be taken to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. As the Committee's report highlights, the October 2002 Estimate was hastily cobbled together using stale, fragmentary, and speculative intelligence reports and was replete with factual errors and unsupported judgments.

In preparing for a decision on whether this Nation should go to war, Congress needs the very best effort from our Intelligence Community. Tragically, in this case, their work did not rise to that level.

* * *

When United Nations inspectors departed from Iraq in 1998, the Intelligence Community lost a major source of information on the ground and failed to take remedial actions to replace it with a human intelligence collection program essential for understanding the clandestine nature of proliferation activities and Saddam Hussein's intentions. As a result, the intelligence collected in the intervening period was primarily through overhead imagery and signals intercepts of limited value and from Iraqi defectors, often single sources of unknown credibility that were provided by the now suspect Iraqi National Congress, a group promoting the use of U.S military force to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

The Intelligence Community's failure to collect accurate intelligence against Iraq after 1998 and how this failure deprived its analytical experts of the information needed to draw supportable conclusions tells only part of what went awry in the fall of 2002. The story at the heart of the October Estimate is how the Intelligence Community, using this paucity of timely intelligence, prepared a new set of analytical judgments about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs, judgments that were more declarative and certain about the existence of these weapons than was justified given how little the Intelligence Community really knew at the time.

* * *

As the Bush Administration prepared for war against Iraq in the fall of 2002, the Intelligence Community judgments on Iraq shifted significantly from many of the corresponding assessments contained in earlier analytical products.

The Committee's report deconstructs the October 2002 Estimate and demonstrates how many of its key judgments were not substantiated by the underlying intelligence. The Estimate contains numerous instances where intelligence was stretched and manipulated to serve an analytical bias that Iraq’s mass destruction programs were stockpiled and weaponized.

Each of the key pillars in the Intelligence Community’s Estimate – assessments of Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, biological, and delivery programs – was built upon a weak foundation of intelligence and analytical assumptions, unable to support the collective weight of the document’s key judgments.

As the Committee report meticulously documents, the overall bias that permeates the October Estimate is toward greater certainty than warranted about Iraq possessing and producing weapons of mass destruction. As a result, the policymakers reading the Estimate were given an exaggerated picture of the threat posed by the Iraqi weapons programs during a crucial period of national and international debate on whether a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was necessary.

It is no coincidence that the analytical errors in the Estimate all broke in one direction. The Estimate and related analytical papers assessing Iraqi links to terrorism were produced by the Intelligence Community in a highly-pressurized climate wherein senior Administration officials were making the case for military action against Iraq through public and often definitive pronouncements.

* * *

The fixation of the Bush Administration in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks to use the war against al-Qaeda and other terrorists as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein has been widely reported.

On the afternoon of September 11th, mere hours after al-Qaeda terrorists flew a plane into the Pentagon killing 184 people and leaving the building aflame, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld turned his focus to using the cataclysmic tragedy as an opportunity to move against the Iraq regime. According to the notes of his staff, Secretary Rumsfeld wondered whether the attack allowed the United States to “hit S.H. @ same time – not only UBL,” – the initials “S.H.” and “UBL” representing shorthand for Saddam Hussein and Usama Bin Laden, respectively.

In his book Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward extensively documents how Secretary Rumsfeld’s peculiar musing at a time when smoke billowed from the Pentagon was not an anomaly but a linkage brought up repeatedly by the Secretary at Administration war-planning sessions in the days that followed. Soon thereafter, according to Woodward, Vice President Dick Cheney asked the CIA to brief him on what the CIA could do in Iraq. On January 3, 2002, Director Tenet and other CIA officials briefed the Vice President and his staff on the limitations of covert operations in bringing down Saddam Hussein and explained that only a military operation and invasion would succeed. The CIA then gave the same briefing to the President. Later that month, in his State of the Union Address, President Bush identified Iraq as one of the three countries comprising the “an axis of evil”:

“States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil…By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger…I will not wait on events while dangers gather.”

The President’s message to the Joint Session of Congress and the over 50 million Americans watching the speech was clear and sobering: Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its alliance with terrorists, together, represented a danger to United States security and that the President would take action to remove this growing threat. Four months after al-Qaeda killed 3,000 people on American soil, the President had placed Iraq in the cross-hairs for military invasion.

* * *

In order to make the public case for war against Iraq, the Bush Administration had to speak to two issues heavily cloaked in national security classification: what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism.

In the months before the production of the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 Estimate, Administration officials undertook a relentless public campaign which repeatedly characterized the Iraq weapons of mass destruction program in more ominous and threatening terms than the Intelligence Community analysis substantiated. Similarly, public statements of senior officials on Iraqi links to terrorism generally, and al-Qaeda specifically, were often based on a selective release of intelligence information that implied a cooperative, operational relationship that the Intelligence Community did not believe existed.

The Bush Administration’s case against Iraq was largely based on the argument that we knew with certainty that Iraq possessed large quantities of chemical and biological weapons, was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, and that an established relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda would allow for the transfer of these weapons for use against the United States. This national security rationale being put forth publicly by senior Administration officials in support of regime change in Iraq was simple, direct and often fundamentally misleading.

The rhetorical drumbeat for war in the months leading up to the Intelligence Community’s October estimate, sounded from the highest levels of the government, repeatedly overstated what the Intelligence Community assessed at the time. Here are some examples of the exaggerations:

“… it’s been pretty well confirmed that [9/11 al-Qaeda hijacker Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.” (Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, December 9, 2001)

“[Saddam Hussein] is a dangerous man who possesses the world’s most dangerous weapons.” (President Bush, Press Conference, March 22, 2002)

“But we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons…Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.” (Vice President Cheney, Speech to the VFW’s 103rd National Convention, August 26, 2002)

“We do know that there have been shipments going… into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to – high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.” (National Security Advisor Rice, Late Edition, September 8, 2002)

“I think if you asked, do we know that he had a role in 9/11, no, we do not know that [Saddam Hussein] had a role in 9/11. But I think that this is the test that sets a bar that is far too high.” (National Security Advisor Rice, Late Edition, September 8, 2002)

“Very likely all they need to complete a weapon is fissile material – and they are, at this moment, seeking that material – both from foreign sources and the capability to produce it indigenously.” (Secretary Rumsfeld, Testimony Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 19, 2002)

“[Saddam Hussein] has said, in no uncertain terms, that he would use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. He has, at this moment, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and is pursuing nuclear weapons.” (Secretary Rumsfeld, Testimony Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 19, 2002)

“[Iraq] has weapons of mass destruction. And the battlefield has now shifted to America…” (President Bush, Remarks at OHS Complex, September 19, 2002)

“Well, I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched. There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein’s efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information.” (Press Secretary Fleischer, Press Briefing, September 24, 2002)

“[Y]ou can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.” (President Bush, Photo Opportunity, September 25, 2002)

“We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapon of – weapons of mass destruction capabilities.” (Secretary Rumsfeld, DoD News Briefing, September 26, 2002)

“We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn’t any debate about it.” (Secretary Rumsfeld, DoD News Briefing, September 26, 2002)

“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.” (President Bush, Radio Address, September 28, 2002)

“The dangers we face only worsen from month to month and year to year…and each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group.” (President Bush, Radio Address, September 28, 2002)

These high-profile statements in support of the Administration’s policy of regime change were made in advance of any meaningful intelligence analysis and created pressure on the Intelligence Community to conform to the certainty contained in the pronouncements.

* * *

Another form of pressure on the Intelligence Community during 2002 came from policymakers repetitively tasking analysts to review, reconsider, and revise their analytical judgments. Evidence of this pressure comes from a number of reputable sources.

The CIA’s independent review on U.S. intelligence on Iraq, conducted by a panel of former senior agency analysts and led by Richard Kerr, former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, reported that:

“Requests for reporting and analysis of [Iraq’s links to al Qaeda] were steady and heavy in the period leading up to the war, creating significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection.” (Kerr Report, July 2003)

Earlier this year, Mr. Kerr publicly elaborated on how the relentless, repetitive questioning and tasking from senior policymakers in the Bush Administration pressured Intelligence Community analysts:

“There was a lot of pressure, no question,” says Kerr. “The White House, State, Defense, were raising questions, heavily on W.M.D. and the issue of terrorism. Why did you select this information rather than that? Why have you downplayed this particular thing?... Sure, I heard that some of the analysts felt pressure. We heard about it from friends. There are always some people in the agency who will say, ‘We’ve been pushed too hard,’ Analysts will say, ‘You’re trying to politicize it.’ There were people who felt there was too much pressure. Not that they were being asked to change their judgments, but they were being asked again and again to restate their judgments – do another paper on this, repetitive pressures. Do it again.”

Was it a case, then, of officials repeatedly asking for another paper until they got the answer they wanted? “There may have been some of that,” Kerr concedes. The requests came from “primarily people outside asking for the same paper again and again. There was a lot of repetitive tasking. Some of the analysts felt this was unnecessary pressure.” The repetitive requests, Kerr made clear, came from the C.I.A.’s “senior customers,” including “the White House, the vice president, State, Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” (Vanity Fair, May 2004)

The Kerr report findings were confirmed to the Committee by a second independent investigation: the CIA Ombudsman. According to the Ombudsman’s charter, this individual serves as an “independent, informal, and confidential counselor for those who have complaints about politicization, biased reporting, or the lack of objective analysis.”

The CIA Ombudsman interviewed about two dozen analysts and managers involved in the preparation of the CIA’s June 2002, document entitled “Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship.” It was in the scope note of this document that the CIA stated its approach as being “purposefully aggressive” in seeking to draw connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

The Ombudsman told the Committee that he felt the “hammering” by the Bush Administration on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had previously witnessed in his 32-year career with the agency. Several analysts he spoke with mentioned pressure and gave the sense that they felt the constant questions and pressure to reexamine issues were unreasonable.

In his interview with the Committee, Director Tenet confirmed that some agency officials raised with him personally the matter of the repetitive tasking and the pressure it created during this time period. The Director’s counsel to those who raised the issue was to “relieve the pressure” by refusing to respond to repeated questions where no additional information existed.

* * *

The October weapons of mass destruction estimate, with its numerous errors and exaggerated key judgments, reached Congress days before the hurried vote authorizing the President to order an invasion of Iraq.

As the Committee report describes, the unclassified version of the Estimate, the so-called “white paper,” that was released concurrently by the Intelligence Community to aid in the public debate further compounded the errors in the underlying classified analysis.

For reasons that have not been convincingly explained, the Intelligence Community eliminated many of the analytical caveats that were contained in the classified estimate when releasing the white paper to the public. Dissenting opinions among agencies on key judgments were dropped from the unclassified document as well. Perhaps most astonishingly, a key judgment in the white paper on Iraq’s potential to deliver biological weapons added a meaningful phrase – “including potentially against the US Homeland” – that was not part of the corresponding key judgment in the classified estimate. This addition, which the Intelligence Community has been unable to explain to the Committee, communicated to the American public a level of threat against the United States homeland that was inconsistent with the Intelligence Community’s judgment.

Not only did the Intelligence Community produce a white paper that failed to accurately state its own analytical beliefs, and, in turn, misled the public, it selectively declassified information in a way that kept from the public important judgments central to the debate at the time, namely the likelihood that Baghdad would launch a terrorist attack against the United States or assist Islamic terrorists in launching such an attack, especially using weapons of mass destruction.

Only after members of the Committee requested further declassification of the key judgments contained in the October Estimate did the CIA agree to release its assessment that, given what was understood at the time, the likelihood of Iraq initiating a weapon of mass destruction attack in the foreseeable future was low. The likelihood of an attack was assessed to be high, however, under the scenario that Saddam Hussein feared a military attack against Iraq threatened the survival of his regime. This judgment was not in keeping with statements by Administration officials at the time describing Iraq as a looming threat to America.

* * *

When the analytical judgments of the Intelligence Community did not conform to the more conclusive and dire Administration view on Iraqi links to al-Qaeda and specifically the notion that Iraq may have been involved in the September 11th terrorist plot, policymakers within the Pentagon denigrated the Intelligence Community’s analysis and sought to trump it by circumventing the CIA and briefing their own analysis directly to the White House.

Beginning in early 2002, a group of individuals under the direction of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith were tasked by him to look at intelligence information related to all terrorist groups, the links between them, and the roles of state sponsors. This effort eventually focused on al-Qaeda’s ties to Iraq and the CIA’s reporting on the subject, including its June 2002 report, “Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship.”

Even though the CIA’s June 2002 report was “purposefully aggressive” in seeking to draw connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the intelligence analysis did not find the relationship sought by Pentagon policy officials. One of the individuals working for the self-named “Iraqi intelligence cell” at the Pentagon stated the June report, “…should be read for content only – and CIA’s interpretation ought to be ignored.” This criticism of the CIA’s analysis was sent by Under Secretary for Policy Feith to Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld.

This critique turned into an alternative analysis of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The analysis was briefed to Secretary Rumsfeld and the Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz in early August 2002. Prominent in the briefing was a slide entitled “Fundamental Problems with How Intelligence Community is Assessing Information.” It faulted the Intelligence Community for requiring “juridical evidence” for findings. It also criticized the Intelligence Community for “consistent underestimation” of efforts by Iraq and al-Qaeda to hide their relationship, contending that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

On August 15, 2002, Pentagon analysts presented the alternative analysis to Director Tenet. In attendance at the briefing were Under Secretary Feith and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. But the briefing given to Director Tenet was different than the one presented to Secretary Rumsfeld days earlier. Gone from the terrorism briefing was the highly-critical slide, “Fundamental Problems with How Intelligence Community is Assessing Information.” The Pentagon wanted to avoid challenging directly the Intelligence Community while it sought to shape the Iraq terrorism analysis nearing completion.

When asked about his reactions about the Pentagon’s alternative terrorism analysis, Director Tenet told the Committee that he “didn’t think much of it” and that he “…didn’t see anything that broke any new ground for me.” Still, according to one staffer’s account of the briefing, Director Tenet took the unusual action of agreeing to postpone the publication of the CIA’s assessment of Iraq’s links to terrorism, entitled “Iraqi Support for Terrorism,” until Intelligence Community analysts could meet with Pentagon policy officials and “attempt to come to some consensus.”

The meeting between analysts and the Pentagon briefers took place on August 20, 2002. In a memorandum submitted to the Committee by the two Pentagon staffers who attended the meeting, they stated “We raised numerous objections to the paper.” One was that the draft “makes no reference to the key issue of Atta.”

The August 20th meeting is clear evidence of the Administration politicizing an analytical process that should be protected from the meddlesome reach of policy officials. The Pentagon’s policy office had delayed the publication of an important Intelligence Community assessment on Iraq and terrorism and insinuated themselves into a coordination meeting in the hopes of molding the judgments to establish a link between Iraq and the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists on September 11th. The Pentagon officials “raised numerous objections to the paper” as if they believed it was the policy office’s role to object to an Intelligence Community assessment prior to its publication. The “key issue of Atta” was at the center of the Pentagon’s case. The problem is that the Intelligence Community did not find the report alleging a meeting between al-Qaeda hijacker Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic to be credible, a meeting Vice President Cheney had already said publicly was “pretty well confirmed.”

The Intelligence Community’s findings did not support the link between Iraq and the 9/11 plot Administration policy officials wanted to help galvanize public support for military action in Iraq. As a result, officials under the direction of Under Secretary Feith took it upon themselves to push for a change in the intelligence analysis so that it bolstered Administration policy statements and goals.

But the Intelligence Community analysts did not buckle under the pressure brought to bear by Pentagon policy officials on August 20th. While some changes were made to the “Iraq Support for Terrorism” report, published in September 2002, the efforts of the Pentagon staffers did not convince the analysts to change their analytical judgments.

This did not dissuade the Pentagon policy shop, however. They simply took their case directly to the White House. On September 16, 2002, two days before the Intelligence Community disseminated its terrorism assessment, Pentagon policy officials presented their alternative analysis to the Deputy National Security Advisor and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff. This time the staffers re-inserted the slide critical of the Intelligence Community’s analytical approach to the issue and included additional information on the alleged meeting in Prague between Atta and the Iraqi intelligence service not in the version briefed to Director Tenet. Furthermore, the CIA was kept in the dark about the Pentagon’s intentions. Director Tenet was not told by the Pentagon that this alternative analysis would be subsequently briefed to the White House and remained ignorant of that fact until March 4, 2004, when it was revealed to him at an Intelligence Committee hearing.

* * *

Following the publication of the Intelligence Community’s terrorism and weapons of mass destruction analytical estimates and the subsequent congressional vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq, Administration public statements leading up to the war became increasingly hyperbolic and urgent.

The qualifications the Intelligence Community placed on what it assessed about Iraq’s links to terrorism and alleged weapons of mass destruction programs were spurned by top Bush Administration officials, early casualties in the war with Iraq:

“The danger to America for the Iraqi regime is grave and growing… Delay, indecision and inaction are not options for America, because they could leave to massive and sudden horror.” (President Bush, Radio Address, October 5, 2002)

“Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” (President Bush, Speech in Cincinnati, October 7, 2002)

“After September 11th, we’ve entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army.” (President Bush, Remarks in Dearborn, MI, October 14, 2002)

“We cannot afford to wait until Saddam Hussein or some terrorist supplied by him attacks us with a chemical or biological or, worst of all, a nuclear weapon, to recognize the danger we face…The dots are there for all to see. We must not wait for some terrible event that connects the dot for us.” (Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, Remarks at Fletcher Conference, October 16, 2002)

“Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon. We don’t know whether or not he has a nuclear weapon.” (President Bush, Q&A in Crawford, TX, December 31, 2002)

“[Saddam Hussein] could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us. And as the President said on Tuesday night, it would take just one vial, one canister, one crate to bring a day of horror to our nation unlike any we have known.” (Vice President Cheney, Remarks to the Conservative PAC, January 30, 2003)

“And as I have said repeatedly, Saddam Hussein would like nothing more than to use a terrorist network to attack and to kill and leave no fingerprints behind.” (President Bush, Remarks with Prime Minister Blair, January 31, 2003)

“We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner…The danger Saddam Hussein poses reaches across the world.” (President Bush, Statement in the Roosevelt Room, February 6, 2003)

“[Saddam Hussein] provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries.” (President Bush, News Conference, March 6, 2003)

“The strongest link of – of Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida – we’ve never said that he somehow masterminded 9/11 or was even involved in 9/11. But the strongest – although there are a lot of tantalizing meetings that – with people who were involved in 9/11.” (Dr. Rice, Face the Nation, March 9, 2003)

“[Saddam Hussein] claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighborhoods." (Secretary Rumsfeld, Press Briefing, March 11, 2003)

“…we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons…We know he’s reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.” (Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003)

“And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” (Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003)

* * *

By the time American troops had been deployed overseas and were poised to attack Iraq, the Administration had skillfully manipulated and cowed the Intelligence Community into approving public statements that conveyed a level of conviction and certainty that was not supported by an objective reading of the underlying intelligence reporting. The charge levied in the President’s State of the Union Address in late January 2003 that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa is the most notable example of how the Intelligence Community’s agreed to let the Administration be a fact witness to an intelligence report the CIA considered “weak” and “not credible.”

Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his speech before the United Nations eight days later with Director Tenet seated directly behind him. The content of his speech was approved by the CIA and laid out the Intelligence Community’s case against Iraq in a high degree of certainty that was unencumbered by the limitations of the underlying intelligence and corresponding analytical judgments. It was in this speech that Secretary Powell assured the United Nations General Assembly – and the world at large – that “every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are fact and conclusion based on solid intelligence.”

The day before the February 5th United Nations speech, a CIA official involved with intelligence reporting on Iraq sent an email to another agency official responding to concerns about the use of one particular source at the center of the assertion that Iraq had constructed numerous mobile biological weapons laboratories:

“As I said last night, let’s keep in mind the fact that this war’s going to happen regardless of what [the source] said or didn’t say, and the Powers That Be probably aren’t terribly interested in whether [the source] knows what he’s talking about. However, in the interest of Truth, we owe somebody a sentence or two of warning, if you honestly have reservations.”

Despite these and other misgivings at the time about the information received from this all-important source, the Intelligence Community only recently officially declared him to be a fabricator.

The Committee’s report examines both the State of the Union and United Nations speeches in detail and explains how statements used in them were inaccurate or misleading.

* * *

The week following Secretary Powell’s February 5th speech at the United Nations, Director Tenet testified in open session before the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees on successive days. At the time, teams of United Nations inspectors had been in Iraq for about eight weeks trying to locate evidence of weapons of mass destruction. With the weather conditions in Iraq expected to become more inhospitable in the upcoming weeks, the Bush Administration began questioning the efficacy of international diplomacy and continued inspections in bringing Saddam Hussein into compliance with international mandates.

The Intelligence Community had been sharing intelligence with the United Nations inspectors since late 2002 on what it considered the top 148 suspect sites, including the 105 Iraqi sites it considered “high” and “medium” priority sites where the Intelligence Community believed the likelihood of finding proscribed weapons activity was the greatest.

Director Tenet testified in mid-February 2003 that the Intelligence Community had shared with the United Nations inspectors all information it had on these high and medium priority sites, even though data provided by the CIA to the Committee indicated otherwise. In fact, at the time of the Director’s testimony, the CIA’s own classified information showed that no information had been shared on 29 of the Intelligence Community’s 105 high and medium priority sites. Repeated attempts by a Committee member over the next few weeks to have the Director correct his public assurances failed.

Three weeks later, on March 6, 2003, both Director Tenet and National Security Advisor Rice wrote unclassified letters to Senators on the Committee repeating the same false claim. The war was two weeks away and the message was obvious: the Administration had decided the time for international inspections was over.

Over a year later, after much prodding, the CIA declassified the fact that by the time inspections were halted in early March it still had not shared information with United Nations inspectors on 21 of the Intelligence Community’s 105 high and medium priority suspect sites.

* * *

As invasion plans were readied and finalized, the Administration had succeeded in painting a stark and sobering picture of an imminent threat to American security based on fragmentary intelligence and overheated rhetoric. The Vice President had told a nationwide television audience that Iraq not only had a nuclear weapons development program but had “in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” The President spoke of a “mushroom cloud” and “massive and sudden horror,” while top officials continued to link Iraq and al-Qaeda terrorism in vivid terms that went well beyond what the Intelligence Community assessed. As Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz stated on January 23, 2003:

“Iraq’s weapons of mass terror and the terror networks to which the Iraqi regime are linked are not two separate themes – not two separate threats. They are part of the same threat.”

It is no wonder that by the time the bombing campaign of “shock and awe” had begun, a majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. By selectively releasing and mischaracterizing intelligence information that supported an Iraq – al-Qaeda collaboration while continuing to keep information classified and out of the public realm that did not, the Administration distorted intelligence to persuade Americans into believing the actions of al-Qaeda and Iraq were indistinguishable, “part of the same threat,” as Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz asserted.

Not until September 2003, a half-year after the start of the Iraq War, did the President state in clear, unequivocal terms the Intelligence Community position that was no evidence supporting such a link between Iraq and the murderous acts of al-Qaeda on September 11th.

* * *

The predicate for reforming the Intelligence Community can be found in the thorough evaluation of pre-war intelligence set forth in the phase one of the Committee’s Iraq investigation. We believe our Nation is afforded a rare opportunity to forge a bipartisan consensus between Congress and the Executive Branch on a legislative package of reforms that will address the lessons learned from this and other recent and ongoing Intelligence Community inquiries. It is important that we not squander this opportunity to bring about reform that will strengthen the Intelligence Community, improve accountability, and foster cooperation and the sharing of intelligence information among agencies.

While the Committee considers reform legislation, we believe that it is important that the work remaining in phase two of our investigation be completed by the year-end.

Legislative fixes that improve collection, analysis, and sharing of intelligence are powerless, however, in preventing intelligence from being slanted or exaggerated in support of policy objectives. The long-standing wall separating the worlds of Policy and Intelligence was first weakened and then crumbled under the pressure from Administration officials in the year and a half preceding the Iraq War. Restoring the Intelligence Community’s damaged credibility requires patience and leadership.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Maureen Knightly/ Jen Carrier

July 9, 2004 202.224.3254

HARKIN ANNOUNCES FUNDS TO FIGHT DRUG ABUSE IN IOWA

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As part of his ongoing efforts against drug abuse in Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced today Iowa will receive $250,000 for the Drug-Free Communities Program to help reduce youth substance abuse and strengthen community anti-drug coalitions.

“Unfortunately, too many young Iowans continue to abuse meth and other dangerous substances,” said Harkin. “We have to do our part to help combat youth substance abuse in our rural communities. These Drug-Free Community funds can help make the difference in our efforts to win the war on drugs and keep Iowa’s youth drug-free.”

The following Iowa communities will receive funds from the Department of Justice (DOJ):

Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse in Iowa City – $75,000
Ottumwa Regional Health Center - $100,000
Story County Prevention Policy Board - $75,000
The funding will help these Iowa communities reduce access of tobacco products to under age youth, increase the awareness of the harm of dangerous drugs, create mentoring programs and reinforce partnerships with substance abuse agencies in the area.

Harkin has been a leader in Congress pushing to strengthen local law enforcement and youth substance abuse programs.

###

Statement by Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)

upon release of Intelligence Committee Inquiry

July 9, 2004

A year ago, the Senate Committee on Intelligence made a commitment to the Congress – and to the American people – that we would examine the quality and quantity of intelligence that led to the Iraq war.

The debate over many aspects of the U.S. liberation of Iraq will likely continue for decades, but one fact is now clear: before the war, the U.S. Intelligence Community told the President, the Congress, and the public that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and, if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade.

Today we know these assessments were wrong.

And as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence. The report the Committee is releasing today seeks to explain how that happened.

I want the American people to know that the committee’s 12 month inquiry into the U.S. Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments regarding Iraq is without precedent in the history of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The committee has looked behind the Community’s assessments to evaluate not only the quantity and quality of the intelligence upon which it based those assessments, but also whether or not the assessments themselves were reasonable.

The report contains a detailed and meticulous recitation of the intelligence reporting and the evolution of the analyses. From the details, a report emerges that is very critical of the Intelligence Community’s performance. This is not a pleasant task, but it is based on fact.

While criticism is never easy to accept, professionals understand the need for self-examination and, let me emphasize, the men and women of the Intelligence Community are, first and foremost, true and dedicated professionals.

The report is long and detailed. I encourage all of you to take the time to digest as much of it as you can. While it is too large for me to summarize, I can point out some highlights.

First of all, most of the key judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD programs were either overstated or were not supported by the raw intelligence reporting.

Here are examples of statements from the key judgments:

• Iraq “is reconstituting its nuclear program,”

• Iraq “has chemical and biological weapons,”

• Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) “probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents,” and,

• “All key aspects - research and development, production and weaponization - of Iraq’s offensive biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.”

These are very emphatic statements. Simply put, they were not supported by the intelligence which the Community supplied to the Committee and they should not have been included in the NIE.

Second, in the Committee’s view, the Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate to policymakers, both in the executive branch and here on Capitol Hill.

Intelligence analysts are charged with interpreting and assessing the intelligence reporting, and with clearly conveying to policymakers the difference between what they know, what they don’t know, what they think and making sure that policymakers understand the difference. As the report details, they did not do this with respect to the October 2002 NIE.

Third, the Committee concluded that the Intelligence Community was suffering from a collective “group think” which led analysts, collectors and managers to presume that Iraq had active and growing WMD programs.

This “group think” caused the Community to interpret ambiguous evidence, – such as the procurement of dual-use technology as conclusive evidence of the existence of WMD programs. While we did not specifically address it in our report, it’s clear that this “group think” also extended to our allies, the United Nations and several other nations as well – all of whom also believed that Saddam Hussein had active WMD programs. This was a global intelligence failure.

Fourth, the Committee concluded that in a few significant instances, the analysis in the NIE suffered from a “layering effect.” Assessments were built based on previous judgments without carrying forward the uncertainties of those judgments. This is what we have termed the intelligence “assumption train.”

Layering is a necessary tool for analysts. However, if on-going, underlying questions and uncertainties are not incorporated into subsequent intelligence products, the subsequent assessments can – unbeknownst to the policymaker – become increasingly inaccurate. The assumption train simply becomes longer.

Fifth, the Committee concluded that there was a failure by Intelligence Community managers to adequately encourage analysts to challenge their assumptions, fully consider alternative arguments, accurately characterize intelligence reporting and counsel analysts who had lost their objectivity.

Sixth, the Committee concluded that there were significant shortcomings in almost every aspect of the Intelligence Community’s human intelligence collection efforts against the Iraqi WMD target. Most alarmingly, after 1998, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target!

In addition to this lack of good source reporting, the CIA did not share its sensitive human intelligence reporting.

Most, if not all, of these problems stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management, and cannot be solved by simply adding funding and personnel.

Seventh, the Committee concluded that the CIA abused its unique position in the Intelligence Community, to the detriment of this nation’s pre-war analysis concerning Iraq’s WMD programs.

In a number of cases, the CIA sequestered significant reportable intelligence and prevented information from being shared with all-source analysts at other intelligence agencies.

This problem also plagued terrorism analysts as they examined Iraq’s link’s to terrorists.

With respect to the Hussein regime’s links to terrorists, the Committee did find that the CIA’s judgments were reasonable based upon the available intelligence. The Agency was also more careful to inform policymakers about uncertainties with their analyses.

Finally, the Committee found no evidence that the Intelligence Community’s mischaracterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of political pressure.

In the end, what the President and the Congress used to send the country to war was information provided by the Intelligence Community. That information was flawed.

The question now is: Where do we go from here?

As I have said before, this report cries out for reform. However, it is incumbent on the Committee and Congress to think responsibly about the most effective reforms.

We must base whatever recommendations we ultimately make on facts and considered judgment, not on political expediency or media-generated momentum.

I intend for the Committee to examine closely all proposals for change, keeping in mind that we should first do no harm and avoid as best we can the law of unintended consequences.

Congress should not legislate change merely for the sake of change. We should direct our actions only against identifiable problems that lend themselves to legislative solutions.

With these thoughts in mind, I intend to work with the executive branch, with our counterparts in the House of Representatives, and yes, with the Intelligence Community, to construct an intelligence capability worthy of this great nation and the men and women who perform this difficult and often dangerous work.

A final thought before I turn to Vice Chairman Rockefeller. In my years on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence I have traveled around the world and met many of the brave, hard-working men and women of the Intelligence Community who, at times, risk their lives to keep us safe. They are dedicated, selfless patriots doing their level best to protect each and every one of us.

They are, however, hampered by a flawed system that does not allow them to do their best work or allow us to get the most value out of that work. We need to honor their toil and sacrifices by giving them an Intelligence Community worthy of their efforts. This I intend to do.

###

Sarah (Ross) Little

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Kansas

202-224-4774

202-224-3514 fax

sarah_little@roberts.senate.gov

109 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Additional Views

Chairman Pat Roberts

joined by

Senator Christopher S. Bond, Senator Orrin G. Hatch

I have no doubt that the debate over many aspects of the U.S. liberation of Iraq will continue for decades, but one fact is now clear, the U.S. Intelligence Community told the President, the Congress, and the American people before the war that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade. More than a year after Saddam’s fall, it also seems clear that no stockpiles are going to be found, the Iraqi nuclear program was dormant, and the President, the Congress and American people deserve an explanation. In short, the Intelligence Community’s prewar assessments were wrong. This report seeks to explain how that happened.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was formed in 1976 during a crisis of confidence in the country and in response to a need to rebuild the public’s trust in government institutions including its intelligence agencies. The Senate created this Committee to conduct, for the first time, on behalf of the American people, vigorous oversight of the intelligence activities of the United States. While the underlying premise of legislative oversight is the need for “public” accountability, the Intelligence Committee’s oversight usually occurs behind closed doors. This is a conundrum the Committee deals with on a daily basis. With the vast majority of our oversight being conducted out of sight, it is exceedingly difficult to assure the American people that we are doing our jobs. What may appear to be little to no Committee activity, often belies an intense and probing examination the result of which will never be made known to the public because the nation’s security interests are paramount. However, the shear gravity of certain unique issues can raise the public’s interest to a level that requires a public accounting. This is such an issue.

The scope of the Committee’s 12 month inquiry into the U.S. Intelligence Community's prewar assessments regarding Iraq is without precedent in the history of the Committee. The Committee has looked behind the Community’s assessments to evaluate not only the quantity and quality of intelligence upon which it based its judgments, but also the reasonableness of the judgments themselves. The result is a detailed and meticulous recitation of the intelligence reporting and the concomitant evolution of the analyses. From the details emerges a report that is very critical of the Intelligence Community’s performance. Some have expressed concern that such criticism is not only unnecessary, but will also engender excessive risk aversion. I believe that, although that is possible, we should not underestimate the character of the hard-working men and women of the Intelligence Community. While criticism is never easy to accept, professionals understand the need for self-examination and the men and women of the Intelligence Community are, first and foremost, true and dedicated professionals.

In order to begin the process of self-examination, however, one must recognize or admit that one has a problem. Unfortunately, many in the Intelligence Community are finding it difficult to recognize the full extent of this significant intelligence failure. It is my hope that this report will facilitate that process. The painstaking detail and harsh criticisms in this report are necessary not only because the democratic process demands it, but also to ensure that there is an honest accounting of the mistakes that were made so that they are not repeated. It is the constitutional responsibility of the Legislature to conduct such an accounting.

It was my hope from the outset of this inquiry that the Committee could handle this important matter in a responsible manner untainted by politics. Despite early setbacks and differences of opinion, I believe we achieved that goal. A clear measure of our success is the fact that this report was approved by a unanimous vote. However, this achievement did not come without very hard work and perseverance. The Committee’s Vice Chairman and I have worked in full consultation throughout this process. I long ago lost count of the many meetings I have had with the Vice Chairman and Democrat and Republican members to hear and discuss their concerns about the inquiry. In response to Minority concerns and suggestions, we made many adjustments along the way. We conducted additional interviews, and most important, we expanded the scope of the review and made more than 200 changes to this report at the request of Democrat members. I am confident that every member of this committee has had ample opportunity to involve themselves to whatever extent they wished throughout the process.

Despite our hard and successful work to deliver a unanimous report, however, there were two issues on which the Republicans and Democrats could not agree: 1) whether the Committee should conclude that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s public statements were not based on knowledge he actually possessed, and 2) whether the Committee should conclude that it was the former ambassador’s wife who recommended him for his trip to Niger.

Niger

The Committee began its review of prewar intelligence on Iraq by examining the Intelligence Community’s sharing of intelligence information with the UNMOVIC inspection teams. (The Committee’s findings on that topic can be found in the section of the report titled, “The Intelligence Community’s Sharing of Intelligence on Iraqi Suspect WMD Sites with UN Inspectors.”) Shortly thereafter, we expanded the review when former Ambassador Joseph Wilson began speaking publicly about his role in exploring the possibility that Iraq was seeking or may have acquired uranium yellowcake from Africa. Ambassador Wilson’s emergence was precipitated by a passage in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address which is now referred to as “the sixteen words.” President Bush stated, “. . . the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The details of the Committee’s findings and conclusions on this issue can be found in the Niger section of the report. What cannot be found, however, are two conclusions upon which the Committee’s Democrats would not agree. While there was no dispute with the underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues refused to allow the following conclusions to appear in the report:

Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.

The former ambassador’s wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador’s wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations which said, “[m]y husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger.

Conclusion: Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.

At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the Intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, only second hand reporting of the deal. The former ambassador’s comments to reporters that the Niger-Iraq uranium documents “may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong,’” could not have been based on the former ambassador’s actual experiences because the Intelligence Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador’s trip. In addition, nothing in the report from the former ambassador’s trip said anything about documents having been forged or the names or dates in the reports having been incorrect. The former ambassador told Committee staff that he, in fact, did not have access to any of the names and dates in the CIA’s reports and said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct. Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports.

Following the Vice President’s review of an intelligence report regarding a possible uranium deal, he asked his briefer for the CIA’s analysis of the issue. It was this request which generated Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger. The former ambassador’s public comments suggesting that the Vice President had been briefed on the information gathered during his trip is not correct, however. While the CIA responded to the Vice President’s request for the Agency’s analysis, they never provided the information gathered by the former Ambassador. The former ambassador, in an NBC Meet the Press interview on July 6, 2003, said, “The office of the Vice President, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.” The former ambassador was speaking on the basis of what he believed should have happened based on his former government experience, but he had no knowledge that this did happen.

These and other public comments from the former ambassador, such as comments that his report “debunked” the Niger-Iraq uranium story, were incorrect and have led to a distortion in the press and in the public’s understanding of the facts surrounding the Niger-Iraq uranium story. The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador’s report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal.

During Mr. Wilson’s media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had “debunked” the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT “debunk” the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact.

In an interview with Committee staff, Mr. Wilson was asked how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he “knew” that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved “a little literary flair.”

The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. Surely, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has unique access to all of the facts, should have been able to agree on a conclusion that would correct the public record. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so.

Pressure

The Committee set out to examine a number of issues including whether anyone within the Intelligence Community was pressured to change their judgments or to reach a specific judgment to suit a particular policy objective. Not only did we find no such “pressure,” we found quite the opposite. Intelligence officials across the Community told Members and staff that their assessments were solely the product of their own analyses and judgments. They related to Committee staff in interview after interview their strong belief that the only “pressure” they felt was to get it right. Every individual with whom we spoke felt a deep sense of responsibility to provide the highest quality product possible. This was especially evident among terrorism analysts whose assessments had become all the more important after September 11, 2001.

There was a great deal of discussion among Members on the question of “pressure” and what constituted evidence of pressure. There was general agreement that intelligence professionals work in a high pressure environment. Therefore, it wasn’t evidence of a high pressure work environment with which we were concerned, but rather evidence of pressure to change or alter judgments. After reviewing thousands of documents and interviewing more than 200 analysts, managers, and government officials, we found only one instance that could remotely be characterized as “evidence” of pressure to reach a particular conclusion. This “evidence” was a single unsupported sentence in a report drafted by the Kerr Commission. The sentence is a brief reference to the issue of pressure on analysts in the introduction to the Iraq’s Links to Al-Qaida section of Kerr’s report. The sentence in question said, “Requests for reporting and analysis of this issue were steady and heavy in the period leading up to the war, creating significant pressure on the Intelligence Community to find evidence that supported a connection.” This one sentence stood out because it was the only instance where anyone or any document referenced pressure to reach a particular conclusion. The Committee’s staff vigorously pursued this question with Mr. Kerr.

When Mr. Kerr was asked for examples of what he meant by pressure to find evidence that supported a connection, he told staff that he was actually referring to the questioning experienced by analysts on whether there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaida. He further stated that this questioning was not unlike the questioning analysts expect on any high interest topic and that, in fact, he DID NOT find that analysts were being pressured to reach a specific conclusion notwithstanding the language in his report. Therefore, this solitary piece of “evidence” was, in the end, no evidence at all.

I think that it is also important to point out that the question of pressure can be examined by means other than interviews. The Committee’s staff essentially deconstructed the Community’s assessments and reviewed in detail the progression of its judgments over many years. We were able to track and document how and why analysts reached their conclusions. Nowhere in this process did we find any unexplained gaps or evidence that judgments were changed for any reason other than the logical evolution of the analyses. Had there been a successful attempt to alter the judgments of the Intelligence Community, there would have been an obvious, unsubstantiated and inexplicable deviation from this progression. We found no such deviation. What we did find was largely good faith, albeit flawed, analyses that were influenced only by the intelligence reporting and the efforts of intelligence professionals trying hard to get it right.

Finally, as in any Congressional inquiry, we realize that certain individuals may be reluctant to be completely candid, especially when they are being interviewed by a group of congressional staff in the presence of representatives from their home agencies. In my experience, however, if such reluctance exists, it does not extend to every single individual that appears before the Committee or its staff. If someone was pressured to change their views, experience tells me someone would have come forward in some manner. The Committee’s history is replete with examples of individuals approaching its staff or members either directly or anonymously with any number of concerns. We received no such approaches during this review despite my repeated public pleas for anyone with concerns to come forward.

In the end, what the President used to make the extremely difficult decision to go to war was what he got from the Intelligence Community, and not what he or Administration officials tried to make it. The question is now: Where do we go from here?

Reform

Unlike most congressional or commission reports, this report contains no recommendations. While I have stated publicly many times that the report cries out for reform, I also I believe very strongly that the issues involved are so complex and of such import that it is incumbent on the Committee and Congress to think very carefully and deliberately about the question of reform. We must base whatever recommendations we ultimately make on facts and considered judgment, not political expediency or media-generated momentum. I intend to examine closely all proposals for change keeping in mind that we should first do no harm and avoid, as best we can, the law of unintended consequences. Congress should not legislate change merely for the sake of change.

This Committee will direct its actions only against identifiable problems that lend themselves to legislative solutions. This report details serious problems with both the collection and analysis of the intelligence that went into the prewar assessments regarding Iraq. Not only must we be prepared to act legislatively to address these problems, we must also be prepared to accept the fact that many of the solutions will not be within our reach. In those instances, we will make recommendations to the President and strongly recommend that the appropriate action be taken.

Whatever course the Committee eventually takes on the question of reform, it will not take it unilaterally. The American people established a legislature and an executive as separate but equal branches of government in order to provide for their common defense. It is our collective duty to ensure that the branches work as intended to fulfill that promise. We will, therefore, work with the executive branch and our counterparts in the House of Representatives to construct an intelligence capability worthy of the men and women we ask to do this difficult and often dangerous work and to better safeguard our nation’s security.

In my years on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence I have traveled around the world and met many of the brave, hard-working men and women of the Intelligence Community who, at times, risk their lives to keep us safe. They are dedicated, selfless patriots doing their level best to protect each and every one of us. They are, however, hampered by a flawed system that doesn't allow them to do their best work or allow us to get the most value out of that work. We need to honor their toil and sacrifices by giving them an Intelligence Community worthy of their efforts. This I intend to do.

Staff Contributions

I cannot understate the contributions of the staff members who comprised the Committee’s Iraq Review Team (IRT). This group, over a period of one year, deconstructed over a decade of Intelligence Community assessments and reanalyzed the intelligence that underlay them. In the face of intense bureaucratic resistance, our staff revealed, document by document, interview by interview, the weaknesses identified in this report’s findings and conclusions.

The Committee depends a great deal on the expertise, tenacity and dedication of its staff, and in this instance, they exceeded our expectations. An illustration of their dedication can be found in the final day of the Committee’s deliberations which lasted more than five hours. The Committee’s lead investigator on the WMD section of the report was nine months pregnant and one week overdue as she faced members’ questions for that five-hour period. What we didn’t know at the time was that she was already in early labor and refused to say so until the final vote was taken. Immediately after the vote, she drove home, collected her things and along with her husband went to the hospital and had a healthy baby boy. That is going above and beyond the call of duty, and then some.

We all owe them a debt of gratitude for what I think is not only an outstanding piece of work on behalf of the Committee, but also on behalf of the American people they serve with distinction every day.

As Chairman, I would also like to thank my colleague Senator Rockefeller and the majority of our members for their diligence, dedication and conscientious work despite a very long and sometimes contentious inquiry.

Finally, I would also like to thank the individuals within the Intelligence Community who worked diligently with the Committee and its staff throughout the process. Despite our disagreements, the people involved in fact-checking and reviewing for classification the contents of the report deserve special recognition for their efforts. This was a significant undertaking and no small accomplishment considering the very compressed time schedule under which we were operating at the end of this very long process.

###

Sarah (Ross) Little

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Kansas

202-224-4774

202-224-3514 fax

sarah_little@roberts.senate.gov

109 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For More Information Contact:

July 9, 2004 Bill Duhnke (202) 224-1700

Sarah Ross Little (202)224-4774

THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

RELEASES ITS REPORT ON PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ON IRAQ

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today released the Committee’s yearlong sweeping report on prewar intelligence on Iraq.

“One year ago,” Senator Roberts said, “We made a commitment to the Congress and to the American people that we would examine the quality and quantity of intelligence that led to the Iraq war.

“The debate over many aspects of the U.S. liberation of Iraq will likely continue for decades, but one fact is now clear: before the war, the U.S. Intelligence Community told the president, the Congress, and the public that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and, if left unchecked, would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade. Today we know these assessments were wrong.

“This report cries out for reform. I intend for the Committee to examine closely all proposals for change, keeping in mind that we should first do no harm and avoid as best we can the law of unintended consequences. We should direct our actions only against identifiable problems that lend themselves to legislative solutions.

“I intend to construct an intelligence capability worthy of this great nation and those who perform this difficult and often dangerous work. These brave, hard-working men and women of the Intelligence Community who, at times, risk their lives to keep us safe are hampered by a flawed system that does not allow them to do their best work or allow us to get the most value out of that work. We need to honor their toil and sacrifices by giving them an Intelligence Community worthy of their efforts. This I intend to do.”

Entitled the “Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence on Iraq,” it is the culmination of the Committee’s work starting in June, 2003 when it began its formal review of the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, ties to terrorist groups, Saddam Hussein’s threat to stability and security in the region, and his repression of his own people. The Committee examined the objectivity, reasonableness, independence and accuracy of the judgements reached by the Intelligence Community and whether those judgements were properly disseminated to policymakers. They also examined whether any influence was brought to bear on anyone in the community to shape their analysis to support policy objectives.

Committee staff reviewed over 45,000 documents from the Intelligence Community and interviewed over 200 individuals as part of this report. This exhaustive research led to the following overall conclusions of the report supported unanimously by the members of the Committee:

• Most of the key judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s WMD programs were either overstated or were not supported by the raw intelligence reporting.

• The Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 NIE to policymakers, both in the executive branch and here on Capitol Hill. The Intelligence Community was suffering from a collective “group think” which led analysts, collectors and managers to presume that Iraq had active and growing WMD programs.

• In a few significant instances, the analysis in the NIE suffered from a layering effect whereby assessments were built based on previous judgments without carrying forward the uncertainties of those judgments.

• There was a failure by Intelligence Community managers to adequately encourage analysts to challenge their assumptions, fully consider alternative arguments, accurately characterize intelligence reporting and counsel analysts who had lost their objectivity.

• There were significant shortcomings in almost every aspect of the Intelligence Community’s human intelligence collection efforts against the Iraqi WMD target. Most alarmingly, after 1998, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target. In addition to this lack of good source reporting, the CIA excessively compartmented its sensitive human intelligence reporting. Most, if not all, of these problems stem from a broken corporate culture and poor management, and cannot be solved by simply adding funding and personnel.

• The CIA abused its unique position in the Intelligence Community, to the detriment of this nation’s pre-war analysis concerning Iraq’s WMD programs.

• The Committee found no evidence that the Intelligence Community’s mischaracterization or exaggeration of the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities was the result of political pressure.

The Senate Intelligence Committee will hold public hearings on its findings and continues to examine additional issues regarding the accuracy and timeliness of the intelligence on Iraq.

The full text of the report is available at: http://intelligence.senate.gov/

###

S:\Press\News Releases\2004\intel.report.final.wpd

Sarah (Ross) Little

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Kansas

202-224-4774

202-224-3514 fax

sarah_little@roberts.senate.gov

109 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Bob Stevenson (202) 224-4445

July 9, 2004 Amy Call (202) 224-1865

Nick Smith (202) 224-3355

MEDIA ADVISORY

FRIST TO ADDRESS NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) will address the National Press Club on Monday, July 12, at 12:00 p.m. to discuss his vision of the future of health care in America.

WHO: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN)

WHAT: Address the National Press Club on the future of health care in America.

WHEN: Monday, July 12, at 12:00 p.m.

WHERE: National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW

-30-

04-165

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEWS RELEASE

Contact Brian Hart/Aaron Groote

July 9, 2004

BROWNBACK’S APPLAUDS FTC REPORT

ON MARKETING VIOLENCE TO CHILDREN

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback commented on the Federal Trade Commission’s fourth report released yesterday on “Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children.”

“I would like to praise the FTC for issuing their fourth follow-up review on how well the motion picture, music recording, and electronic gaming industries are following their own guidelines against marketing violent content to children,” Brownback stated. “This is a valuable study that helps shine the light on industry practices.”

First released in September 2000, the study reported that all three industries were deliberately marketing violent entertainment to minors. The initial report prompted public concern and Congressional inquiries which encouraged a wide-spread clean up of marketing practices and also resulted in an improved rating system for electronic games.

Brownback continued, “While significant efforts have been made, this new report reveals that a great deal more needs to be done. The FTC has found that all three industries continue to advertise violent R-rated movies, explicit-content labeled recordings, and M-rated games in media with large teen audiences, and retail stores remain conduits through which minors can purchase adult-rated content without parental consent.

“While parents have the primary responsibility for protecting their children from harmful material, at the same time, entertainment companies should not be padding their profit margins by enticing minors to consume content that they themselves have deemed unsuitable for them to view. I look forward to their response to this updated study.”

Researchers are discovering more evidence everyday about the negative effects on minors by violent and explicit content. Brownback recommends that the industry step-up their efforts to protect children from unsuitable content.

Brownback is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee and serves on the Communications Subcommittee. He has been active in encouraging the entertainment industry to define and implement their own standards to protect children and families from violent, sexual and inappropriate materials. Brownback recently sponsored the Decency Enforcement Act and cosponsored the CAMRA Act.

-30-

Sam Brownback
United States Senator - Kansas
303 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6521
http://brownback.senate.gov

Immediate Release Contact: Susan Irby - 202-224-4239
Friday, July 9, 2004

MEDIA ADVISORY
– Attention Daybook and Planning Editors –

Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi is NOT attending the 1:30 p.m. Friday, July 9, press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery on the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s pre-Iraq war intelligence report.

Please update your daybook listings to reflect this change. Thanks.

– 30 –

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Friday, July 9, 2004 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov/

Senators Feinstein Urges Reform of Intelligence Community

-- Calls on Senate to approve legislation creating a Director of National Intelligence --

The report was unanimously approved by the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is a member of that committee and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security.

Senator Feinstein also released “Additional Views” on the report, which document her specific concerns with how pre-war intelligence was gathered and analyzed. Her additional views follow.

“The flawed intelligence documented in the Committee’s report presents a clear case that we need to restructure the Intelligence Community,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. “The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, as well as statements to Congress and the American people by the Administration regarding both Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to al-Qaeda, were inaccurate. Iraq was the first case of preemptive war by the United States, and we have learned an important lesson – that preemptive war depends on good, actionable intelligence. In this case, the intelligence was both bad and wrong.”

“The Committee’s report does not acknowledge that the intelligence estimates were shaped by the Administration,” Senator Feinstein said. “In my view, this remains an open question that needs more careful scrutiny. Unless Administration officials, from the President on down, had information not made available to the Senate Intelligence Committee, there was clearly an exaggeration of either an ‘imminent’ or ‘grave and growing’ threat to the American people.”

“Currently, one person leads the Central Intelligence Agency and at the same time nominally oversees the entire Intelligence Community, but he has only limited budget and management authority over the myriad agencies that range from the CIA and DIA to the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency,” Senator Feinstein said. “It is time to put somebody in charge of the entire Intelligence Community and give him the authority to manage and restructure the agencies as we sustain intelligence gathering in this new asymmetric non-state terrorist world.”

The legislation, which was originally introduced in June 2002, is cosponsored by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Trent Lott (R-S), Bob Graham (D-FL), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). The concept was endorsed by the House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the September 11 attacks.

A summary of the legislation follows:

The bill:

Creates the position of "Director of National Intelligence" to head the Intelligence Community.

Gives the Director of National Intelligence the responsibilities which, under current law, relate to the Intelligence Community, including the authority to:

Set collection priorities for the Intelligence Community, ensuring that collection is directed against the targets which most threaten our countries; ensure that the elements of the Intelligence Community cooperate and share information effectively;

Coordinate Intelligence Community distribution of intelligence products to decision makers who need the information to make critical national security choices; and

Allocate Intelligence Community resource to ensure that money and people are properly distributed and used.

In addition, the bill:

Clarifies and augments the Director of National Intelligence's authorities to direct the creation of the intelligence community budget: this will ensure meaningful and effective leadership of the Intelligence Community in the area of resource allocation.

Clarifies and augments the Director of National Intelligence's authorities to reprogram intelligence community funds and personnel. This will provide for meaningful and flexible authority to expend Intelligence Community resources.

Provides the Director of National Intelligence with an Intelligence Community General Counsel and Inspector General to assist him in carrying out his duties: This will ensure that the Intelligence Community is guided by effective and independent legal counsel who answers to only the Director of National Intelligence and that there is an Inspector General with authority to investigate fraud, waste and abuse on a community-wide basis.

Creates the position of "Director of the Central Intelligence Agency" to head the CIA. This will allow the CIA to be led by a chief whose only duty is to ensure that the Agency does the best possible job in collecting, analyzing and disseminating intelligence.

Additional Views of Senator Dianne Feinstein

The flawed intelligence documented in the Committee’s report presents a clear case that we need to restructure the Intelligence Community. As the Committee’s report documents, intelligence contained in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), as well as in statements to Congress and the American people by the Administration regarding both Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to al-Qaida, were inaccurate. The doctrine of preemption inherently requires the Intelligence Community to be right every time on the nature and imminence of threats. In this case, the intelligence was flawed.

Three important judgments were made by intelligence analysts and contained in the NIE:

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction programs in defiance of United Nations resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons, as well as missiles with ranges in excess of United Nations restrictions. If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

"We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX. Its capability probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf War, although VX production and agent storage-life probably have been improved."

"We judge that all key aspects -- R&D, production and weaponization of Iraq's offensive BW program are active, and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War."

There were also many statements made by the administration that, when combined with the intelligence, created a very strong case that Iraq was a serious and immediate threat to American interests and America itself.

Let me give just five examples of such statements:

Secretary of State Powell, on September 8, 2002, said on Fox News Sunday: "There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks." He also said: "With respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has some stocks of those weapons, and he is probably continuing to try to develop more."

President Bush, on September 12, 2002, said in his address to the U.N. General Assembly: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

President Bush, in his October 7, 2002, address also said: "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas."

Secretary Powell, again in his February 5, 2003, address to the U.N. Security Council, said:

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan . . . when will we see the rest of the submerged iceberg? Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has used such weapons. And Saddam Hussein has no compunction about using them again, against his neighbors and against his own people."

President Bush said, on October 2, 2002, in Cincinnati: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that may come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Neither the military examination of more than a thousand priority sites nor the interim findings of Dr. David Kay, and his successor, have produced evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the weaponization of chemical or biological elements, or their deployment to battlefield commanders. To date, the most likely prewar judgments of intelligence analysts have not been borne out.

Questions About Intelligence

There are four questions critical to understand what went wrong with the prewar intelligence assessments that must be answered:

The first is: Were the prewar intelligence assessments of the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's regime wrong? This is not as simple a question as it seems, for in the months prior to the invasion of Iraq these assessments had two separate, equally important parts. Whether Iraq had the capability to place the United States in such danger as to warrant the unprecedented step of a unilateral preemptive invasion of another sovereign nation, and was such a threat imminent or was it grave and growing? Secretary Powell was asked if he would have recommended an invasion knowing Iraq had no prohibited weapons, and he replied: "I don't know because it was the stockpile that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and to the world." He added: "The absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus; it had the changes the answer you get." Critical to this debate during the summer and fall of 2002 was the immediacy of the threat which supported the argument that we needed to attack quickly and could not wait to bring traditional allies aboard or to try other options short of invasion.

The second question is: Whether the intelligence assessments were bad as well as wrong?

This requires a fine distinction between an intelligence assessment that is wrong, and one that is bad. Intelligence assessments are often wrong, for by their nature they are an assessment of the probability that a future event will take place. But wrong does not always mean bad. Sometimes an intelligence assessment follows the right logic and fairly assesses the amount, credibility and meaning of collected data, and still is wrong.

The third question is: If the intelligence assessments were both bad and wrong, to what degree were they both bad and wrong, and why?

Did the intelligence community negligently depart from accepted standards of professional competence in performing its collection and analytic tasks? Was the intelligence community subject to pressures, personal or structural, which caused it to reach a wrong result through bad analysis? Were the ordinary internal procedures by which intelligence is subject to peer review properly carried out?

The fourth and final question is: Whether the intelligence assessments reached by the intelligence community, whether right or wrong, good or bad, were fairly represented to the Congress and to the American people. Did administration officials speaking in open and closed session to members of Congress accurately represent the intelligence product that they were relying upon? Were public statements, speeches, and press releases fair and accurate? This is the cauldron boiling below the surface.

This final question is particularly grave, because it touches upon the constitutionally critical link between the executive and legislative branches. The Founders knew what they were doing when they developed a shared responsibility for war making--only Congress can declare war, with the President, as Commander-in-Chief, conducting it--the need is vital for members of Congress to have fairly presented, timely and accurate intelligence when they consider whether to invest in the President the authority as Commander-in-Chief to put American lives, as well as those of innocent civilians, at risk.

Answers to the Questions

My worst fears about the answers to these four questions have come true. In this case, the intelligence was both bad and wrong. To cite just one example of the issues contained in the Committee’s report, the intelligence regarding mobile labs used to make biological weapons (BW) was not only wrong, but the assessments were bad. The conclusions of the biological section of the Committee’s report uses the words, "is not supported by the intelligence," "overstated what was known," "did not accurately convey," and most disturbing, "the CIA withheld important information."

Secretary Powell, in his speech before the United Nations on February 5, 2003, used four sources to make the case about BW mobile labs: "Curveball," an Iraqi civil engineer, a third source, and an Iraqi National Congress (INC) fabricator. Secretary Powell laid out a graphic, detailed, and powerful case for Iraq’s possession of a number of mobile biological production labs before the Untied Nations and the world based on four sources–all of which have proven to be false.

The bottom line is that the CIA gave Secretary Powell four sources that were not only wrong about the BW mobile trailers, but that also included bad assessments. Despite new information discrediting the sources, no reevaluation was made. A DOD detailee to the CIA who met with "Curveball," made several observations that raised questions about the reliability of "Curveball’s" information. The detailee, after explaining his views, received an email from the Deputy of the CIA Counter Proliferation Unit which said:

"As I said last night, let’s keep in mind the fact that this war’s going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn’t say, and the Powers That Be probably aren’t terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he’s talking about. However, in the interest of Truth, we owe somebody a sentence or two of warning, if you honestly have reservations."

This must never be allowed to happen again, and there must be a process that ensures that a source is sufficiently vetted and evaluated prior to a determination that the source’s information is actionable intelligence. The first overall conclusion of the WMD section of the Committee’s report sums this up by stating:

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic tradecraft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

The answer to the third question of why the pre-war intelligence was both bad and wrong is based in both structural and functional failures within the Intelligence Community. The Committee’s report proves, beyond all doubt, that the present arrangement of collection and analysis between agencies and departments must change.

The functional flaws in the Intelligence Community include the absence of any or adequate "red teaming" and peer review–a procedure to reconcile differing departmental and analytical views in the formation of the NIE. For example, in the review of the aluminum tubes, Department of Energy analysts, the acknowledged experts in nuclear technology, found that the aluminum tubes were not suitable for a nuclear program, and the State Department’s analysts agreed. However, CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysts believed these items were intended to be used for a nuclear program. Despite the fact that the acknowledged experts disagreed, the NIE included the faulty analysis of CIA analysts, with DIA concurring, in its key judgments.

At the very least, a robust peer review process within the Intelligence Community would have described the disagreement between analysts on the aluminum tube issue within the key judgments, instead of siding with one analysis over the other. A strong peer review process would have prevented any key judgment based on the aluminum tube issue from being included in the NIE. The Intelligence Community should have performed further, detailed analysis of this subject to try to achieve a consensus. Then, all analysts involved would have had a better understanding of the details and perspective involved, even if the Intelligence Community could not resolve all of the differences.

I think it is clear that there was not an ongoing nuclear program. In August of 2002, prior to the vote in the Senate on the authorization to go to war, I spent a day in Vienna at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA is the agency that runs nuclear inspections; they saw no signs of a nuclear program in Iraq. The IAEA convinced me that there was no on-going nuclear program in Iraq. The intelligence reporting on a possible Iraqi nuclear program did not have an impact on me, because I did not believe it was correct.

There was a similar problem with the analysis of the Iraqi small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program. The Air Force analysts who had the expertise in this area said the UAVs could be used to deliver biological agents, in the same sense that all aircraft could, but that the most likely mission for the small UAVs was as aerial targets or for reconnaissance missions. However, their analysis was ignored, and the NIE used an assessment based on conjecture instead of scientific analysis when it said these UAVs could be used for biological or chemical delivery purposes. For future NIEs, peer review should occur on a least three levels: first, within each agency, where analysts should be encouraged to express contrarian views; second, between agencies, such as between the CIA and the Department of Energy on the aluminum tubes issue; third, between allied and trusted foreign intelligence; and forth, with international agencies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Virtually every time there was a difference of views between agencies, the CIA’s views prevailed. Because of the structural flaws in the current Intelligence Community, this is a predictable result that explains, but does not excuse, the failures of the pre-war intelligence.

Before explaining my views on structural reforms for the Intelligence Community, the fourth question must be answered–whether the intelligence assessments reached by the Intelligence Community, whether right or wrong, good or bad, were fairly repented to the Congress and to the American people.

Without transparency into the intelligence process, and without rigorous peer review, it is difficult to fully assess how objective the assessments and conclusions were in the NIE. The Committee’s report did not just highlight one or two issues where intelligence was changed to reach a conclusion to go to war. Instead, the Committee’s report documents that EVERY time a judgment changed in the 2002 NIE from previous assessments, the new judgments were more threatening and more dire to the security of the United States. The Committee’s report makes clear that the facts gathered by intelligence in 2001 and 2002 did not support the threatening changes to the analysts assessments. So how did these changes occur? The Committee’s report explains the changes as "layering" of previous assumptions, "groupthink" about ambiguous evidence, and a "broken corporate culture and poor management." I agree that those caused the intelligence to be both bad and wrong. However, the Committee’s report does not acknowledge that the intelligence estimates were shaped by the Administration. In my view, this remains an open question that needs more careful scrutiny.

The Committee’s report did find that analysts were repeatedly questioned and asked to find links between Iraq and al-Qaida to make the Administration’s case. In fact, the CIA Ombudsman for Politicization reported to the Committee that "several analysts gave the sense that they felt the constant questions and pressures to reexamine issues were unreasonable." Further, as stated in the Committee’s report, the Committee staff interviewed Mr. Richard Kerr who said, "in this case I talked to people who felt that there was more pressure than they thought there should have been . . . they felt that they were being pressured and questioned about their analysis." Although the Committee’s report states that no analysts said that he or she changed their conclusions due to pressures, Mr. Kerr when asked about why analysts had not spoken to the Senate Intelligence Committee review team, said the following:

Mr. Kerr: "There’s always people who are going to feel pressure in these situations and feel they were pushed upon."

Committee Interviewer: "That’s what we’ve heard. We can’t find any of them, though."

Mr. Kerr: "Maybe they are wiser than to come talk to you."

The Committee’s report found "that CIA analysts are trained to expect questions from policy makers, and to tailor their analysis into a product that is useful to them." I don’t agree. There is a difference between repeated questioning and badgering in the form of persistent questioning. There is a difference between tailoring a product to a specific issue area and shaping a conclusion to fit what a policymaker wants to hear. It is important to note that the Committee found persistent questioning of analysts only in the terrorism section. Why didn’t the Committee see evidence of this repeated questioning on the issues of WMD where there clearly was a difference of opinion on aluminum tubes and UAVs? Perhaps the CIA pleased the Administration with their WMD conclusion, but did not please them when they could not prove a terrorism connection. The Administration persistently questioned the CIA about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, and then oversold the imminent need for war to the Congress and American public on the basis of these alleged ties.

The answer to the fourth question is that the Administration did not fairly represent the intelligence. There are a number of specifics that are enumerated in the Vice Chairman’s additional views which adequately document this. Unless Administration officials, from the President on down, had information not made available to the Senate Intelligence Committee, there was clearly an exaggeration of either an "imminent" or "grave and growing" threat to the American people.

Director of National Intelligence

The Congress must act, and should act now, to begin fixing the faulty structure of the Intelligence Community and begin by taking a single, critical step: Pass legislation creating a Director of National Intelligence.

Establishing this position is one of the most important recommendations by the Joint Congressional Inquiry on 9/11, which examined the dysfunctional structure of an Intelligence Community comprising 15 separate agencies, which costs tens of billions of dollars annually and is plagued by territorial battles.

Currently, one person leads the Central Intelligence Agency and at the same time nominally oversees the entire Intelligence Community. But he has only limited budgetary and management authority over the myriad agencies that range from the CIA and DIA to the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. In fact, 80 percent of the intelligence budget is under the control of the Secretary of Defense.

I have introduced legislation, co-sponsored by Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Lott, Graham, Mikulski, and Wyden, that creates a true head of our 15 intelligence agencies with both the budgetary and statutory authority that the current structure does not provide. A new Director of National Intelligence would be responsible for leading the entire Intelligence Community. Working within an independent office, aided by a Deputy Director of National Intelligence and equipped with meaningful budget and personnel authority, this Director would provide the focused, independent and powerful leadership the Intelligence Community badly needs.

The CIA would retain its role as the central analytic element of the Intelligence Community and the lead agency for human intelligence, and it would have its own full-time Director.

Important issues for the DNI to consider include:

assessing the balance between expensive technical collection platforms, such as satellite systems, and human-source collection and analysis;

developing mechanisms to enhance our ability to collect foreign intelligence within the United States;

setting the priorities and strategies in a new non-state asymmetric world;

evaluating and implementing a human intelligence capability with language and cultural knowledge in critically important areas; and

reforming the analytic process to ensure effective peer review and analytic integrity to prevent the use of false intelligence in policy making.

The current structure of our Intelligence Community is a relic of last century’s conflicts. It is a Cold War solution to Cold War problems. In fact, the structure dates to the 1947 passage of the National Security Act.

I believe the intelligence failures in the past years, including those leading to the 9/11 attacks and the largely erroneous analytic conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, are in a great part the result of this outdated structure.

Saddled with a Soviet-era structure in a post-Soviet world, it is not surprising that we are losing the intelligence battle against non-state actors who practice asymmetric warfare. Nor should be it be unexpected that many of the members of the Intelligence Community, including the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency, are struggling to understand, infiltrate and analyze the non-Western, Islamic world in which we must now defend ourselves.

Some have argued that the changes I recommend would damage the ability of those elements of the Intelligence Community with a combat-support mission (such as the National Security Agency) to serve their primary customers, who are the war-fighters. I disagree. The Secretary of Defense will lose none of his ability to levy requirements on the Intelligence Community -- after all, whatever the leadership structure, the Pentagon will always be, after the President, the Intelligence Community’s biggest customer. Additionally, the legislation also includes language permitting and recommending that the President appoint a military official to a senior position in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Others, George Tenet among them, have argued that a Director of National Intelligence, removed from his "troops" at CIA, will be powerless. I believe this argument misses the point – the Director of National Intelligence will derive his power from his statutory, budgetary, and personnel authorities, and, to no small degree, his relationship with the President.

The bottom line is that leading the U.S. Intelligence Community is a full-time position and, if it is to be done right, we cannot expect the person holding that responsibility to run a separate agency simultaneously.

It is time to put somebody in charge of the entire Intelligence Community and give him the authority to accomplish the job.

Doctrine of Preemption

We must learn a great lesson from this experience: the doctrine of preemption is flawed. Unilateralism and preemption and an over-reliance on the military dimension of U.S. power may well be leading us in a direction that weakens, rather than strengthens, our ability to meet the challenges of the new asymmetric world. I fear that our current foreign policy is adding thousands to the terrorist movements across the globe.

Without the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction or evidence of a clear threat, Iraq appears not to have been a preemptive war to prevent an attack by the government of Iraq against either America or American interests; rather, it was America's first preventive war, the purpose of which was to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. Preventive war targeted against speculative threats is not legitimate under international law.

It's critical that, even with our focus on Iraq, we don't lose focus on the ongoing war on terror, where preemption may be both justified and necessary. Al-Qaida is still active recruiting, organizing, and in places, merging with other terrorist organizations. American interests at home and abroad remain vulnerable to asymmetric attack. And by shifting the focus of the war on terror from al-Qaida to Iraq, we must not allow al-Qaida to recuperate and strike again.

By endorsing unilateralism and preemption, we may well be paving the way for others -- China, Russia, India, Pakistan, North Korea -- to likewise adopt these same policies to carry out their national aspirations. As Henry Kissinger put it, "It's not in America's national interest to establish preemption as a universal principle available to every nation." And I agree. But by walking away from or undermining effective multilateral institutions, by alienating friends and allies, the United States may well find itself with fewer options at its disposal and fewer friends to help us out.

For the past half century, our country has embraced international cooperation, not out of vulnerability or weakness, but from a position of strength. The United States has the right to carry out military strikes against terrorists who would strike us, and there should be no doubt that we will. But many of the threats and problems we face today may not be effectively countered simply with the blunt application of military force. Diplomacy, treaties and robust foreign assistance programs have important roles to play if we are to be successful in meeting today's foreign policy challenges. A world in which no nation is bound by treaties or international accords, and in which might makes right, is not a world where the United States is better off. Our strength as a nation emanates not just from our power, but also from our moral stature and our principled stand for truth, for justice and for freedom.

Summary

The Senate vote on the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq was difficult and consequential based on hours of intelligence briefings from Administration and intelligence officials, as well as the classified and unclassified versions of the National Intelligence Estimates. It was based on trust that this intelligence was the best our Nation’s intelligence services could offer, untainted by bias, and fairly presented. In this case it was not.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Liz Poston
July 9, 2004 Amy Hagovsky
202-228-1122
http://mikulski.senate.gov

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA MIKUSKI ON RELEASE OF
SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

WASHINGTON, DC – The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, of which Senator Barbara Mikulski is a member, today released to the public the Committee’s Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq. The text of the report is available on the Senate Select Committee’s Website at: http://intelligence.senate.gov/

Below is Senator Mikulski’s statement on the Intelligence Committee’s report:

“As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I endorse the Committee’s bipartisan, unanimous report on intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq.

“The investigation, its report and conclusions must be a clarion call for reform. Now more than ever, the security of our nation depends on timely and reliable intelligence. We depend on intelligence to detect, disrupt and deter terrorist attacks. Policymakers need accurate intelligence to make the right decisions about diplomacy and deployment of troops.

“The intelligence failures documented in the report are stunning. Our intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and wrong about what our troops would face in the aftermath of war. Errors were not limited to the CIA. They also occurred at the Defense Department.

“Flawed intelligence was fuel for activating the policy of pre-emption. The men and women of our armed forces were put, and remain, in harm’s way. Relationships with our treasured allies are frayed. These are grave and severe consequences.

“That is why I believe it is not sufficient to merely investigate what went wrong. That investigation must be the starting point for reform.

“There must be modernization of our intelligence community. It cannot be slow or timid. Reform must be undertaken with a sense of urgency. It must be broad, deep and authentic. Our homeland security, the safety of our troops, and our national honor depend on such action.”

See attached Senator Mikulski’s “additional views” on the Intelligence Committee report.

– more –

Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Additional Views

The Urgency of Reforming U.S. Intelligence

Over the last two years, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has investigated and completed reports on two of the most significant intelligence failures in America=s history – the September 11th attacks and intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. I endorse the bipartisan, unanimous report of the Intelligence Committee on intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, as I did the December 2002 report by the Joint Inquiry on intelligence activities prior to September 11th.

The report on pre-Iraq war intelligence explains in detail what went wrong with the collection and analysis of intelligence leading up to the war. The purpose of these additional views is to outline recommendations for where we go from here.

The investigation, its report and conclusions must be a clarion call for reform. Our national security, our national honor and our standing in the world depend such action. We must be as energetic, as far reaching and as vigorous in our reform efforts as we were in the investigation of intelligence failures.

IMPORTANCE OF ACCURATE AND TIMELY INTELLIGENCE

Now more than ever, the security of our nation depends on timely and reliable intelligence. We depend on intelligence to detect, disrupt and deter terrorist attacks, and to help policymakers make the right decisions about diplomacy and deployment of troops.

The full report of the Intelligence Committee makes clear that the intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq was seriously flawed. Our intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraq=s weapons of mass destruction, wrong about what our troops would face in the aftermath of war and wrong about how and when Iraq would move to a stable, democratic system. Errors were not limited to the CIA. They also occurred at the Departments of Defense and State.

Two of the world’s other great intelligence services – those of the UK and Israel – were also in error. These countries have already begun a process of self-examination and reform. So must we.

For our own country, these intelligence failures were not small, insignificant or isolated. There are persistent, systemic problems with how we gather and analyze intelligence, and how that intelligence is used to formulate policy.

In the case of Iraq, flawed intelligence was fuel for activating the policy of pre-emption. The men and women of our armed forces were put, and remain, in harm=s way B perhaps needlessly. Relationships with our treasured allies are frayed. These are grave and severe consequences. That is why I believe it is not sufficient to merely analyze what went wrong. That analysis must be a starting point for reform.

- more -

Since the attacks of September 11, we have seen a few modest changes in our intelligence procedures. For example, progress has been made on the consolidation of watch lists so terrorists who seek to cross our borders can be identified. Intelligence Agencies report improved information sharing and increased personnel dedicated to intelligence analysis. These are steps in the right direction. But more needs to be done.

Modernization of our intelligence community cannot be slow or timid. Reform must be undertaken with a sense of urgency. It must be broad, deep and authentic. America’s intelligence professionals are capable and dedicated. They often do their jobs in dangerous and difficult circumstances. They need strong leadership, a renewed focus on mission, and clear lines of authority and accountability to excel.

Structural, organizational and jurisdictional reforms must be made and will be made. But, the goal ultimately is to create an environment and a culture where truth to power is spoken from the bottom to the top.

IDEAS FOR REFORM

There are many ideas for reform. All should be carefully and thoroughly considered, including the following:

1. Give Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) authority over all intelligence agencies.

Elevating the DCI to a true position of authority over the entire intelligence community -- and the entire intelligence budget -- is the first step to an integrated intelligence community free from turf battles, internal rivalries and tunnel vision.

Today=s DCI is not empowered to provide strategic direction or management oversight over the entire intelligence community. Organizational authority is dispersed among fourteen different agency directors. The vast majority of intelligence funds B 80 percent B are controlled by the Department of Defense. This is a dysfunctional structure. The DCI cannot deploy intelligence resources in the most efficient and effective manner when his recommendations may be ignored by the Department of Defense.

This new DCI should be appointed to five or six year terms B similar to the term of the Federal Reserve Board Chairman B to ensure independence of the DCI. If it is important to ensure independence of monetary policy, it is important to ensure independence of our intelligence community.

2. Institute and formalize procedures for alternative analysis

Even the best analysts need to have their work checked and challenged by others. The best way to vet assumptions, information and sources is to open them up to scrutiny and initiate a “devil’s advocate” or red team mechanism. Experts who do not have a vested interest in any particular agency or outcome should be part of this process.

- more -

3. Create Intelligence Community Inspector General

There is no single Inspector General with oversight of the intelligence community. Instead, there are individual IGs spread across the 15 intelligence agencies. Creating an Inspector General position empowered to identify and investigate problems throughout the intelligence community should be considered.

4. Improve Congressional oversight

Congress must make a number of structural changes to better oversee the intelligence agencies. First, we should consider modifying the term limits of members on the Intelligence Committee. It takes time for members to learn and understand the intelligence agencies. We need a system that retains the benefits of experience and knowledge while still bringing in fresh ideas and perspectives of new members.

Second, the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee needs examination. The Intelligence Committee has no budgetary authority over large segments of the intelligence community. For example, 80% of intelligence funds are controlled by the Department of Defense and fall under the jurisdiction of the defense committees. The FBI falls under jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. Some of these functions may be more appropriately reviewed by the Intelligence Committee. How to organize ourselves so the Intelligence Committee has sufficient authority and broad oversight is a question to be explored and examined.

CONCLUSION

The investigation of the Intelligence Committee shows that the intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq were serious and pervasive. So were the failures prior to the September 11th attacks. While the investigations will continue, reform must begin. There can be no delay when the safety and security of America and Americans are at stake.

The goal of review and reform is to build 21st century intelligence agencies that America and the world can rely on, with the best trained, best led people and a Congress that does its due diligence with the most efficient and effective jurisdictional oversight structure.

# # #

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Amy Hagovsky
Press Secretary
Office of Senator Barbara Mikulski
ph. 202-228-1122
fax 202-224-3892
www.mikulski.senate.gov

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Contact: Maureen Knightly/ Jennifer Carrier

202-224-3254

*** MEDIA ADVISORY ***

HARKIN TO BIKE WITH STUDENTS IN COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATION

Senator Tom Harkin will meet Junior High School students involved in the Trail Trekker program in Coralville on Saturday, July 10. Trail Trekker participants meet daily during the summer, ride their bikes on the trail system and serve the community by picking up trash, working in a nursing home, park projects, planting, etc. This is the fourth year for the program and last summer 160 children participated.

Harkin recently unveiled the Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention (HeLP) America Act to give children and adults greater access to preventative care and to the tools and information they need to stay healthy. Part of the HeLP America Act is a Complete Streets program which provides incentives to communities to build new sidewalks and bike lanes.

SATURDAY, JULY 10

9:45 a.m. Trail Trekker Program

Community of Christ Church

2121 Southridge Drive

Coralville

###

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Contact: Maureen Knightly/ Jennifer Carrier

202.224.3254

*** MEDIA ADVISORY ***

HARKIN TO PLAY BALL WITH BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS, DISCUSS HEALTH INITIATIVES

Senator Tom Harkin will play baseball with the Quad Cities Big Brothers Big Sisters and discuss health and fitness in Davenport on Saturday, July 10. Harkin will also meet with members of the Quad Cities Health Initiative to find out more about their programs that promote physical activity, better nutrition and health awareness within schools, workplaces and communities.

Rising health care costs and the health conditions and deaths associated with poor nutrition, physical inactivity, smoking and chronic mental health issues are staggering. To address this major public health problem, Harkin recently unveiled the Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention (HeLP) America Act to give children and adults greater access to preventative care and to the tools and information they need to stay healthy.

Saturday, July 10

2:45 p.m. Duck Creek

3000 E. Locust Street

Davenport

###

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Contact: Maureen Knightly/ Jennifer Carrier

202-224-3254

*** MEDIA ADVISORY ***

HARKIN TO JOIN CANCER SURVIVORS AT

MT. PLEASANT RELAY FOR LIFE

Senator Tom Harkin will welcome cancer survivors at the 10th Annual Relay for Life in Mt. Pleasant on Saturday, July 10. The Relay for Life is designed to celebrate survivorship and raise money for research and programs for the American Cancer Society.

Harkin recently unveiled the Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention (HeLP) America Act which includes a provision to provide breast and cervical cancer screening to low-income women.

Saturday, July 10

12:00 p.m. Henry County Relay for Life

Mapleleaf Athletic Complex

700 Mapleleaf Drive

Mt. Pleasant

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Matt Hartwig/Maureen Knightly

July 9, 2004 202-224-3254

HARKIN URGES ADMINISTRATION TO REJECT

EUROPEAN UNION ATTACK ON FOOD AID

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) urged the rejection of a European Union (EU) proposal to restrict the United States food aid programs during the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agriculture negotiations. In a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, Harkin suggested the United States reject the EU proposal and instead challenge European nations to increase their food aid assistance.

The EU has proposed to restrict U.S. foreign food assistance to cash-only and only in response to food emergencies designated by the UN’s World Food Program. Currently, the U.S. food aid programs provide millions of tons of grain to starving and impoverished nations to help mitigate the effects of hunger and poverty in these areas. The EU argues that the U.S. food aid program distorts agricultural trade across the globe. Harkin believes the EU proposal would ultimately lead to reduction in the overall amount of assistance to the world’s poor and hungry people.

“I fully appreciate the need for compromise in order to reach a fair balance during these negotiations,” said Harkin. “But I fail to see how limiting the assistance we provide to those people who cannot afford to eat can be viewed as trade-distorting. Instead of acceding to the European Union proposals, we should be challenging European nations to increase their own food assistance to poor countries.”

In the letter, Harkin noted that food aid donations from the EU and member countries fell 70 percent between 1992 and 2002. Yet, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service estimated the need for food assistance increased by 7 million tons.

Harkin also noted the continued broad support in the United States of the food aid program, but questioned the continued strength of this support if the EU proposal was agreed to.

“In the face of this critical need, there is solid support for the current food aid programs in Congress and among a wide range of U.S. interest groups,” Harkin wrote. “I fear that would not be the case for the type of program that the EU proposal envisions. …I urge you to reject the EU’s proposal to restrict food aid programs in WTO negotiations in Geneva.”

A copy of the letter is below.

# # #

July 8, 2004

The Honorable Robert B. Zoellick

United States Trade Representative

600 17th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20250

Dear Ambassador Zoellick:

A number of serious concerns have arisen about the treatment of food aid in the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations. In particular, there are potentially very serious adverse impacts on U.S. programs and their beneficiaries in developing countries if the restrictive rules proposed by the European Union are adopted.

Program records indicate that U.S. food aid has provided invaluable assistance to billions of people over the last several decades. Therefore, it is ironic that in seeking to “reform” agricultural policies the European Union is proposing changes that would undermine these programs’ operation and even possibly their existence.

It is my understanding that the primary objective of the current round of agricultural negotiations in the WTO is to reduce or eliminate the use of trade-distorting subsidies. I fail to see how providing food to someone who otherwise cannot afford to purchase it constitutes a trade-distorting subsidy. I appreciate the need to minimize interference with commercial sales in providing international food assistance, but such disciplines are already in place under the Food Aid Convention, which the United States and other donor countries subscribe to.

The EU demands that we limit our food aid programs to assistance given only on a cash basis in response to the World Food Program’s designation of food emergencies, which would likely lead to a reduction in available funding. Rather than accede to the EU’s demand, we should be challenging the EU to step up and increase its own food aid worldwide. Food aid donations from the EU and member countries, both cash and in-kind, declined more than 70 percent in grain equivalents between 1992 and 2002. During approximately the same period, USDA’s Economic Research Service estimates that food aid needed to maintain average nutrition levels in 70 least developed countries increased from 10 million tons of grain to 17 million tons.

In the face of this critical need, there is solid support for the current food aid programs in Congress and among a wide range of U.S. interest groups. I fear that would not be the case for the type of program that the EU proposal envisions. It is true that the United States has to

compromise in order to reach a fair agreement in the WTO Doha Round, but U.S. food aid programs are not operated in a trade-distorting way and should not be unduly constrained under WTO rules. I urge you to reject the EU’s proposal to restrict food aid programs in WTO negotiations in Geneva. I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Tom Harkin

Ranking Democratic Member

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Bob Stevenson (202) 224-4445

July 9, 2004 Amy Call (202) 224-1865

Nick Smith (202) 224-3355

MEDIA ADVISORY

FRIST TO ADDRESS NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

WHO: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN)

WHAT: Address the National Press Club on the future of health care in America.

WHEN: Monday, July 12, at 12:00 p.m.

WHERE: National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW

-30-

04-165

THURSDAY, July 8, 2004

Statement of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle
on the Failure of Class Action Legislation

What the Senate Republicans did today was mind-boggling. They took a bill that had 60 votes and was destined for passage, and made sure it was defeated.

As a Senator from South Dakota, I opposed this bill because I was concerned that it would deny South Dakotans access to their state courts, even if they were injured in the state and South Dakota law was violated. But as the Democratic Leader, I wanted to make sure the bill would be considered, debated and voted on.

What no one expected is that the Republican Leadership would deliberately implement a procedure that forced many of the bill's supporters to vote against it.

Last year, the class action bill got 59 votes for cloture. Today, the same bill got only 44 votes. In fact, three Republicans joined Democrats to oppose cloture.

It is remarkable that the GOP leadership is obstructing its own bills.

###

democrats.senate.gov

The Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies will hold a hearing on Preventing Chronic Disease through Healthy Lifestyles on Thursday, July 15 at 9:30am in Room 192 of the Dirksen Building.

The scheduled witnesses are:

Panel I

The Honorable Tommy Thompson

Secretary

Department of Health and Human Services

Panel II

Cal Ripken, Jr.

Former Baltimore Oriole

Kenneth L. Gladish, Ph.D.

National Executive Director

YMCA of the USA

Vernon E. Delpesce

Chief Executive Officer

YMCA of Greater Des Moines

Eric K. Mann

President and CEO

Pittsburgh Metropolitan YMCA

Jack Rule

CEO
incentaHEALTH

Panel III

Dean Ornish, M.D.

For Immediate Release: Contact: Chuck Kleeschulte, Comm Director
July 8, 2004 (202) 224-9306; H 301/292-2260; Cell 202/253-9964

MURKOWSKI WELCOMES REPEAT SENATE PASSAGE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CONCEALED WEAPONS ACT

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski today welcomed Senate passage late Wednesday of a measure she effectively co-sponsored last year that allows current and retired police officers to carry concealed weapons. The measure now heads to the President for his signature.

The Senate last spring adopted a bill (S. 253) that provides a federal exemption to state laws to permit law enforcement officers and qualified retired officers with proper identification to carry concealed weapons. Wednesday to speed the process, the Senate passed an identical House bill (H.R. 218) without amendment, clearing the way for the bill to become law more quickly.

“It’s been pointed out that many police officers worry about their safety when traveling and especially following retirement, where in some jurisdictions, they lose their ability to carry weapons. These officers are fully trained and qualified to safely carry weapons. It is only just that we enhance the personal safety of traveling and retired police who for years have worked to protect the public from dangerous criminals,” said Murkowski after the Senate’s vote.

The said the law also increases law enforcement protection since it ensures that off-duty and retired police are ready to handle emergencies regardless of their location.

“This was a very reasonable measure to protect the safety of law enforcement personnel and actually all of us,” said Senator Murkowski.

Under the measure officers may not carry firearms with silencers, machine guns or any other type of “destructive device,” but can carry weapons for which they are qualified or requalified to carry within the previous 12 months.
###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Bob Stevenson (202) 224-4445

July 8, 2004 Amy Call (202) 224-1865

Nick Smith (202) 224-3355

***MEDIA ADVISORY ***

FRIST TO HOLD MARRIAGE PRESS CONFERENCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) will hold a press conference with the Alliance for Marriage on Monday, July 12, at 2:45 p.m. They will discuss the importance of supporting the Marriage Amendment.

The Alliance for Marriage is a diverse, non-partisan coalition advocating passage of the constitutional amendment to protect marriage and define it as the union of a man and a woman. Speakers will include African-American civil rights leaders Roy Innis and Rev. Walter Fauntroy and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops General Secretary Msgr. William Fay.

WHO: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN)

Matt Daniels, President, Alliance for Marriage

Msgr. William Fay, General Secretary

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Roy Innis, Chairman, Congress of Racial Equality

Rev. Walter Fauntroy, Former D.C. delegate to Congress,

D.C. Coordinator for 1963 March on Washington

WHAT: Press Conference

WHERE: U.S. Capitol (Mansfield Room/S-207)

WHEN: Monday, July 12, 2:45 p.m.

-30-

04-163

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Bob Stevenson: 202-224-4445

July 8, 2004 Amy Call: 202-224-1865

Nick Smith: 202-224-3355

FRIST STATEMENT ON CLASS ACTION CLOTURE VOTE

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) today made the following statement on the attempt to invoke cloture on S. 2062, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2004:

“Over the past two days, many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come down to the Senate floor to express their support for class action reform.”

“We also made every attempt to provide members an opportunity to offer and debate amendments related to the legislation. However, a minority of Senators preferred to use this piece of legislation as a vehicle for miscellaneous political amendments. This is a missed opportunity.”

“We all know there is only one way to support class action reform: you must vote Aye when the roll is called. Unfortunately some of my colleagues are choosing politics over enacting good public policy. Voting against cloture on this bill delays relief to our judicial system, our economy and hurts average Americans.

-30-

04-164

Amy Call

Office of the Senate Majority Leader

202-224-1865

United States Senate

MEDIA ADVISORY: Contact: Howard Gantman, Sen. Feinstein, 202-224-9629

Thursday, July 8, 2004 Andrew Blotky, Sen. Wyden, 202-224-3789

Susan Irby, Sen. Lott, 202-224-4239

* * * * * News Conference * * * * *

Senators Feinstein, Wyden, Lott to Discuss
Report on Iraq Intelligence Failures

-- Senators will also call for the creation of a Director of National Intelligence
with authority to reform the Intelligence Community --

Washington, DC B At a news conference on Friday, July 9, 2004 at 1:30 p.m., Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Trent Lott (R-MS) will discuss the report on pre-war Iraq intelligence failures that will be released by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Friday morning.

Date: Friday, July 9, 2004

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Location: Senate Radio/TV Gallery

Senators Feinstein, Wyden, and Lott, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, all signed-on to the Committee report. However, each Senator will also release their “Additional Views” on the Intelligence Committee report, which document their specific concerns with how pre-war intelligence was gathered and analyzed.

Director of National Intelligence

Senators Feinstein, Wyden, and Lott will also call on the Senate to approve legislation they have introduced (S. 190) to create a Director of National Intelligence with the statutory and budgetary authority to oversee our nation's intelligence-gathering efforts.

The legislation, which was originally introduced in June 2002, is cosponsored by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Trent Lott (R-MS), Bob Graham (D-FL), and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). The concept was endorsed by the House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the September 11 attacks.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kate Dando

July 8, 2004 (202) 224-5852

CAMPBELL PRAISES SENATE PASSAGE OF

LAW ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATION

Law enforcement community lauds Campbell’s efforts

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) hailed the unanimous Senate passage of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. The bill is headed to the White House where President Bush is expected to sign it into law.

This bill will permit qualified current and former law enforcement officers who are employed by or retired from a local, state or federal law enforcement agency to carry concealed firearms across jurisdictions.

Campbell, a former deputy sheriff, said: “I have been fighting for passage of this legislation for a number of years. I know from experience that the law enforcement officer’s job does not end when he/she is off-duty since you never know when you may come face-to-face with violent criminals.”

“Law enforcement officers are the new front line warriors in our war against terrorists, and the American public will undoubtedly be safer because there will be thousands of trained police officers on the streets at zero taxpayer expense, Campbell said.”

This bill enjoys the broad support of numerous national and local leading law enforcement organizations including the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP).

When the bill first passed the Senate in March, Chuck Canterbury, National President of the FOP said: “The FOP applauds Senator Campbell’s leadership and continuing efforts on behalf of our nation’s law enforcement officers. The ‘Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act’ provides the means for law enforcement officers to respond to crisis situations-enabling them to put their instincts and training to use and answer the call of duty when the need arises.”

Campbell offered the proposal as an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, in March. The Senate voted 91-8 to adopt the amendment but the entire bill was later defeated. Senator Campbell was the Senate sponsor of this legislation.

###

Kate Dando

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

(202) 224-5852

THURSDAY, July 8, 2004

Statement of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in Response to Today's Announcement from Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge

"Earlier today Tom Ridge, the Secretary of Homeland Security, informed the Senate and the American public that our government has received intelligence indicating that Al Qaeda may seek to mount an attack in this country in the coming months.

Although Secretary Ridge indicated the Department of Homeland Security is taking some steps to address the increased threat, Senate Democrats believe Congress has an obligation to do what it can to make Americans more secure.

There are currently at least five homeland security-related pieces of legislation that can, and should be, acted upon by the Senate immediately. These measures include the FY2005 Homeland Security Appropriations bill (S.2537), the Port Security bill (S. 2279), the Rail Security Act (S. 2273), the Chemical Security Act (S.157), and the National Guard Homeland Security assistance bill (S. 215). All of these bills could help address important homeland security shortcomings, and all should be acted upon immediately by the Senate.

Unfortunately, even after this morning's new terror warnings, Senate Republicans refuse to address important homeland security legislation. Just this afternoon, Senate Democrats asked for unanimous consent to bring the Homeland Security Appropriations legislation to the Senate floor. Senate Republicans objected, preferring to continue to spend time on less urgent priorities.

Senate Democrats believe the time to act on critical homeland security legislation is now. The Senate has no higher legislative priority than protecting this country from future terrorist attacks."

###

democrats.senate.gov

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator - Texas
CONTACT: DON STEWART

(202) 224-0704 office (202) 365-6702 cell

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 8, 2004

hollow complaints won’t delay marriage debate

‘Crocodile tears’ about pace of appropriations bill ring hollow, Cornyn says

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, made the following statement Thursday regarding the hollow claims by Senate Democrats that the amendment to protect traditional marriage should be delayed:

“I find it particularly ironic that members of the Senate who have blocked bill after bill after bill all year are now complaining about the pace of appropriations legislation. This is nothing more than yet another excuse, another attempt to put off the important vote on the protection of marriage.”

www.cornyn.senate.gov

Statement of Patrick Leahy

Status of Attempts to Obtain Administration Memorandums

On Interrogation and Treatment of Foreign Prisoners

Executive Business Meeting

Judiciary Committee

July 8, 2004

A number of us remain concerned about the abuse of foreign prisoners, and about the guidance provided by the President’s lawyers with regard to torture. Much has happened since June 17, 2004, when the Judiciary Committee defeated, on a party-line vote, a subpoena resolution for documents relating to the interrogation and treatment of detainees. Yet because of continued stonewalling by the Administration, we remain largely in the dark. No action has yet been taken by this Committee.

In the June 17 Committee markup, several Senators said that we should give the Administration more time to respond to inquiries, although some of us had been asking for information for more than a year. Questions were submitted to the Attorney General on June 15 following his appearance before the Committee a week earlier when he refused to provide information and demanded a subpoena. We were encouraged to withhold in offering a subpoena and to give him until the end of the month to respond. And then, the Attorney General -- through an aide, on July 1 -- again thumbed his nose at his obligations to this oversight Committee, refusing to provide a comprehensive set of answers to questions submitted by the nine Democratic members of this Committee, refusing to provide almost all of the documents that were requested, and, again, refusing even to provide an index of the documents being withheld.

The Department of Justice admitted in the July 1 letter that it had “given specific advice concerning specific interrogation practices,” but would not disclose such advice to Members of this Committee, who are duly elected representatives of the people of the United States, as well as members of the committee of oversight for the Department of Justice. USA Today reported on June 28, 2004, that the Justice Department issued a memo in August 2002 that “specifically authorized the CIA to use ‘waterboarding,’” an interrogation technique that is designed to make a prisoner believe he is suffocating. This memo is reportedly classified and has not been released. According to USA Today: “Initially, the Office of Legal Counsel was assigned the task of approving specific interrogation techniques, but high-ranking Justice Department officials intercepted the CIA request, and the matter was handled by top officials in the deputy attorney general’s office and Justice's criminal division.” So while former Administration officials grant press interviews and write opinion articles denying wrongdoing; while the White House and Justice Department hold closed briefings for the media to disavow the reasoning of this previously relied upon memoranda and to characterize what happened; Senators of the United States are denied basic information and access to the facts. I would hope that the significance of such unilateralism and arrogance shown to the Congress and to its oversight committees will register with each and every member of this Committee.

I have long said that somewhere in the upper reaches of this Administration a process was set in motion that rolled forward until it produced this scandal. To put this scandal behind us, first we need to understand what happened. We cannot get to the bottom of this until there is a clear picture of what happened at the top. It is the responsibility of this Committee to investigate these documents, from genesis to final approval, within the Department. The memos must be subject to public scrutiny, and we will continue to demand their release.

There is ample evidence that American officials, both military and CIA, have used extremely harsh interrogation techniques overseas, and that many prisoners have died in our custody. Administration officials admit that 37 foreign prisoners have died in captivity, and several of these cases are under investigation, some as homicides. On June 17, David Passaro, a CIA contractor, was indicted for assault for beating an Afghan detainee with a large flashlight. The prisoner, who had surrendered at the gates of a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, died in custody on June 21, 2003, just days before I received a letter from the Bush Administration saying that our Government was in full compliance with the Torture Convention.

Some individuals who committed abusive acts are being punished, as they must be. But what of those who gave the orders, set the tone or looked the other way? What of the White House and Pentagon lawyers who tried to justify the use of torture in their legal arguments? The White House has now disavowed the analysis contained in the August 1, 2002, memo signed by Jay Bybee, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel. That memo, which was sent to the White House Counsel, argued that for acts to rise to the level of torture, they must go on for months or even years, or be so severe as to generate the type of pain that would result from organ failure or even death. The White House and DOJ now call that memo “irrelevant” and “unnecessary” and say that DOJ will spend weeks rewriting its analysis.

As we all know, on June 22, 2004, the White House released a few hundreds of pages of documents — a self-serving and highly selective subset of materials. The documents that were released raised more questions than they answered. Now, more than two weeks later, none of those issues have been resolved.

For example, the White House released a January 2002 memo signed by President Bush calling for the humane treatment of detainees. Did the President sign any orders or directives after January 2002? Did he sign any with regard to prisoners in Iraq?

Why did Secretary Rumsfeld issue and later rescind tough interrogation techniques? And how did these interrogation techniques come to be used in Iraq, where the Administration maintains that it has followed the Geneva Conventions?

Where is the remaining 95 percent of material requested by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Why is the White House withholding relevant documents produced after April 2003?

I was gratified that the Senate on June 23 passed an amendment that I offered to the Defense Authorization Bill that will clarify U.S. policy with regard to the treatment of prisoners and increase transparency. But the stonewalling continues: The Pentagon opposes this amendment. I am hopeful that we will prevail in keeping this provision in the bill. Five Republican Senators supported the amendment against an attempt to table it. Three of those are members of this Committee, Senators Specter, DeWine, and Graham. They were joined by Senators McCain and Hagel. I thank each of them. I also want to commend the Senate for adopting, also as part of the Defense Authorization Bill, the Durbin amendment against torture, and I want to acknowledge an important step taken in the House on the same day. The House Appropriations Committee added language to the 2005 Justice Department spending bill that would prohibit any department official or contractor from providing legal advice that could support or justify use of torture.

As it completed its term, the Supreme Court issued its decisions in highly significant cases involving the legal status of so-called “enemy combatants.” The Court reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as a check and a balance, as the Constitution intends, on power grabs by the Executive Branch. The Court ruled that the Bush Administration’s assertion that the President can hold suspects incommunicado, indefinitely and without charge, is as arrogant as are its legal arguments that the President can authorize torture. No President is above the law or the Constitution. The Court properly rejected the Administration’s plea to ‘just trust us’ and repudiated its assertion of unchecked power.

This Committee continues to fall short in its oversight responsibilities. President Bush has said he wants the whole truth, but he and his administration instead have circled the wagons to forestall adequate oversight. The President must order all relevant agencies to release the memos from which these policies were devised. There needs to be a thorough, independent investigation of the actions of those involved, from the people who committed abuses, to the officials who set these policies in motion. Only when these actions are taken will we begin to heal the damage that has been done.

We need to get to the bottom of this scandal if we are to play our proper role in improving security for all Americans, both here at home and around the world.

# # # # #

Talley Sergent

Press Assistant

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

(202) 224-6101

(202) 224-1515 (fax)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For More Information Contact:

July 8, 2004 Sarah Ross Little (202) 224-4774

Wendy Morigi (202) 224-6101

MEDIA ADVISORY–REVISED SCHEDULE

NEW TIME AND ROOM CHANGE

CHAIRMAN ROBERTS AND VICE CHAIRMAN ROCKEFELLER TO RELEASE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’S REPORT ON

PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE ON IRAQ

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) will release to the public the Committee’s Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq on Friday, July 9, 2004.

The Senators will hold a news conference following a pen and pad background briefing by committee staff. The text of the report will be available at 10:30 am EST on the Senate Select Committee’s Website at: http://intelligence.senate.gov/

Friday July 9, 2004

9:30 am EST: Pen and Pad Background Briefing with Intelligence Committee Staff:

Bill Duhnke, Staff Director & Andy Johnson, Minority Staff Director

(No Cameras)

Conclusions and Table of Contents will be distributed and embargoed for 10:30 am EDT

S-207

10:30 am EST: News Conference with Senators Roberts and Rockefeller

(Text of report will be posted online )

Senate Radio/TV Gallery

With questions, please contact Sarah Ross Little, Press Secretary for Chairman Roberts or Wendy Morigi Communications Director for Vice Chairman Rockefeller.

-30-

Senate Passes Leahy-Led Initiative

That Helps Off-Duty Police Protect Public

[WASHINGTON (Thursday, July 8) – A measure co-authored by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that allows off-duty and retired police officers to carry firearms across state lines for public safety and self-defense purposes now has cleared the House and Senate and goes to the President’s desk to be signed into law. Leahy said the President will sign the bill. The ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leahy co-authored the Senate’s version, the Campbell-Leahy Bill, and has led the efforts to win its approval by the Senate. The new law will allow interstate authorization for certain off-duty and retired officers who meet safety criteria to carry firearms across state lines when they travel. The bill passed by the Senate late Wednesday was a House companion bill to the Leahy measure. Leahy’s statement on the passage of the legislation is below, along with a news backgrounder on the bill.]

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy

On SENATE PASSAGE OF “The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act,” h.r. 218

JULY 7, 2004

MR. LEAHY: Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up and passing today the “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act,” H.R. 218, which was passed overwhelmingly by the House last month by voice vote. I have waited a long time to see this action taken.

I want to pay special thanks to Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, the author of this bill, and my good friend Senator Campbell, with whom I cosponsored the Senate companion bill, S. 253, for their leadership and fortitude while negotiating this legislation. Without their perseverance and commitment, passage of this bill would not have happened. In fact, Representative Cunningham has been tirelessly working for over a decade to push this legislation and I commend him for his dedication to making our communities safer and providing better protection for our law enforcement personnel.

During his time in the Senate, Senator Campbell has been a leader in the area of law enforcement and brings with him invaluable experience. As a former deputy sheriff, he knows the difficulties and dangers law enforcement officers face due to the patchwork of conceal-carry laws in State and local jurisdictions. He and I have worked together on several pieces of law enforcement legislation, such as the Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grant Acts of 1998, 2000 and 2003. It has been a privilege working with him on our bipartisan Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.

Law enforcement officers are never “off-duty.” They are dedicated public servants trained to uphold the law and keep the peace. To enable law enforcement officers nationwide to be prepared to answer a call to duty no matter where, when or in what form it comes, I am proud to join Senator Campbell and 69 other cosponsors, including Judiciary Chairman Hatch, Democratic Leader Daschle, Assistant Democratic Leader Reid, Majority Leader Frist and Assistant Majority Leader McConnell, on the Senate version of the “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act,” S. 253, which was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2003 by a vote of 18-1. Both H.R. 218 and S. 253 will permit off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry a firearm and be prepared to assist in dangerous situations.

These bills are strongly supported by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), the International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO), the Law Enforcement Alliance of America and the National Law Enforcement Council.

I was honored to work closely on this measure with the former FOP National President, Lieutenant Steve Young, whose death last year was a sad loss for us all. Steve was dedicated to this legislation because he understood the importance of having law enforcement officers across the nation armed and prepared whenever and wherever threats to our public safety arise. I have continued my close work with the FOP and current National President, Major Chuck Canterbury, to make this legislation law.

Community policing and the outstanding work of so many law enforcement officers play a vital role in our crime control efforts. Unfortunately, during the past few years the downward trend in violent crime – specifically murder – ended and violent crime rates have turned upward. The FBI has reported that while preliminary numbers show that violent crime overall declined slightly in the first half of 2003, murders increased by 1.3 percent compared with the year before.

There are more than 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers currently serving in the United States. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 17,200 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Over 1,700 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty over the last decade, an average of 170 deaths per year. Roughly 5 percent of officers who die are killed while taking law enforcement action in an off-duty capacity. On average, more than 62,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted annually.

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act creates a mechanism by which qualified active-duty law enforcement officers would be permitted to travel interstate with a firearm, subject to certain limitations, provided that officers are carrying their official badges and photographic identification. An active-duty officer may carry a concealed firearm under this measure if he or she is authorized to engage in or supervise any violation of law; is authorized to use a firearm by the agency, meets agency standards to regularly use a firearm; and is not prohibited from carrying by Federal, State or local law. This measure would not interfere with any officer’s right to carry a concealed firearm on private or government property while on duty or on official business.

Off-duty and retired officers should also be permitted to carry their firearms across State and other jurisdictional lines, at no cost to taxpayers, in order to better serve and protect our communities. H.R. 218 would permit qualified law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers across the nation to carry concealed firearms in most situations. It preserves any State law that restricts concealed firearms on private property and any State law that restricts the possession of a firearm on State or local government property.

To qualify for the measure’s exemptions to permit a qualified off-duty law enforcement officer to carry a concealed firearm, notwithstanding the law of the State or political subdivision of the State, he or she must have authority to use a firearm by the law enforcement agency where he or she works; not be subject to any disciplinary action; satisfy every standard of the agency to regularly use a firearm; not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm; and carry a photo identification issued by the agency. The bill preserves any State law that restricts concealed firearms on private property, and any State law that restricts the possession of a firearm on State or local government property or park.

For a retired law enforcement officer to qualify for exemption from State laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms, he or she must have retired in good standing; have been qualified by the agency to carry or use a firearm; have been employed at least fifteen years as a law enforcement officer unless forced to retire due to a service-connected disability; have a non-forfeitable right to retirement plan benefits of the law enforcement agency; meet the same State firearms training and qualifications as an active officer; not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm; and be carrying a photo identification issued by the agency. Preserved would be any State law that permits restrictions of concealed firearms on private property, as well as any State law that restricts the possession of a firearm on State or local government property or park.

Last month, during the House Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 218, amendments were accepted to bar officers or retired police from carrying arms in other jurisdictions if they are under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance, and to require retired police to have proof they received arms training in the previous year before being permitted to carry concealed weapons. The bill was then reported out of Committee by a vote of 23-9 and passed overwhelmingly by the House.

Convicted criminals often have long and exacting memories. A law enforcement officer is a target in uniform and out, active or retired, on-duty or off-duty. The bipartisan Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act is designed to establish national measures of uniformity and consistency to permit trained and certified on-duty, off-duty or retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in most situations so that they may respond immediately to crimes across State and other jurisdictional lines, as well as to protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals.

I urge the Senate to take up and pass the bipartisan, commonsense Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, H.R. 218, as amended and passed by the House, to make our communities safer and better to protect law enforcement officers and their families.

# # # # #

News Backgrounder on

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

Provides National Protection to Qualified Law Enforcement Officers:

As passed by both the House and Senate, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (H.R. 218) will permit qualified active, off-duty and retired law enforcement officers across the nation to carry concealed firearms in most situations, provided they are carrying official badges and photo identification. The bipartisan legislation is designed to establish national standards for law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms so that they may respond immediately to crimes across State and other jurisdictional lines, as well as protect themselves and their families from vindictive criminals.

Overwhelming Bipartisan Support for Measure:

The House bill, sponsored by Congressman Duke Cunningham and cosponsored by 297 bipartisan House members, was reported out of Committee by a vote of 23-9 and passed overwhelmingly by the House last month. Leahy has worked for years on this measure, first in the 107th Congress as the lead sponsor of a measure. In this Congress, Senators Campbell and Leahy, joined by a bipartisan group of 68 senators, sponsored the Senate companion bill, S. 253. It was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last year by a vote of 18-1. In March 2004 the Senate bill was offered as an amendment to the gun liability legislation and received overwhelming support in a vote of 91 – 8. This overwhelming support set the stage for last night’s acceptance of the House bill. Both bills are supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers.

Off-Duty Officers Are Killed While Doing Their Jobs

An average of 170 law enforcement officers die in the line of duty each year -- over 1,700 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in the last decade. Roughly 5 percent of officers who die are killed while taking law enforcement action in an off-duty capacity. On average, more than 62,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted annually. There are more than 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers currently serving in the United States.

Measure Preserves States’ Laws

The law preserves State laws that restrict concealed firearms on private property and possession of a firearm on State or local government property. The law creates a mechanism by which qualified officers would be permitted to travel interstate with a firearm. This measure would not interfere with any officer’s right to carry a concealed firearm on private or government property while on duty or on official business.

Protects Active Duty Officers:

An active-duty officer may carry a concealed firearm under this measure if he or she is authorized to engage in or supervise any violation of law, is authorized to use a firearm by the agency, meets agency standards to regularly use a firearm, and is not prohibited from carrying by Federal, State or local law.

Protects Qualified Off-Duty Law Enforcement Officers:

An off-duty law enforcement officer is permitted to carry a concealed firearm under this measure as long as he or she has the authority to use a firearm by the law enforcement agency, is not the subject of any disciplinary action, and satisfies every standard of the agency to regularly use a firearm.

Protects Qualified Retired Officers:

Under this measure, a retired law enforcement officer can qualify to carry a concealed firearm as long as the officer retired in good standing and has been qualified by the agency to carry or use a firearm. Qualified retired officers must also have been employed at least 15 years as a law enforcement officer without being forced to retire due to a service-connected disability, maintain the same training and qualifications as active duty officers and not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

Safety Standards Must Be Met:

Officers or retired police are barred from carrying arms in other jurisdictions if they are under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance. Retired officers are also required to have proof they received arms training in the previous year before being permitted to carry concealed weapons.

# # # # #

CONTACT: David Carle / 202 224 3693

Tracy Schmaler / 202 224 2154

THURSDAY, July 8, 2004

Statement of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle

On the Transportation Bill

Mr. President, this week I’ve been talking about a fundamental standard to guide our debates in the Senate. As we do our work, we need to ask a simple question: “Are we doing right by America?”

We need to ask that question on policies affecting farmers, seniors, and veterans. And we always need to ask whether we’re doing right by American families when it comes to economic policies.

While the economy has finally started adding jobs these past few months, this comes after two-and-a-half years in which the economy lost jobs every month.

What is clear to many of us is that we still have a long way to go, and we need to do more to help improve our economy. That is one of the main reasons it is so unfortunate that we have not completed the long-overdue transportation reauthorization bill – legislation that expired at the end of last September.

The ability to plan how roads and bridges will be built has suffered greatly due to Congress’s failure to get this bill completed on time. Well over 100,000 jobs have been lost due to this delay. And each month that we don’t complete our work brings more job losses.

Job creation will suffer, too – in South Dakota and across the country. In South Dakota, because our construction season is short, there is not enough time to plan ahead and put people to work, even if we passed a bill today.

But we will not pass a bill today.

Earlier this year, on February 12, the Senate passed S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act. It was passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 76 to 21. The Senate bill would authorize $318 billion over 6 years and is revenue-neutral. It is fully paid for and does not increase gas taxes.

Nearly 400 organizations, representing the full spectrum of transportation interests, all support the Senate funding level. The Chamber of Commerce, the Associated General Contractors, the governors, the state legislators ... the list goes on and on – all attest to the need for this kind of infrastructure investment.

The Senate bill would create over 1.7 million jobs – new, good jobs for the millions of Americans who are looking for work. In South Dakota, the Senate bill would create over 6,500 jobs. It would also provide for important transportation needs on our rural roads and Native American reservations, and would allow us to move forward with high-priority projects in towns like Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Yankton, and Pierre. These are important projects that simply will not get completed without the assistance of the federal government.

One might ask: “What was the Bush Administration’s response to the Senate’s bipartisan job-creating bill?”

A veto threat.

Hardly the answer that Republicans and Democrats alike were hoping for. Hardly the response that the economy needs. And hardly the response that the infrastructure deficit we have in this country cries out for.

Fast forward to April 2. After a bipartisan House plan to offer a bill at a $375 billion level was scuttled by the Bush Administration and the Republican House leadership, the House passed H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act. This bill authorizes only $284 billion over 6 years, and is not fully paid for.

Again, one might ask: “What was the Bush Administration’s response to the House bill?” If it didn’t like the original bipartisan House proposal at $375 billion, and it didn’t like the bipartisan Senate bill at $318 billion, how about the reduced bipartisan House bill at $284 billion?

Another veto threat. Again, hardly the answer that House and Senate Republicans and Democrats were hoping for from their President. And hardly the response the economy needs.

Fast forward one more time to June 23, when the Senate conferees voted in the conference committee meeting with the House to resolve the differences between the two bills. The Senate made a formal offer to the House in the amount of $318 billion and requested that the House respond to the offer at the next meeting on July 7. So, yesterday, after two weeks’ time, the House and Senate met again.

There had been hopeful signs that the House conferees might be prepared to accept the Senate’s funding level, and many of us thought we might have a breakthrough that would move the bill forward. But what did we hear yesterday? The House was not yet prepared to respond to the Senate’s offer.

What is clear to many of us is that unless the White House and the Republican leadership in the House release their stranglehold on House conferees, we will not have a transportation bill this year.

Transportation has almost always been – and has been in the Senate again this year – a bipartisan priority. Chairman Inhofe has done a superb job of guiding the bill forward. But he cannot do it alone.

I remain hopeful that the Bush Administration will realize that our economy, our infrastructure, and American families need and deserve a good transportation bill. A bill that will create good jobs and provide the investments in our nation’s infrastructure that are so desperately needed.

We need more than a President who simply says “no” – a President who says he will veto a final transportation bill with either the Senate or the House spending levels. By continuing to say “no,” the President jeopardizes 1.7 million new jobs in our nation and 6,500 jobs in South Dakota alone. He puts at risk necessary improvements for rural and Native American roads.

Next Tuesday, there will be another meeting of the conferees. I hope this critical issue of the investment level will be resolved, and that we can get on with the business the American people expect us to conduct.

If we ask ourselves – “are we doing right by America on this transportation bill?” – the answer is that the Senate has done right. The House has made a good effort. But, unfortunately, without the President’s constructive participation, we cannot complete the assignment. We will not have a transportation bill. We will not create needed jobs. We will be failing the American people.

I urge all Americans to let their representatives in the House know, and let the President know, that we cannot afford to fail when it comes to this important bill. We can do better, and I remain hopeful that the President will confront the challenge, reverse his continued opposition, and join the Senate is supporting a transportation bill that makes sense for our country.

I yield the floor.

###

democrats.senate.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Maureen Knightly/ Jennifer Carrier

July 8, 2004 202.224.3254

HARKIN ANNOUNCES RESOURCES FOR SMALLER LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT IOWA HIGH SCHOOLS

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As part of his continuing efforts to boost Iowa education, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced today that four Iowa communities will receive more than $1.2 million through the Smaller Learning Communities Program.

“To ensure a prosperous future for Iowa communities we must provide all of our kids with the best possible education,” Harkin said. “These funds help large Iowa high schools build smaller learning communities and offer more personalized, stronger education opportunities.”

Funds from the Department of Education will be awarded to:

North Scott Community School District - $48,500 to plan for smaller classrooms at North Scott High School as students and teachers are looking for a more engaging learning environment.

Sioux City Community School District - $150,000 to help students at East High School, North High School, West High School and Central Campus by improving literacy, math and science education in smaller classrooms.

Waterloo Community School District - $700,000 for East High School and West High School to increase graduation rates, tutoring programs and parental involvement through more personalized education efforts.

West Des Moines School District - $400,000 to develop smaller learning communities for students at Valley High School who are behind academic expectations. The funding will also expand career and technical opportunities.

Harkin is the ranking Democrat on the appropriations subcommittee that funds education initiatives.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FOR MORE INFORMATION

Wednesday CONTACT: Barry E. Piatt

July 7, 2004 PHONE: 202-224-1191

10:00 AM, Friday, July 9:

SENATE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S MERCURY EMISSION PROPOSAL

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) --- The U.S. Senate Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) will conduct an oversight hearing Friday, July 9 on the Bush Administration's mercury emissions proposal. The hearing will begin at 10:00 AM and will be held in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The hearing will examine how the Bush Administration developed the proposal, despite Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents that raised serious questions about the effectiveness of the proposed rule. It will also hear testimony on the significant health risks posed by mercury to the public, especially pregnant women and children.

Witnesses will include state and local government officials, former EPA officials, business groups and representatives of the sport fishing community.

Details follow:

WHO: Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who will chair the hearing; Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Mark Dayton (D-MN).

Witnesses:

Bradley Campbell, Commissioner of Environmental Protection for the State of New Jersey; Lynn Goldman, Professor at the School of Public Health at John Hopkins University and the former Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the EPA; John Paul, Supervisor of the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton, Ohio, and a member of the EPA's Clean Air Advisory Committee; David Foerter, Executive Director for the Institute for Clean Air Companies; and Scott Sparlin, President of the New Ulm Area Sportfishermen in Minnesota.

WHAT: DPC oversight hearing on the Bush Administration's proposal on Mercury Emissions.

WHEN: 10:00 AM, Friday, July 9, 2004

WHERE: Room 562 Dirksen Senate Office Building; U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

WHY: To examine the public health risks posed by mercury and the Bush Administration's proposal for controlling mercury emissions.

-- END --

THURSDAY, June 8, 2004

Statement of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle

On the Transportation Bill

Mr. President, I have been talking for some time about moving forward, about how we can strengthen our economy and create new jobs and build a brighter future for our nation.

As I've talked, I think we need to continue to ask: Are we doing right by America? Are we doing right for working families?

While the economy has finally started adding more jobs, this is only after two-and-a-half years in which our economy lost jobs every month.

What is clear to many of us is that we need to do all that we can to improve the economy. That is one of the main reasons why it is so unfortunate that we have not completed the long-overdue transportation reauthorization bill - legislation that expired at the end of last September.

The simple inability to plan how roads and bridges will be built and how states can maintain their transportation infrastructure has suffered greatly due to the inability to get this bill competed on time. In fact, well over 100,000 jobs have been lost -jobs have been lost - due to this delay. And each month that we don't complete work brings more jobs losses.

In South Dakota, for example, there are also jobs that will not be created this year. They won't be created because our construction season is short and there is not time to plan ahead even if we passed a bill today.

But we will not pass a bill today.

Earlier this year, On February 12th, the Senate passed S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act. It was passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 76 to 21. The Senate bill would authorize $318 billion over six years and is revenue-neutral. It is fully paid for and does so without increasing gas taxes.

The Senate bill would create over 1.7 million jobs - new, good jobs for the millions of Americans who are looking for work. In South Dakota, the Senate bill would create over 6,500 jobs and provide for important transportation needs on our rural roads, on Native American reservations, and for important high priority projects in towns like Sioux Falls, Rapid City, Yankton, and Pierre. These are important projects that simply will not, can not, get completed without the assistance of the federal government.

What, one might ask: "What was the Bush Administration's response to this bipartisan job-creating bill?"

A threatened veto.

Hardly the answer that Republicans and Democrats alike were hoping for from their Administration. Hardly the response that not only the economy, but the infrastructure deficit that we have in this country cries out for.

Fast forward to April 2, after the bipartisan plan to offer a bill at the $375 billion level was scuttled by the Bush Administration and the Republican House leadership, the House of Representatives passes H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act. The House, however, only authorized $284 billion over six years, and is not fully paid for.

Again, one might ask: What was the Bush Administration's response to the House bill?" If they didn't like the original bipartisan House proposal at $375 billion, and they said the President would veto the bipartisan Senate bill at $318 billion - how about the reduced bipartisan House bill at $284 billion?

Again, hardly the answer that Republicans and Democrats alike were hoping from their President. Hardly the response that not only the economy, but the infrastructure deficit that we have in this country cries out for. The President, his staff say, would veto the reduced House bill as well.

Some thought that perhaps there were powerful interest groups that persuaded the Bush Administration to abandon the job-creating bill and the benefit it could do for our economy. But no. In fact, nearly 400 organizations representing the gamut of transportation interest all support getting a bill done at the Senate level. The Chamber of Commerce, the Associated General Contractors, the governors, the state legislators ... the list goes on and on - all support getting a bill done with adequate investment levels.

Fast forward one more time to June 23rd when the Senate conferees actually voted in the conference committee meeting with the House to resolve the differences between the two bills. The Senate made a formal offer to the House in the amount of $318 billion and requested that the House respond to the offer at the next meeting on July 7. So, yesterday, after two weeks time, the House and Senate met again. Finally, many of us thought we might have a breakthrough to move the bill forward. But what did we hear? The House was not yet prepared to respond.

What is clear to many of us is that unless the White House and the Republican leadership in the House releases their stranglehold on House conferees, we will not have a transportation bill this year.

Transportation has, by and large, always been and has been in the Senate this year, a bipartisan endeavor. Chairman Inhofe has done a superb job of guiding the bill forward. But he can not do it alone.

I am hopeful that the Bush Administration will take a leadership role and realize that our economy, our infrastructure and American families need and deserve a good transportation bill. A bill that will create good jobs and provide the needed investments in our nation's infrastructure that are so desperately needed.

We need more than a President "No" saying he will veto a final transportation bill with either the Senate or House spending levels. By continuing to say NO, the President jeopardizes 1.7 million new jobs in our nation and 6,500 jobs in South Dakota alone. He risks providing the needed improvements in rural roads and Native American roads.

Next week, on Tuesday, there is another meeting of the conferees. I am hopeful that this critical issue of the investment level will be resolved and that we can get on with the business that the American people want us to do.

If we ask ourselves: "Are we doing right by America on this transportation bill?" The answer is that the Senate has done right. The answer is that the House made a good effort. But unfortunately, the answer is also that without the President's leadership, we will not be doing right in the long run. We will not have a transportation bill. We will not create needed jobs. We will be failing the American people.

We can do better, and I remain hopeful that the President will take up the challenge, change is continued opposition and lead us down the road the a transportation bill that makes sense for our country.

I yield the floor.

###

democrats.senate.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For More Information Contact:

July 8, 2004 Sarah Ross Little (202) 224-4774

Wendy Morigi (202) 224-6101

MEDIA ADVISORY–REVISED SCHEDULE

NEW TIME AND ROOM CHANGE

CHAIRMAN ROBERTS AND VICE CHAIRMAN ROCKEFELLER TO RELEASE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’S REPORT ON

PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE ON IRAQ

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) will release to the public the Committee’s Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq on Friday, July 9, 2004.

The Senators will hold a news conference followed by a pen and pad background briefing by committee staff. The text of the report will be available at 10:30 am EST on the Senate Select Committee’s Website at: http://intelligence.senate.gov/

Friday July 9, 2004

9:30 am EST: Pen and Pad Background Briefing with Intelligence Committee Staff:

Bill Duhnke, Staff Director

& Andy Johnson, Minority Staff Director

(No Cameras)

Conclusions and Table of Contents will be distributed and embargoed for 10:30 am EDT

S-207

10:30 am EST: News Conference

with Senators Roberts and Rockefeller

(Text of report will be posted online )

Senate Radio/TV Gallery

With questions, please contact Sarah Ross Little, Press Secretary for Chairman Roberts or Wendy Morigi Communications Director for Vice Chairman Rockefeller.

-30-

Sarah (Ross) Little

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Kansas

202-224-4774

202-224-3514 fax

sarah_little@roberts.senate.gov

109 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

[WASHINGTON (Thursday, July 8) – The Senate Judiciary Committee delayed a vote Thursday on the controversial nomination of Claude Allen to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite objections from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Democratic ranking member of the panel, and other Democratic members, Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said the committee would reconvene Friday to take a vote. Leahy’s remarks on the Allen nomination from the panel’s meeting this morning follows.]

Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy

On The Nomination of Claude Allen

Executive Business Meeting of the Judiciary Committee

July 8, 2004

For more than 200 years, advice and consent has helped to temper partisan politics in the judicial nomination process. It has protected the courts and the American people from single-party domination, and it has helped ensure that those who become federal judges are fair judges who reflect mainstream legal thought. Historically, Democrats and Republicans alike have guarded the protections of the advice and consent process. They have done so because they have recognized the seriousness of the task we perform when we confirm a judge to a lifetime appointment, bestowing on him or her what is often unchecked power. Democrats and Republicans also have -- at one time or another -- sought the protections of the process. The result has been that we have had a federal bench that has served us extraordinarily well over the course of our republic. Our independent federal judiciary is the envy of the entire world.

The history of the 108th Congress, however, is a history of changed practices and broken rules. Over the last year and a half, we have seen the systematic dismantling of the protections upon which we all had come to rely. Republicans have rushed to confirm extreme nominees who do not reflect the mainstream values of the American people. To do this, they have had to discard many of the protections that have historically helped to ensure a fair and independent judiciary.

The Chairman has changed his blue slip policy so that even two negative blue slips from both home-state Senators no longer are sufficient to prevent action on a controversial nominee. The longstanding rule had been that no judge would move out of this Committee if the Chair knew that the nomination was opposed by both home-state Senators. When this rule was used to block President Clinton’s nominees, it was followed faithfully by the Republican majority. Indeed, it was extended by Republicans so that an objection by a single Republican Senator was sufficient cause to end a nomination without a hearing and without a vote. As soon as the traditional practice threatened to forestall an extreme Bush nominee, it was discarded. The unfortunate decision of the Chairman to go ahead with the nominations of Carolyn Kuhl, Henry Saad, David McKeague and Richard Griffin is proof of that.

The Chairman also changed his interpretation of Rule 4 of this Committee, which protects the minority’s right to a debate on any subject. This rule allows any member of the Committee to object to a matter coming to a vote. To override that objection, at least one member of the minority party must vote with the majority in favor of ending debate and moving forward to a vote. In the past, the Chairman had properly interpreted and implemented this rule. Rule 4 was an important protection against single-party domination and extremism. Like the blue slip, it was a protection that was best utilized to encourage discussion and cooperation. It was most important to prevent unnecessary confrontations and divisive partisanship. But, like the blue slip policy, when Rule 4 stood as a potential obstacle to a Bush nominee, it was promptly reinterpreted. And now – today -- this Committee is dismantling another critical part of the judicial nomination process. The Chairman has decided to hold a Committee vote on the nomination of Claude Allen of Virginia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Virginia is currently represented by two Republican Senators, both of whom support this nominee. I respect their views and have worked with them when I chaired this Committee to expedite consideration of several Virginia nominees. Roger Gregory was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Henry Hudson was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Timothy Stanceau, to the Court of International Trade. This year, we cooperated in filling two more vacancies on the district courts in Virginia with the confirmation of Glen Conrad to the Western District and the approval in Committee of Walter Kelley to the Eastern District. So well have we worked together that there are no vacancies at all on the federal courts in Virginia. None.

We worked well to fill vacancies all over the Fourth Circuit, not just in Virginia. Of the five nominees to the Fourth Circuit President Bush has sent to the Senate, three have been confirmed to date. Roger Gregory is one, but also Dennis Shedd, a highly controversial nominee from South Carolina, and Allyson Duncan, from North Carolina. I know that now the President and his campaign want to make a political issue out of a few nominees from North Carolina, but the truth is that Senator Edwards deserves much credit for breaking the logjam with respect to North Carolina seats on the Fourth Circuit. His successful efforts to bring someone like Judge Duncan to the bench stand in stark contrast to the way the Republican Senate treated President Clinton’s nominees to this circuit, when four African-American nominees were blocked. Two, Judge James Beaty and Judge James Wynn, were from North Carolina, and were never even given a hearing. I don’t think the President bothered to meet with them yesterday and explain why they never received any consideration. A third, Judge Andre Davis, was a Marylander who was given the same shabby treatment. I am proud that Senator Edwards sought to be constructive and did better than Senator Jesse Helms, and I am proud that we did better for the Fourth Circuit as a whole while I was Chairman. Unfortunately, cooperation is in short supply these days when it means trying to get any from the current Administration. This President would rather divide the Senate and the American people and use judicial appointments as a wedge political issue.

Working with this Administration has been difficult for the Maryland Senators as well. The seat for which Mr. Allen has been nominated is a Maryland seat, pure and simple. It was last held by Judge Francis Murnaghan of Baltimore, about whom Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski have spoken so movingly in this Committee. I know that Judge Murnaghan was a brilliant and compassionate jurist. He practiced law for 30 years, including as Assistant Attorney General and as Assistant to the General Counsel to the High Commissioner for Germany, before being named to the federal bench. The Baltimore Sun said of Judge Murnaghan after his death in 2000: “[I]f a theme runs through Francis D. Murnaghan’s career, it is using the law to realize the American people’s constitutional freedoms.” Judge Murnaghan was a fair jurist with mainstream views. He was also a lifelong Marylander.

In 2000, President Clinton nominated another Marylander, Andre M. Davis, an African-American district court judge from Baltimore, to fill Judge Murnaghan’s seat. This Committee, under Republican control, refused to act on the nomination. At the time, Republicans claimed that the Fourth Circuit did not need any more judges, even though there were five vacancies on the 15-member court. But, true to form, as soon as President Bush was elected, the Republican majority reversed its field.

The White House originally recognized that Judge Murnaghan’s seat was rightfully a Maryland seat. There were no charts about the distribution of the Fourth Circuits seats by states, no recalculations based on new statistics, no argument at all that the seat should be filled by someone who at the very least lived in Maryland. There were, however, two nominees -- one only marginally a Marylander, not even a member of the Maryland Bar -- and the other a very controversial and political choice whose eventual nomination to the D.C. Circuit has proved so problematic.

The Maryland Senators, as is their right when protecting the interests of their State, rejected these proposals and asked the White House to find a better, more qualified candidate. They did not ask for a Democratic appointee. They have explained to this Committee that they understood it would be a Republican, even a conservative Republican. All they asked was that the candidate be well respected, have years of experience, and have strong ties to Maryland and its legal community. This was not an unreasonable request. It is what any one of us would ask for our state. It is what the Maryland State Bar Association asked of the President. But it was a request that was ignored.

Instead of choosing from among the many outstanding Republican lawyers in Maryland, the White House decided it would rather work with Republican Senators from Virginia than to have to reach consensus with the Senators from Maryland. Only this White House could go so far afield as to propose a Virginian who works in Washington and who used to staff a Republican Senator from North Carolina, to fill a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit.

This seat has traditionally been a Maryland seat and it should remain so. Maryland accounts for approximately 20 percent of the population of the Fourth Circuit. By this traditional measure for the allocation of judgeships, Maryland should have three seats on the Fourth Circuit. We use the yardstick of population because it accounts for the impact of the law on all of the people of the circuit, regardless of how many lawsuits happened to originate in their states. The idea of proportional representation on the circuit courts is only meaningful if counted this way. Otherwise it runs counter to our belief that each state has distinct interests and concerns that require a presence on each of the circuit courts.

The White House, as Senator Hatch’s chief counsel showed us in his chart at our last business meeting, now contends that it is following some new kind of formula that, according to the caseload distribution of the Fourth Circuit, requires another Virginia seat. This formula was nowhere in evidence when they tried to force unacceptable Marylanders on the Maryland Senators, but it conveniently surfaced when they came up with the idea of going around them by nominating a Virginian. Unfortunately for the supporters of taking the Maryland seat away, their numbers, even based on faulty assumptions, do more to prove our point than theirs. According to these numbers, any inequity among the states in the Fourth Circuit should not be addressed by giving a Maryland seat to Virginia, but by adjusting the numbers of judges between South Carolina and North Carolina. That is where we see the most pronounced inequity. If you believe that the current slight under-representation of Virginia also needs correction, the numbers further show that the change should come at the expense of a West Virginia seat, not a Maryland seat. Based on the chart we were given at the last markup, Maryland is actually the least overrepresented state, and therefore the least deserving of having a seat taken away from it.

The formula Senator Hatch advocates would have an interesting affect on a number of other circuits as well as the Fourth. In the Second Circuit, it would take a seat from Connecticut and give it to New York; in the Third Circuit, Delaware would give a seat to Pennsylvania, and in the Fifth, Texas would gain two from Louisiana. In the Tenth Circuit, Senator Hatch’s standard would have Utah, which is overrepresented, giving a seat to Oklahoma, which is far more underrepresented according to these caseload statistics than Virginia. And in the Eleventh Circuit, this method of judge distribution would benefit Florida, which would gain one seat from Alabama and another from Georgia.

All this is really to say that the numbers presented to us last week are an attempt at an after-the-fact justification for the nomination of a Virginian to a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit, and are really only a smokescreen for the real motivation, which is this Administration’s craven campaign to make the federal judiciary a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. If we allow this judgeship to move to Virginia, this Committee will have acquiesced in the White House ploy to move circuit vacancies around to avoid having to allow balance or to consult with home-state Senators. There will be nothing to stop them from rearranging any circuit at will. These are among the dangers that the power of advice and consent was designed to protect against.

In addition to these procedural difficulties, this nomination has many problems on the merits. This nominee could not be more different from the man he would replace. Claude Allen is a conservative political operative with little litigation experience and extreme views. He has practiced law for a total of six and a half years. This is much less than the minimum 12 years suggested by the American Bar Association. This may be one reason why the ABA’s peer review rating of this nomination included partially “not qualified.” He is among the more than two dozen judicial nominees with “not qualified’ or partially “not qualified” ratings sent to the Senate by this President.

Where Mr. Allen has had substantive experience, he has shown himself to be extreme with a reputation for recalcitrance and an unwillingness to work with others of differing views. A judge needs to be able to consider facts and legal arguments that might contradict the outcome he would personally like. I have a number of questions about Mr. Allen’s actions, including when he served at the Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources and apparently refused to promote the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and whether he used audits of safe-sex programs to strike out at critics and at programs with which he personally did not agree.

This is not a consensus nomination. Rather, this is one that the White House has chosen with calculation, knowing it would divide the Senate and create an impasse. As one journalist put it, Mr. Allen has infuriated “liberals and moderates of both parties who say he is at best an unresponsive manager and at worst an executive who is trying to dismantle longstanding programs for women and children. . . [m]any lawmakers, including those in his own party, said they do not trust Allen to provide data and insight.”

Rather than work with the distinguished Senators from Maryland to find a consensus nominee to fill this vacancy, someone like Roger Titus who was confirmed unanimously to the federal court in Maryland, this nomination is another example of this Administration seeking to divide and insinuate partisan politics into the judicial nominations process.

When the Administration has been willing to work with the Senate, we have made progress. President George W. Bush has exceeded the number of judicial nominees of President Reagan confirmed in all four years of his first term, the number of judicial nominees of President Clinton confirmed in all four years of his second term, and the number of judicial nominees of his father during his four-year presidency. As of two days ago, the Senate had confirmed 198 of President Bush’s judicial nominees. One hundred judges were confirmed in the 17 months of the Democratic Senate majority and now 98 more have been confirmed in the 26 months of Republican leadership.

One would think that the White House and the Republicans in the Senate would be heralding these landmarks. One would think they would be congratulating themselves for putting more lifetime judges on the federal bench than President Reagan -- the all-time champ -- for placing nearly 200 judges on the bench. But Republicans have a different partisan message and truth is not consistent with their efforts. It does not serve their political aims to note that only a handful of the most extreme and controversial nominations have been denied consent by the Senate. It will not help them with their conservative base to acknowledge the reality that the Senate has proceeded at a record pace and achieved record numbers of judicial confirmations, or that we have reduced the number of judicial vacancies to record lows. Distortions and distractions are what they prefer.

I have repeatedly noted that the Democratic minority does not consent to proceeding on this nomination at this time. Before the 108th Congress, under our long-established rules and practices as we all have understood them before, this nomination would not have proceeded to a vote. But because the majority has changed them, and because of the President’s unfortunate decision to persist with this nomination, I will be forced to vote against the nomination of Claude Allen.

# # # # #

CONTACT: David Carle / 202 224 3693

Tracy Schmaler / 202 224 2154

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 8, 2004
Contact: Press Office
Phone: 202.228.3685

New CIA Response Shows Administration Exaggeration of
Intelligence

WASHINGTON â€“ Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., released the following statement today:

Tomorrowâ€™s report of the Senate Intelligence Committee will be intensely and extensively
critical of the CIA for its intelligence failures and mischaracterizations regarding Iraqâ€™s
possession of weapons of mass destruction. It is an accurate, hard-hitting and well-deserved
critique of the CIA. But it is only half of the picture. And this morning I am releasing an example
of the other half.

A few days ago the CIA finally answered in an unclassified form the question I have been
asking them about whether the Intelligence Community believes that the meeting between
Iraqi intelligence officials and Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, occurred in Prague in
the months before Al Qaedaâ€™s attack on America on 9/11. Their answer illustrates why it is so
important to understand that tomorrowâ€™s Intelligence Committee report does not address the
central issue of the Administrationâ€™s exaggerations of the intelligence that was provided to
them. That is left for the second phase of the Intelligence Committeeâ€™s investigation.

This newly released unclassified statement by the CIA demonstrates that it was the
Administration, not the CIA, that exaggerated the relations between Saddam Hussein and Al
Qaeda. The new CIA statement is attached and states that the CIA finds no credible
information that the April 2001, meeting occurred, and in fact, that it was unlikely that it did
occur.

On December 9, 2001, Tim Russert asked the Vice President whether Iraq was involved in the
September 11th attack. The Vice President replied: â€œWell, what we now have thatâ€™s developed
since we last talked, Tim, of course, was that report thatâ€“itâ€™s been pretty well confirmed that
he [Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi
intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.â€

President Bush frequently exaggerated the overall relationship between Al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein. For instance, on the deck of the aircraft carrier President Bush stated that
â€œThe liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. Weâ€™ve removed an
ally of Al Qaeda.â€ [emphasis added].

Relative to the alleged Prague meeting itself, Vice President Cheney continues this misleading
rhetoric by stating that we cannot prove one way or another that the so-called Prague
meeting occurred. Vice President Cheney said on June 17th on CNBC that: â€œWe have never
been able to prove that there was a connection there on 9/11. The one thing we had is the
Iraq â€“ the Czech intelligence service report saying that Mohamed Atta had met with a senior
Iraqi intelligence official at the embassy on April 9, 2001. Thatâ€™s never been proven; itâ€™s never
been refuted.â€ [emphasis added].

What the Vice President continues to leave out is the critical second half of the CIAâ€™s now
unclassified assessment that â€œalthough we cannot rule it out, we are increasingly skeptical
that such a meeting occurred.â€ [emphasis added]. And he also omits the key CIA now
unclassified statement that â€œIn the absence of any credible information that the April 2001
meeting occurred, we assess that Atta would have been unlikely to undertake the substantial
risk of contacting any Iraqi official as late as April 2001, with the plot already well along toward
execution.â€ [emphasis added]. And, as the 9/11 staff statement makes clear, he ignores
information gathered by the FBI placing Attta in the U.S. during the week of the alleged
meeting.

The American public was led to believe before the Iraq War that Iraq had a role in the 9/11
attack on America and that the actions of Al Qaeda and Iraq were â€œpart of the same threat,â€
as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has put it.

It was not the CIA that led to public to believe that.

It was the leaders of this Administration.

Four attachments:

Senator Levin: New CIA Response Raises Questions Again: Where Does Vice President
Cheney Get His Information?

Letter to Vice President Cheney, February 12, 2004

Response of Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, July 1, 2004

Unclassified Document: Fundamental Problems with How Intelligence Community is
Assessing Information

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington

Press Release
July 8, 2004
Contact:
Charla Neuman
202-224-8277, 202-309-3447

Cantwell: Will Ken Lay indictment bring

justice to Americans gouged by Enron?

Ken Lay indictment and documents on lobbying by Ken Lay and Enron for appointment of top federal energy regulators posted on Cantwell web site

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) today praised the Department of Justice Enron Task Force for its indictment of former Enron CEO Ken Lay but said that the nation’s top federal energy regulators had fallen down on the job by failing to provide justice to Americans gouged by Enron’s illegal energy market manipulation.

“Will this 65-page indictment lead to justice for Americans who were gouged by Enron’s illegal energy market manipulation?” Cantwell asked. “The Department of Justice has done its job. Why aren’t federal energy regulators doing theirs? Why are they sitting on their hands?”

Cantwell posted the Ken Lay indictment on her web site. She also posted documents showing that at the same time Enron traders were manipulating energy markets, Ken Lay lobbied for the appointment of federal energy regulators who would support Enron’s energy market deregulation schemes. The documents are available at http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/docs/kenlayindictment.pdf (the Ken Lay indictment) and http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/docs/kenlay.pdf (the lobbying letter and memo).

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has refused to take action to cancel Enron’s contracts with local utilities, such one with Snohomish PUD in Washington state. In fact, Enron is suing Snohomish for $122 million and other utilities in California and Nevada for another $500 million.

In a letter supporting the appointment of FERC Chairman Pat Wood and Commissioner Nora Brownell, Lay wrote, “any candidate should be a strong supporter of the need for FERC to continue its role in deregulating the electric industry.” Lay endorsed Wood, then Chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission, because he “supports free markets” and implemented the Texas deregulation plan. Lay supported Brownell because she “supports free markets and was the swing vote enabling Pennsylvania to open its electric markets to competition.”

In an internal Enron memo on the company’s lobbying efforts to appoint FERC members, Lay was told “Brownell is under consideration, mostly on the strength of Enron’s interest.” Lay was also told that Enron had “worked productively with Joe Kelliher” also now a FERC Commissioner. The memo concluded with a recommendation for “pitching the need for the Bush Administration to extract a very firm commitment to move forward on open access issues at FERC from their intended nominee.”

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kate Dando

July 8, 2004 (202) 224-5852

CAMPBELL DESIGNATES

AUGUST 8-14

NATIONAL HEALTH CENTER WEEK

WASHINGTON, D.C.- A resolution offered by Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) passed the Senate unanimously this week, making August 8, 2004 - August 14, 2004 “National Health Center Week.”

“Health centers contribute to the well-being of their communities by providing cost-effective, high quality health care to the Nation's poor and medically underserved," Campbell said. "I will be visiting a Colorado Health Center in August. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to visit and learn more about community health centers in their state during this week."

Craig Kennedy, of the National Association of Community Health Centers said, “We applaud the Senate for recognizing the important contribution of all health centers and proclaiming National Health Center Week this coming August. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell has once again proven to be a true champion for all health centers and the 15 million patients they serve each year. This is the earliest the Senate has acted on this proclamation in the past four years and we sincerely appreciate Senator Campbell's leadership in making this happen. We look forward to making this year's National Health Center Week celebration the largest and most widespread ever."

Health care centers provide care to Americans who would otherwise lack access to health care. About half of health center patients reside in rural areas, while the other half tend to live in economically depressed inner-city communities. One in five low income children receive their medical care in health centers.

###

Kate Dando

Press Secretary

U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

(202) 224-5852

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Howard Gantman

Thursday, July 8, 2004 or Scott Gerber 202/224-9629

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Feinstein Questions Shell’s Plans for Bakersfield Refinery

Encourages sale to willing buyer if necessary

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today questioned Shell Oil’s plan to close its Bakersfield refinery and its apparent failure to make a “good faith effort” to sell the plant to willing buyers so the gasoline supply can keep flowing.

In another development, the Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday disclosed that it has launched a formal antitrust investigation into the plant closure.

Following is the text of a letter Senator Feinstein sent to Lynn Laverty Elsenhans, President and CEO of Shell Oil Products US:

July 7, 2004

Ms. Lynn Laverty Elsenhans

President and CEO

Shell Oil Products US
One Shell Plaza

Houston, TX 77252

Dear Ms. Elsenhans:

Thank you for your letter dated June 30, 2004, regarding Shell’s Bakersfield refinery. I was pleased to learn that Shell is not intending to reduce gasoline output this summer.

I am writing today to express my concern over Shell’s plans for the Bakersfield refinery. Based on our telephone conversation, it was clear to me that Shell would prefer to sell the refinery to closing it. I understand that there are several willing buyers out there for the Bakersfield refinery. Yet, I have heard that Shell has not made a good faith effort to sell the refinery.

Specifically, I have heard that Shell has not created a “data room” with access to potential buyers, which indicates to some buyers that Shell intends to close the facility and not offer it for sale. Further, I have been told that Shell has never offered the assets for sale, has not prepared a prospectus or offering document, and has not engaged an investment banker to negotiate a sale.

I respectfully request that Shell do everything it can to sell the Bakersfield facility to a willing buyer so that it can continue to be used to refine gasoline for California’s drivers.

Thank you for your consideration of my request. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator

You are Cordially Invited

THE GREAT MARRIAGE DEBATE:
THE HARDEST QUESTIONS AND THE BEST ANSWERS

Featuring

The Honorable Wayne Allard (R-Colo.)
United States Senate

The Honorable Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)
United States Senate

The Honorable John Cornyn (R-Texas)
United States Senate

Hosted by
Edwin Meese III
Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies,
The Heritage Foundation

Does same-sex marriage harm traditional marriage? Does this issue have to be dealt with now? Does the Defense of Marriage Act protect the states against potential judicial actions? Is this a question for the states to decide? Is a constitutional amendment the only way to settle this issue? Join us as three leading senators discuss these questions and offer their insights into the upcoming floor debate on the matter.

Thursday, July 8, 2004
Noon

The Heritage Foundation's Allison Auditorium
Refreshments provided

To RSVP call (202) 675-1752

All events can be viewed live from our Home Page www.Heritage.org

214 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NE | WASHINGTON, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400

Barry Piatt

Communications Director for

U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

202-224-1191

E-MAIL: barry_piatt@dorgan.senate.gov

For Immediate Release CONTACT: Barry Piatt

Wednesday or Rebecca Pollard

July 7, 2004 PHONE: 202-224-2551

BIPARTISAN GROUP OF SENIOR COMMERCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS CALLS FOR WHITE HOUSE ACTION ON RE-NOMINATION OF ADELSTEIN TO FCC

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) --- Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and John McCain (R-AZ) are leading a bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators in urging President Bush to nominate Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein to a second term. The White House has held Adelstein’s re-nomination for more than a year without sending it to the Senate.

The group includes Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), Conrad Burns (D-MT), and Daniel Inouye (D-HI), all senior members of the Senate Commerce Committee. McCain chairs the committee and Hollings is the Ranking Member.

Adelstein’s current appointment expired last year. Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) submitted Adelstein’s name for reappointment in February, 2003, as the nominee for one of the FCC’s Democratic seats. “Absent re-nomination, he must leave the Commission at the end of the current Congressional session, leaving an open seat at the five-commissioner agency. A significant number of issues critical to American consumers are pending before the Commission. We need someone with his knowledge and experience on the job at the FCC.”

“Please inform us of the status of this nomination,” the Senators wrote.

Adelstein is one of five FCC Commissioners. The FCC is considering regulates the broadcasting industry and is currently considering major issues such as broadcast ownership concentration and focusing on a number of decency in broadcasting issues.

-- END --

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington

Media Advisory
July 8, 2004
Contacts:
Charla Neuman
202-224-8277, 202-309-3447

Cantwell to address Ken Lay indictment

on Senate floor this morning at 10:45 ET

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) today said the indictment of former Enron CEO Ken Lay made it clearer than ever that the nation’s top federal energy regulators had a responsibility to protect consumers from Enron’s illegal energy market trading and put an end to Enron’s lawsuits against public utilities.

Cantwell praised the Department of Justice Enron Task Force for its criminal investigations in the Enron case, which have resulted in the indictment of former CEO Ken Lay and the guilty plea or conviction of eleven others.

But Cantwell said that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had fallen down on the job by refusing to cancel Enron’s contracts with local utilities, such as the one with Snohomish PUD in Washington state. Enron is suing Snohomish PUD for $122 million.

“If FERC were in charge of these criminal prosecutions, I don’t think you’d see Ken Lay’s indictment today or the guilty pleas and convictions of eleven others,” Cantwell said.

Documents show Ken Lay actively lobbied for the appointment of current FERC Chairman Pat Wood and Commissioners Nora Brownell and Joe Kelliher. In a letter supporting the appointment Wood and Brownell, Lay wrote, “any candidate should be a strong supporter of the need for FERC to continue its role in deregulating the electric industry.” Lay endorsed Wood, then Chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission, because he “supports free markets” and implemented the Texas deregulation plan. Lay supported Brownell because she “supports free markets and was the swing vote enabling Pennsylvania to open its electric markets to competition.”

In an internal Enron memo on the company’s lobbying efforts to appoint FERC members, Lay was told, “Brownell is under consideration, mostly on the strength of Enron’s interest.” Lay was also told that Enron had “worked productively with Joe Kelliher” also now a FERC Commissioner. The memo concluded with a recommendation for “pitching the need for the Bush Administration to extract a very firm commitment to move forward on open access issues at FERC from their intended nominee.”

# # #

July 8, 2004

BURNS SIGNS ONTO BILL THAT SUPPORTS FIREARMS INDUSTRY, GUN SAFETY

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) voiced his support today of a new bill that promotes the purchase of gun safes for the storage of firearms in privately owned homes. Entitled the “Child Protection and Home Safety Act of 2004”, the legislation endorses the American tradition of prudent gun ownership while stressing the importance of safety as well.

“In Montana, we have a strong belief in the principles of individual freedom and responsibility, especially when it comes to gun ownership, and this bill offers incentives that will keep our children and our homes safe at the same time,” said Burns. “It’s a real-world solution to a real-world problem, and I’m happy to offer it my full support.”

Among the provisions included in the act is a $250 tax credit for this year and beyond for the purchase of a gun safe, with the tax credit rolling forward if not used for up to three years. It also disallows the creation of a database identifying gun owners from tax returns on which the credit is claimed.

In a discussion of Senator Burns’ commitment to the bill, Ernie Huether, president of Guns N Things L.L.C. of Glendive said, “By more easily being able to justify the costs of today’s gun safes, the average person can better protect their firearms from theft and fire, which will keep stolen guns off the street and help reduce the increases in insurance premiums that result from the loss. This is great news for Montana and the country alike, and I thank Senator Burns for his effort to keep Montana’s people out of harms way.”

###

Grant Toomey
Deputy Press Secretary
Senator Conrad Burns
187 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202.224.6137 Phone
202.224.8594 Fax

STATEMENT FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Maria Meier

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 (202) 225-2410

CHC CALLS FOR SENATE VOTE

ON AGJOBS BILL

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) joined colleagues from both sides of the aisle in calling on Senate Leader Frist to allow a vote on immigration reform legislation. Senators Kennedy and Craig are offering their legislation, the AgJOBS bill, S. 1645, as an amendment to the Class Action Bill being debated on the Senate floor.

The AgJOBS Bill would create a new legalization program for those who have been working in America’s agricultural sector. “This bill is a critical step in our overall efforts to reform our nation’s immigration laws,” said Rep. Ciro D. Rodriguez, Chair of the CHC. “Our nation benefits daily from the labors of immigrant workers and in particular from those who work in our agricultural fields,” Rodriguez continued, “They deserve to be given basic safeguards that this bill would provide.”

S. 1645 would create a new legalization program for those who have been working in America’s agricultural sector. Legalizing the agricultural work force will ensure that it is finally stabilized, which in the U.S. national interest. The Agricultural JOBS bill also would permit the new immigrant agricultural workers to sponsor their spouses and children for dependent visas. This means that qualifying current agricultural workers could be with their families while they earn legalization over the coming years.

"It is unfortunate that the Senate Republican leadership is trying to block sensible, bipartisan legislation designed to benefit farmers, protect workers and better meet the needs of the nation," Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), chair of the Democratic Caucus Immigration Task Force, said. "The simple fact is that our agriculture industry could not function without immigrant labor. This bill recognizes that fact and it addresses the issue in a pragmatic and fair manner."

“This bill reflects years of work and compromise among policy makers, growers, organized labor, and immigrant advocates. To not allow a vote on this important piece of legislation is a travesty. When there is so much rhetoric about the need to reform our immigration laws, this bipartisan bill provides a perfect beginning to this process. It is time to back words with action and allow a vote on the AgJOBS Bill now,” concluded Rodriguez.

###

National Immigration Forum

Statement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: DouglRivlin (rivlin@immigrationforum.org)

July 7, 2004 (202) 383-5989 (direct)

(202) 441-0680 (mobile)

Majority of Senators and

Majority of Americans Support AgJOBS

So Why Does Sen. Frist Prevent A Vote?

Washington, DC -- As the U.S. Senate considers legislation to reform class-action lawsuits, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) has been trying to introduce the AgJOBS immigration reform bill as an amendment. So far, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has prevented him from doing so.

"Americans want sensible reforms that match our immigration system with reality," said Angela Kelley, Deputy Director of the National Immigration Forum. "The people who grow and pick our food should be able enter and work in the U.S. under a system that is safe, legal, and orderly."

There are 63 Senate co-sponsors for AgJOBS, more than enough to pass and withstand a filibuster. Furthermore, a recent poll conducted by Lake Snell Perry & Associates for the National Immigration Forum indicates that 54% of Americans support the AgJOBS legislation, while only 26% oppose it.

Congress is considering another proposal that would provide a path towards legal status for about 500,000 farm workers and their families who are undocumented and would streamline an existing foreign agricultural worker program so that employers can hire future farm workers legally. Would you favor or oppose this proposal, or are you not sure?

All Voters Latino Voters Asian Voters

Strongly favor.................................... 35 54 51 68 39 60

Not so strongly favor.......................... 19 17 21

Not so strongly oppose.......................... 7 5 6

Strongly oppose.................................. 19 26 11 16 13 19

(Don't know) ................................ 20 16 21

(A total of 800 randomly selected likely voters were interviewed April 19-28, 2004. The margin of sampling error for this group is +/-3.5%. Over-samples were conducted of 400 Hispanic and 200 Asian likely voters; please note that the sampling error for these sub-groups is greater.)

"Since a majority of the Senate and a majority of the American people support it, I can't imagine why Senator Frist won't allow debate and a vote," Kelley said.

# # #

National Immigration Forum

50 F Street, NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20001

Main Number (202) 347-0040 Press Office: (202) 383-5989

www.immigrationforum.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Ilene Zeldin, (202) 224-6654
Wednesday, July 7, 2004 <http://hollings.senate.gov>

SENATOR HOLLINGS FLOOR STATEMENT ON
JOHN EDWARDS, TRIAL LAWYERS, AND LOST JOBS

Mr. President, I have come to the floor momentarily on account of a headline on page three of the Financial Times: U.S. business hits at choice of running mate. It quotes Tom Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in stating that he attacked Mr. Edwards in an interview in the Wall Street Journal. He warned if Mr. Edwards were chosen the group might abandon its traditional neutrality in Presidential elections and dedicate the best people and the greatest assets to defeating the Democratic ticket.

This is unfortunate. Since I know a little bit about the Chamber of Commerce, and I know even more about my friend Tom Donohue, I want to admonish that they not take that course and begin to try to work for "Main Street" America rather than "Main Street" Shanghai.

I speak advisedly of the Chamber of Commerce. As a young Governor, I was the first Governor to take a trip to Latin America to develop economically our little State of South Carolina. I reasoned the Port of Charleston was 300 nautical miles closer to the Port of Caracas, Venezuela, than New Orleans, and New Orleans was always getting the Midwest business. But there was no reason why we could not bring the overseas business to Charleston.

So I went down to Caracas, and to the Ports of Santos and Montevideo, Buenos Aires, Santiago, and we started building up industry there. Incidentally, in June of 1960, I made a trip to Europe, following my friend Luther Hodges of North Carolina. We called on businesses in Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and other towns in Germany, and the little State of South Carolina now has 126 German industries.

We had gone to France in June of 1960. I called on Michelin. Michelin Tire of Paris, France, now has four large production facilities and their North American headquarters and more than 10,000 employees in my State.

We are proud. We are business Democrats. That is my friend John Edwards. He is a business Democrat. If there was one leader in this industrial development, it would have been the State of North Carolina with its then-Governor Luther Hodges.

Hodges had been the president of the New York Rotary Club. He had been the vice president of the Marshall Field chain before he was Governor. So he knew all of those businesspeople. I had to compete with him, follow on board, so to speak, and try to get the jobs and develop businesses.

One thing we know upfront; that is, you have to have a sound fiscal policy. We raised taxes in South Carolina. And I got the first triple A credit rating.

So it is nonsense for the Chamber of Commerce to call John Edwards a "wide-eyed liberal" and John Kerry a "wide-eyed liberal." Incidentally, I can tell you when I had Gramm-Rudman-Hollings on the floor of the Senate, I was opposed by the Democratic leader, who voted against it; I was opposed by the Democratic whip, who voted against it; I was opposed by the chairman of the Budget Committee, my late friend Lawton Chiles of Florida. And in spite of that opposition, on 14 different votes, up and down, we got the majority of Democrats to support cutting spending and working for a balanced budget. It was hailed at that time. Everybody talks about President Reagan, and I can talk about him advisedly because he was outstanding in international trade. But let me stick right to this particular point.

In order for Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, I had to go to many so-called liberal friends in the Northeast, and I got Senator Chris Dodd and Senator John Kerry, who had just been elected to the Senate, to vote for fiscal responsibility. Yes, my friend Senator Kerry laid his life on the line in Vietnam. He immediately, when he came to the Senate, laid his political life on the line.

I know Tom Donohue well. I used to work very closely with the American Trucking Association, and I was their loyal supporter, still am their loyal supporter. I, under Tom Donohue, was their man.

I am telling you, I got every financial support and every assistance and what have you. I know Tom Donohue, and he knows trucking all right, but I never have seen him go out and develop an industry. Yes, he got on the boards. He went big time, just like joining the country club. He immediately started getting on the boards of all these multinationals and changing the national Chamber of Commerce into the international, multinational Chamber of Commerce. That is my resentment. That is why I take the floor.

I have worked with the Chamber of Commerce. Go back home to the State of South Carolina and you can’t name a county or a city where I haven’t received the Chamber of Commerce award. That is how I met my friend, Robert Kennedy. I was one of the 10 men of the year back in 1954, 50 years ago. And, yes, bring it right on up to 1992. In 1992, they had a fellow named Bob Thompson. He was the national president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I was his boy. I was the toast of the town and got all kind of help because I had held up labor law reform on eight up-and-down cloture votes. We defeated that initiative. We believed in the right to work and we didn't need labor law reform.

I only have to harken to the eight years of President Clinton when we had the strongest economy in the history of the United States, with all the taxes that they are trying to cut. Even with all those taxes, we had the eight-year record of economic outburst and production.

Now comes the Chamber of Commerce and Tom Donohue saying we can't have this wild, crazy Senator from North Carolina, which is a bellwether of industrial development. That is where he grew up and that is where the people who sent him here know him best. And now we are going to have him wrongly depicted by Johnny-come-lately to business over at the Chamber of Commerce.

I have tried to go quietly, and I have stayed off the floor a good bit this year. I have had my time. But I still struggle. I can't keep quiet when I hear all of this lawyer talk. I practiced law on both sides of the aisle. I represented the electric and gas company and the bus system. If you want to represent a defendant, represent the local power company buses. I can tell you, come November, everybody slips on a green pea in the aisle; everybody gets their arm caught in the door; everybody gets their head bumped or whatever else it is. And do you know what. They bring these little claims. When I say little, in those days they were relatively little -- a $5,000 claim, $10,000 claim.

And the corporate lawyer was lazy. They didn't try the cases. So they settled them out of court and they just paid. Corporate lawyers are the most lazy group in the United States. So I backed up all those claims and took them to court all during the month of December and the Christmas holidays and into January. And I won my bet with Arthur Williams who was president of the electric and gas company. I saved them over $1 million at that particular time.

I have been on the side of the corporate practice as well as the plaintiffs practice in punitive damages. I know all about them. I have had hard experience with them. I have had a hard experience with every Chamber of Commerce in my State and with the national group. When Tom Donohue starts this talk about lawyers, if he wants to really save corporate money, I wish he would go to the corporate lawyers. They talk about frivolous claims. Who in the Lord’s world as a trial lawyer can afford to be frivolous?

They have rules of court that get you out. Tomorrow you can file, if you assume all the facts alleged in the complaint as being true. You still don't have a cause of action or, if it is a frivolous charge, you can take it up under rule XI and have it done up. The courts take care of these things, but the pollsters are like used car salesmen and kill all the lawyers and go after trial lawyers who have to work for a living.

What does the trial lawyer do? The trial lawyer says: Poor client, haven't you been offered anything for this particular injury? They said no. Or sometimes they said yes, but they only said $200 or $2,000 or $20,000, and that is not going to take care of my medical expenses for more than a year.

We don't get cases as trial lawyers. Talking about ambulance chasers, I don't know how you chase an ambulance, to tell you the truth. I have been in practice now for -- well, I got in in 1947 -- over 50-some years. I practiced law up here. It is just like making a jury argument. The only thing about it is, you can serve on the jury and you can vote. I like it better.

But the point is that we usually get the client, once his incident, his accident, his claim has been totally investigated by corporate America. I know them. I represented them. They have investigators. All you have to do is tell them, go see this, go see that. When you have investigators to go out and check the jurors: Go around, by gosh, in a particular neighborhood and ask questions. What kind of fellow is John Adams? Is he liberal or conservative? Has he ever had a law case before? They have all the resources in the world. But the trial lawyer gets it after the cake is done and has fallen flat, and the poor client is disconcerted and disillusioned and finally gets to you.
The last case I tried I said, Did you go to so-and-so? He knows this kind of case better. And I went to another one and another one. And it was an antitrust case. I had to brief myself, antitrust work. Finally I tried it.

But what I am trying to say is, get off of this ambulance chasing issue. Trial lawyers work. They know what they are doing. And they take on all the expenses, the investigations, the making up of all the models that have to be made, pay the photographers who have to take the pictures. In some instances, they pay the medical bills going along. They take a risk and take that case on as their own. Why? Because they don't get one red cent until they win. They have to win all the way through, taking the expenses of all the interrogatories, all the depositions, all the motions, all the delays, all the frivolity of corporate America because that corporate American is sitting up there on the 12th or the 25th floor, and the clock is running.

The biggest cancer we have in the law practice is billable hours. This crowd down here on K Street is nothing but billable hour boys. They don't try cases. They fix you and me. And they are the ones who have the unmitigated gall to come and talk about frivolous claims. They never go to work. They take you to a dinner, take you to a movie, take you to a weekend down to the golf course, take you out to Alaska fishing, take you anywhere you want to go.

They never try cases, but the trial lawyer does. They have to get prepared, and they have to work, and they have to not only try that case that might take a day, might take a week -- some cases take several weeks and months -- but as they try that case, they are carrying those expenses all that time. But the corporate lawyer is trying to delay it. It pays them because their clock is running. It pays the trial lawyer to get on with the business of trying the case and bringing it to a conclusion. I know, I have been there on both sides.

What do you have to do? The lawyer has to get all 12 jurors. There are some exorbitant verdicts. I have seen in the headlines. When we get to debating this thing, maybe on legal fees, or class actions, or medical malpractice, or whatever it is – if the doctors policed themselves as the lawyers, they would not have any medical malpractice.

There was a headline down in my own backyard how nationally they had about 100,000 injuries and deaths last year as a result of medical malpractice. It would be 200,000, or 300,000, or 500,000 if we didn't have medical malpractice.

What do you think the purpose is of being able to recover for somebody else's wrongful act? Heavens above, we have to get all 12 jurors. I can tell you now, that defendant, all he has to do is get one. Just like they had one on a recent criminal case of some kind. They held that thing up and held it up, and that one juror said he just wasn't convinced.

The jury system is the fundamental of not only the British but the American system of jurisprudence. We have many sayings of not only Winston Churchill and Alexander Hamilton, the forefathers about the importance of trial by jury, because when you get a group of your peers together, they will listen to the facts and make an honest judgment about it. Sometimes if they do go extreme, the trial judge can set it aside, or give them an entire new trial, or just no verdict at all.

In one of my last cases, I had over $40,000 in costs and expenses -- not time, no. I didn't have any clock. I never heard of billable hours. Senator, I have never practiced law for a billable hour. It means if you send the case or dispose of the case and everything else like that, you lose.

The corporate lawyer wants to keep all the cases going. He has all the hours. He just goes to the club, and on the weekend he is off with the chairman of the board, and that is all he has to do. They keep delaying things.

You talk about my friend, John Edwards, as a liberal, some kind of nut. That is nonsense here. He has worked hard, and the Chamber of Commerce ought to know that.

Let's talk a minute about trade itself. It is the fundamental duty of Congress to protect -- we take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend. We have Social Security to protect us from the ravages of old age. We have a minimum wage to protect us from slave labor. We have Medicare and Medicaid to protect us from ill health. We have clean air and clean water to protect us from those environmental poisons. You can go right on down the list. We have the Army to protect us from within.

The fundamental of us is to protect jobs and the fundamental of us is to create jobs. You know what the multinationals have to do? They have to move the jobs out because it is cheaper. Why? Because of you and me. We say that before you can open up a manufacturing plant, you have to have clean air, clean water, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage, plant closing notice, parental leave, safe working place, safe machinery -- I can go down the list. But you can go to Shanghai, China, for 58 cents an hour with none of that.

I called up Walter Allison Dreeny. He was an executive of Pirelli. We brought him to South Carolina in the Lexington County area. I helped him get connected with water and sewer lines. He made a heck of a success in the fiber glass section of Pirelli. He went out on his own and organized what is called Avanex on the big board, and he was doing good. This was about 5 years ago. I learned a lesson. I called Walter and I said: Walter, I see where you are doing good and we don't have a plant of yours in South Carolina. If you continue to do well and you expand, I would like to get your expansion somewhere in Columbia, where you still have a home, or somewhere in our State.

He said, Fritz, I don't produce anything in this country. I said: You don't? He said: No, I have my research and sales here. He sells the innards of computerization and communications, fiberoptic stuff.

He says: I produce in China. When you go to China, they will build a building. You have a year-to-year contract. They have a good and capable workforce. You got a guarantee. You put a quality man there; you get a young Byron Dorgan and say you go to Shanghai and oversee this thing -- somebody you can trust who knows the business. He watches it for you. You sit on the Internet and you watch it every day as to what they have done. You visit three or four times a year to see how it is going. If the national trend goes big, you get an additional contract in China. If it goes bad, you don't have to renew the contract. You have no obligation to the labor at all.

That is what we are competing with. That is the reality. Yes, the Chamber of Commerce has to understand why their task is to make a profit for the stockholders. Our task is to build jobs. We are not interested in profit. We are interested in building the economy, in education, in health care, safety, law enforcement, yes, and we are interested in the economic strength of this country.

The security of the United States is like a three-legged stool. You have the one leg of our values, our stand for individual freedom, unquestioned the world around; you have the second leg of the military, unquestioned, the superpower; the third leg, the economic leg, has been fractured intentionally.

I say intentionally fractured because after World War II, we had to rebuild freedom and capitalism the world around us, and we had to more or less give up the store. We not only had the Marshall plan, the expertise, the money, and the equipment, but we gave a good part of our own production.

I had a hearing with President Kennedy in 1961 when he put out his famous seven-point program showing that it was injurious to the national security of the United States for us to import more than 10 percent of our consumption in textiles clothing. I am looking around and everywhere I look, I can tell my colleagues that 70 percent of the clothing is from offshore, imported into the United States. Yes, 84 percent of the shoes on the floor of this Chamber are imported. We are out of the shoe business. We are out of my textile business.

Yes, we are going to go out of the computer business, and we are going out of the semiconductor business. Ronald Reagan was the best of the best. He saw that during his 8 years. we got what they called VRAs, voluntary restraint agreements, on semiconductors, automobiles, steel, machine tools, and hand tools. Ask Andy Grove of Intel. If President Reagan had not put protectionism, a voluntary restraint agreement, on semiconductors, we would not have had an Intel.

As I see it, we are about to go out of business not only in textiles, but semiconductors, automobiles, and other products. We have to have basic production. That basic production has developed the middle class, the strength of America. If you want to do away with it, Mr. Chamber of Commerce, and move everything to China all for a profit and no country at all, you are wrong. It is scandalous what corporate America has been doing, running over to Bermuda, evading and avoiding taxes.

I saw one report the other day that in corporate America, something like only 20 percent pay taxes. About 80 percent of them do not pay taxes at all. And they talk about high corporate taxes. They have more experts on how to evade and avoid and change and cancel out. So it happens.

Yes, Senator Edwards has worked not only on the Intelligence Committee, knowing foreign policy for six years now. In one of the stories, they said if something happened to John Kerry, we would have a President with no experience again. The only thing is, this President, Edwards, would be interested in being President. President Bush is only interested in being Candidate Bush. He goes out every day to some military or some police or other particular situation, gets that 7 o'clock news photo, makes his little statements, and he does not keep up with any of the legislation. He is not proud of any legislation. We do not have any leadership from the White House on getting anything done. We are getting little nagging spitballs of class actions and now a constitutional amendment on marriages.

One can get a common-law marriage in South Carolina. Are we going to put that in the Constitution? Come on. He has more funny bunny things to think of and bring up and waste our time. This is the worst Administration I have ever seen.

Mr. REID. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Mr. REID. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want the Senator to comment on this statement. Here is a good-faith effort to move a bill -- I do not like the bill. OK, I do not like the bill, but we have a few Democrats who like it, so we decided not to stand in the way of this legislation. I have a letter from Jerry Jasinowski who is the president of the National Association of Manufacturers. Here is what he said yesterday, and I want my friend, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, who supports this legislation and others to hear what this plan has been. This is not something that came up this morning.

He writes on this card to one of the Members: I urge you to vote in favor of cloture.

There was never any intention of this being a fair deal out here; will the Senator agree with that?

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right. They know their scheme. I tell you, our Republican colleagues know what they are doing when it comes to running campaigns. We know how to run the office once we get in, but they know how to run for the office. We saw President Bush was already in Raleigh, NC, and they called for, of all things, class actions so they can lambaste our Vice Presidential choice. That is what is going on. The campaign is on the Senate floor, and I am joining in on the campaign. I have tried to stay out of it, but I am happy to join.

Here is yesterday's Financial Times: "China vows to use anti-dumping and trade measures to protect its markets." I ask unanimous consent to print the Tom Donohue article and this article about China in the Record. The reason I want this article printed in the Record is because China is following Japan. We have not yet, not in 50 years, gotten into the downtown market, Main Street, Tokyo. We cannot sell in Tokyo what we sell in the United States. No. They have total protection. They not only have MITI with the financing and the refinancing and keeping even bankrupt entities going, but they control that market so they go for market share. They are not worried about profits the way the government runs things. We have antitrust, they have pro-trust.

The Lexus I own sells for, let's say, $35,000. It will sell for $45,000 in downtown Tokyo. They pay at the local market way more for that camera, way more for that television set, way more for that automobile because we are talking about profit, and they keep on getting more and more market share in America.

So we have to understand not only the thrust of their competition, but that they are competing. They are as protectionist as can be on antidumping. We get into WTO and say: Oh, no, it is a WTO violation; you cannot enforce any antidumping statutes in the United States. That is why we have that funny tax bill over there that they loaded with all these extra tax cuts for corporate America. It is a disgrace. Everybody has written about that.

Warren Buffett, two days ago, said that tax bill is a disgrace. But the reason we got the tax bill started was to try to equalize the situation where we have been taking care of our particular businesses and industries, and if we are going to have the U.S. Chamber of Commerce join the other side, this is like joining Saddam in Iraq.

If my colleagues want to see a business-oriented State, come to North Carolina where John Edwards is a Senator. I can say right now, they talk now about the two most liberals. That is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever