[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11536-11544]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am sorry to see that the majority 
leader has filled the tree on the global warming bill. There is no way 
we are going to move ahead on this legislation, as I have stated before 
on the floor, if we are not permitted to offer amendments.
  I think there is general agreement, although there are still some 
dissenters, that we need to do something. We have the Warner-Lieberman 
bill. I think it has objectives which are not technologically 
obtainable, which are too difficult on the U.S. economy, and have 
joined with Senator Bingaman on alternative legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the statement regarding a number of 
amendments which I had proposed to introduce be printed in the Record, 
one on emissions caps/targets, a second on a cost-containment safety-
valve amendment, a third on an international competitiveness amendment, 
and a fourth on process gas emissions.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Specter Amendments to Lieberman-Warner Bill

       As I stated on the Senate floor on Tuesday, it was my 
     intention to offer amendments;
       It is very disappointing that the Majority Leaders has 
     opted to move to cloture on the Boxer substitute without 
     allowing consideration of amendments;
       I have played a constructive role in this debate in an 
     attempt to improve the bill and enter into a substantive 
     discussion with my colleagues;
       Since there will be no votes on amendments, I will instead 
     file my amendments for public scrutiny until the next 
     opportunity to debate this important issue;
       Emissions Caps/Targets Amendment.--This amendment 
     substitutes the Bingaman-Specter emissions caps in place of 
     the Lieberman-Warner caps. I have serious concerns that the 
     emissions limits are not aligned with necessary technologies. 
     If I had a comfort level with the ability of our nation to 
     meet these targets, I could support them, but I remain 
     unconvinced.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Lieberman-Warner                     Bingaman-Specter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, limits to 2005 levels............  In 2012, limits to 2012
                                             levels.
In 2020, limits to 15% below 2005 (1990     In 2020, limits to 2006
 levels).                                    levels.
In 2030, limits to 30% below 2005.........  In 2030, limits to 1990
                                             levels.
In 2050, limits to 71% below 2005.........  In 2050 calls for at least
                                             60% below 2006 levels,
                                             contingent on international
                                             effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Cost-Containment Safety-Valve Amendment.--This amendment 
     would insert the Bingaman-Specter so-called ``safety valve'' 
     or Technology Accelerator Payment mechanism into the 
     Lieberman-Warner bill. That provision provides a price-capped 
     option for purchasing emissions allowances from the 
     government when the market price rises too high. Starting at 
     $12 per ton in 2012 and rising 5% over inflation annually, 
     this is an important protection for the economy. I am open to 
     considering a different price level, but it is a 
     fundamentally important provision. If this mechanism is 
     triggered, all of the funds collected through the purchase of 
     allowances would be invested directly in zero- and low-carbon 
     technologies to accelerate our ability to reduce emissions.
       International Competitiveness Amendment.--This amendment 
     takes a number of steps to further refine the excellent 
     proposal that was first included in the Bingaman-Specter bill 
     to require purchase of emissions allowances by importers of 
     goods into the U.S. from countries which are not taking 
     comparable action on climate change. The amendment seeks to 
     better define ``comparable action.'' It also makes the 
     effective date for import allowances the same as the 
     effective date for domestic producers (2012). Further, it 
     applies the import allowance program to all countries, 
     including those with ``de minimis'' emissions levels. 
     Finally, it equalizes the ability of importers to submit 
     foreign credits and allowances to the same 15 percent limit 
     for which domestic producers may use.
       Process Gas Emissions Amendment.--This amendment exempts 
     process gas emissions from ironmaking, steelmaking, steel 
     recycling, and coke processes. There are currently 
     insufficient technological options to make virgin steel 
     without emitting carbon dioxide from the use of coal and 
     coke. Therefore, requiring submission of allowances will only 
     raise the cost of domestic steel in a highly competitive and 
     unforgiving global steel market. This will put our industry 
     at a serious disadvantage and likely send jobs overseas 
     actually increasing emissions from steelmaking in non-carbon-
     reducing nations.

  Mr. SPECTER. But there is no way to get 60 votes to impose cloture 
unless we find a way to allow Senators to offer their amendments.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a floor 
statement of mine on the New England Patriots videotaping of NFL 
football games be printed in the Congressional Record as if read in 
full on the Senate floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Senate Floor Statement on the New England Patriots Videotaping

                    (By Arlen Specter, June 5, 2008)

       With the Memorial Day Recess and the cancellation of my 
     west coast fundraising trip due to my recurrence of 
     Hodgkin's, there was time to review and reflect on the issues 
     and comments on the New England Patriots' videotaping and to 
     prepare a summary for entry into the Congressional Record for 
     future reference.

    Background: Two Questions; No Answers; No Initial Intent For an 
                             Investigation

       When I made my first inquiry of the NFL on the videotaping, 
     there was no intent to initiate an investigation. After 
     reading about the Patriots' videotaping of the Jets September 
     9, 2007 game, I wrote Commissioner Roger Goodell by letter 
     dated November 15, 2007, shortly before the Patriots were 
     scheduled to play the Philadelphia Eagles, asking if there 
     had been any evidence of videotaping of the 2005 Super Bowl 
     between the Eagles and the Patriots:

       Dear Commissioner Goodell:
       With the New England Patriots about to play the 
     Philadelphia Eagles again, as they did in the Super Bowl in 
     January 2005, I would appreciate your advising me what your 
     investigation showed, if anything, on the question of the 
     Patriots stealing Eagles' signals during that Super Bowl 
     game.
       I had thought there would be some additional disclosures 
     following your initial sanction on the Patriots and Coach

[[Page 11537]]

     Belichick, but I did not see anything further so I would like 
     a response on this specific question.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

       I received no answer. When I later read about the NFL's 
     destruction of the videotapes, I wrote again by letter dated 
     December 19, 2007:

       Dear Commissioner Goodell:
       More than a month has passed since I wrote to you on 
     November 15, 2007 concerning the issue of the New England 
     Patriots spying on the Philadelphia Eagles on their 2005 
     Super Bowl game. I would appreciate a prompt response.
       I was surprised to read in the New York Times on December 
     16th that the NFL had destroyed the tapes on the Patriots 
     spying. Is that true?
       The same New York Times story also contained the author's 
     surmising that there was more than one copy because of the 
     general practice of not having a single copy of anything. Was 
     there a second copy? Is it possible to retrieve a copy?
       Candidly, the destruction of the tapes is, in my opinion, 
     highly suspicious. I would appreciate your reply as to the 
     scope of your investigation and your findings on the number 
     of times the Patriots spied and on whom.
       I share the concern that your treatment of the Patriots and 
     Coach Belichick was insufficient. I would like to know the 
     specifics of the misconduct which you found and your reasons 
     for imposing the penalties which you did.
       As I have said on many occasions in the past, including 
     legislation which I have introduced, the NFL has a special 
     duty to the public in light of the antitrust exemption which 
     the NFL enjoys.
       I would appreciate a prompt response to the questions posed 
     in this letter and in my prior letter to you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

       Again, I received no answer.
       I thought nothing more about the issue until early January 
     2008 after returning to Washington when I had a casual 
     conversation in the Capitol with New York Times reporter Carl 
     Hulse who covers the Senate. Hulse asked me who I thought 
     would win the Super Bowl and I jokingly replied that it all 
     depended on whether there was cheating. That led to a 
     conversation about the Patriots' videotaping and my 
     unanswered letters. At Hulse's request, I gave him copies of 
     those letters.
       I thought nothing more about the matter until the middle of 
     the week before the Super Bowl when I received a call from 
     New York Times sportswriter Greg Bishop. Hulse had given him 
     my letters. I gave him background of my reasons for writing. 
     Bishop then apparently contacted the Commissioner's office on 
     the Thursday before the Super Bowl, prompting Commissioner 
     Goodell to write to me on January 31, 2008:

       Dear Senator Specter:
       I saw today for the first time your letters inquiring about 
     my investigation into the taping of defensive signals by the 
     New England Patriots. I apologize for not having replied 
     earlier. (I have instructed my staff to contact your office 
     to make sure that you have my best phone and fax numbers for 
     our future communications.)
       With respect to the Patriots matter, senior members of my 
     staff conducted detailed, individual interview with Patriots' 
     owner Robert Kraft, Coach Belichick, and other Patriots 
     employees promptly after this matter came to our attention. 
     They reviewed the videotapes and notes made by the Patriots 
     employee who reviewed the tapes on behalf of the club. 
     Following that review, the tapes and the notes were destroyed 
     by our office in order to ensure that they could not be used 
     for any purpose going forward. Our goal was to ensure that 
     the Patriots would not secure any possible competitive 
     advantage as a result of the misconduct that had been 
     identified. The Patriots have separately certified to me in 
     writing that we received all tapes, all notes, and that no 
     other material exists relating to taping of defensive 
     signals.
       Our investigation specifically disclosed nothing relating 
     to the stealing of Eagles' signals during the Super Bowl game 
     between the Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles in 2005. 
     (The two teams had only played one other game against each 
     other in the current decade, a preseason game in the summer 
     of 2003.) We have no reason to believe that the outcome of 
     the 2005 Super Bowl was affected in any way by the improper 
     taping of Eagles' defensive signals.
       The discipline I imposed on both the Patriots and Coach 
     Belichick was very substantial. No coach has ever been fined 
     as much as Coach Belichick, and no club has been required to 
     forfeit its first round selection in the college draft for 
     such an on-field violation. I am confident that neither the 
     Patriots, nor any other NFL team, will engage in this type of 
     conduct again.
       I believe that I have no more significant responsibility 
     than protecting the integrity of the game and promoting 
     public confidence in the NFL, and that our actions in 
     response to the Patriots' taping was entirely consistent with 
     that responsibility.
       Again, I regret not having seen and responded to your 
     questions sooner. As always, I appreciate your interest in 
     the NFL.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Roger Goodell.

       The next day, February 1, 2008, there was a headline at the 
     top of the New York Times sports page: ``Senator Arlen 
     Specter Wants NFL Commissioner Goodell to Explain the 
     Rationale Behind Destroying Evidence that the Patriots 
     Cheated,'' followed by text of my letter to Goodell dated 
     November 15, 2007, partial text of my December 19, 2007 
     letter and a partial text of his reply dated January 31, 
     2008.
       I was then accused of timing the dropping of a bomb on 
     Super Bowl weekend. The fact is that had my earlier letters 
     been answered, the matter would not have achieved such 
     attention.
       Those events then led to my meeting with Commissioner 
     Goodell in my Senate office on February 13, 2008, and a 
     series of disclosures far beyond the Commissioner's initial 
     statement at his February 1 news conference: ``I believe 
     there were six tapes, and I believe some were from the pre-
     season in 2007, and the rest were primarily in the late 2006 
     season,'' before the Patriots were caught videotaping the 
     Jets on September 9.''

   The Antitrust Exemption--Public Financing for Stadium Construction

       A question is sometimes raised as to Congress's reasons for 
     special attention to the NFL. In part, it is because the NFL 
     has an antitrust exemption enjoyed by few other businesses. 
     The NFL has contracts for broadcast rights with Fox, NBC, CBS 
     and ABC/ESPN to make more than $3.7 billion through 2011. 
     Over the past twenty-five years, the NFL has earned roughly 
     $36.6 billion from its television contracts with broadcast 
     networks.
       When I saw what was happening with stadium financing in the 
     1990's, I introduced the Stadium Financing Act of 1999 (S. 
     952) on March 19, 1999, requiring the NFL to contribute 10% 
     of the amounts received under the joint agreement for 
     broadcasting rights to finance the construction and 
     renovation of playing facilities. As a matter of basic 
     fairness, the owners should have been paying for their own 
     stadium construction without relying on the public funds 
     desperately needed for so many other purposes. In my opinion, 
     it would have been sound public policy to condition the 
     antitrust exemption on the owners paying for construction 
     costs without relying on taxpayers funds. Under the threat of 
     franchise removal to other cities, NFL teams have extracted 
     enormous public funding.

                            STADIUMS--PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION ( FROM BONDS, TAXES, ETC.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Public          Private
              City                  Year opened    Project cost    contribution    contribution    Lease (years)
                                                   (in millions)   (in millions)   (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glendale, AZ....................            2006            $448            $344            $104              30
Philadelphia....................            2003             512             202             310              30
Detroit.........................            2002             471             125             346              35
Houston.........................            2002             424             309             125              30
Boston..........................            2002             452  ..............            *452              25
Seattle.........................            2002             465             296             169              30
Denver..........................            2001             370             229             141              30
Pittsburgh......................            2001             271             158             123              30
Cincinnati......................            2000             450             425              25              26
Cleveland.......................            1999             300             212              88              30
Nashville.......................            1999             292             220              72              30
Baltimore.......................            1998             224             200              24              30
Tampa Bay.......................            1998             168             153              15              30
Washington DC...................            1997             251              71             180              30
Charlotte.......................            1996             250              50             200              31
St. Louis.......................            1995             257             257               0              30
Atlanta.........................            1992             214             214               0              20
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Public Contribution.  ..............  ..............   $3.46 billion  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Commonwealth of Massachusetts contributed $70 million to be repaid over twenty years.


[[Page 11538]]


                                                  FUTURE PLANS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Public          Private
                 City                             Type             Project cost    contribution    contributions
                                                                   (in millions)   (in millions)   (in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas................................  New Stadium.............            $650            $325            $325
Indianapolis..........................  New Stadium.............             500             400             100
Kansas City...........................  Renovation..............             325             250              75
Minneapolis...........................  New Stadium.............             675             395             280
New Orleans...........................  Renovation..............             135  ..............  ..............
New York..............................  New Stadium.............             800  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: The Fans, Taxpayers, and Business Alliance For NFL Football in San Diego, available at http://
www.ftballiance.org/stadiums/financing.php

       A comparable situation exists with respect to Major League 
     Baseball:

                                                    NEW STADIUMS IN PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL (1990-2003)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                           Cost per seat
                          City                               Capacity          Year         Real costs        Percent       Public cost     in replaced
                                                                                           (millions) b       public         per Seat         stadium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Bay c,d...........................................          46,000            1990          225.30          100.00        4,699.96              NA
Chicago.................................................          44,321            1991          212.50          100.00        4,786.73          142.71
Baltimore...............................................          48,000            1992          260.20           96.00        4,560.00        1,498.41
Arlington...............................................          49,292            1994          227.74           71.00        3,280.38          589.41
Cleveland...............................................          42,400            1994          206.59           88.00        7,287.79          927.43
Denver..................................................          50,100            1995          242.93           75.00        3,636.72              NA
Atlanta.................................................          49,831            1997          252.13            0.00            0.00        1,910.65
Phoenix c,d.............................................          48,569            1998          368.70           68.00        5,162.03              NA
Seattle.................................................          46,621            1999          535.00           66.66        7,537.10          307.21
Detroit.................................................          40,000            2000          300.00           38.00        2,875.00              NA
Houston d...............................................          42,000            2000          250.00           68.00        4,047.62        4,532.07
San Francisco...........................................          41,059            2000          255.00            3.92          243.45        1,993.85
Milwaukee...............................................          43,000            2001          394.20           77.50        7,209.30          895.58
Pittsburgh..............................................          38,365            2001          252.51          100.00        6,829.14        4,138.97
Cincinnati..............................................          42,059            2003          399.08           86.15        6,657.01        3,773.28
Average e...............................................          44,671            1997          298.06           79.56        5,274.52        1,867.23
      Total Public Financing............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  $ 3.01 billion  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Data obtained from www.ballparks.com and author's calculations. a Current dollars at date stadium opened. b Dollars adjusted by BLS inflation
  factor to represent 2000 dollars. c New stadium not replacing an old stadium. d Domed or retractable roof stadium. e Includes only those stadiums with
  majority funding, i.e., excluding Atlanta and San Francisco.
Source: Depken, Craig, The Impact of New Stadiums on Professional Baseball Team Finances available at http://www.uta.edu/depken/P/SportsArenas16.pdf

       The public contribution for the Philadelphia Phillies 
     stadium which opened in 2004 was $174 million. Nationals 
     Park, in Washington D.C., was completed in 2008 at a cost of 
     $610.8 million and was 100% publicly funded.

     The Concealed Taping and Spying Was Done on a Widespread Basis

       Contrary to Commissioner Goodell's initial statement that: 
     ``[W]e think (the taping) was quite limited. It was not 
     something that was done on a widespread basis,'' the facts 
     demonstrate the opposite. At my meeting with Goodell on 
     February 13, 2008, he dramatically changed the story and 
     conceded that taping began in 2000. Until my meeting with 
     Matt Walsh on May 13, 2008, the only taping we knew about 
     took place from 2000 until 2002 and during the 2006 and 2007 
     seasons.
       That left an obvious gap between 2003 and 2005. In response 
     to my questions, Walsh stated he had season tickets in 2003, 
     2004 and 2005, and saw Steve Scarnecchia, his successor, 
     videotape games during those seasons including:
       The Patriots' September 9, 2002 game against the Steelers.
       The Patriots' November 16, 2003 game against the Cowboys.
       The Patriots' September 25, 2005 game against the Steelers, 
     which the Steelers won 23-20.

       Walsh stated he observed Scarnecchia filming additional 
     Patriots home games, though he could not recall the specific 
     games. Walsh said he did not tell Goodell about the taping 
     during 2003, 2004 and 2005 because he was not asked.
       Matt Walsh and other Patriots employees, Steve Scarnecchia, 
     Jimmy Dee, Fernando Neto, and possibly Ed Bailey, were 
     present to observe most, if not all, of the St. Louis Rams 
     walk-through practice in advance of the 2002 Super Bowl, 
     including Marshall Faulk's unusual positioning as a punt 
     returner. David Halberstam's book, The Education of a Coach, 
     documents the way Belichick spent the week before the Super 
     Bowl obsessing about where the Rams would line up Faulk.
       Walsh was asked, and he told Assistant Coach Brian Daboll 
     about the walk-through. Walsh said Daboll asked him specific 
     questions about the Rams offense, and Walsh told Daboll about 
     Faulk's lining up as a kick returner. Walsh said Daboll then 
     drew diagrams of the formations Walsh had described. 
     According to media reports, Daboll denied talking to Walsh 
     about Faulk. The NFL has not disclosed the details on 
     Daboll's statements. We do not know what Scarnecchia, Dee, 
     Neto or Bailey did, or what they said if they were 
     interviewed.
       The Patriots took elaborate steps to conceal their filming 
     of opponents' signals. Patriots personnel instructed Walsh to 
     use a ``cover story'' if anyone questioned him about the 
     filming. For example, if asked why the Patriots had an extra 
     camera filming, he was instructed to say that he was filming 
     ``tight shots'' of a particular player or players or that he 
     was filming highlights. If asked why he was not filming the 
     play on the field, he was instructed to say that he was 
     filming the down marker. The red light that indicated when 
     his camera was rolling was broken.
       During at least one game, the January 27, 2002, AFC 
     Championship game with the Steelers, Walsh was specifically 
     instructed not to wear anything displaying a Patriots logo. 
     Walsh indicated he turned the Patriots sweatshirt he was 
     wearing at the time inside-out. Walsh was also given a 
     generic credential instead of one that identified him as team 
     personnel. These efforts to conceal the filming demonstrate 
     the Patriots knew they were violating NFL rules.
       While there may have been others, as best as can be 
     determined from the available information, the Patriots taped 
     opponents' signals in the following games:


           Games for which Walsh turned over tapes to the NFL

       September 25, 2000: Miami Dolphins v. New England Patriots
       October 7, 2001: Miami Dolphins v. New England Patriots 
     (Offense & Defense)
       November 11, 2001: Buffalo Bills v. New England Patriots
       December 8, 2001: Cleveland Browns v. New England Patriots
       January 27, 2002: Pittsburgh Steelers v. New England 
     Patriots (AFC Championship)


               Games Walsh Filmed (no tapes turned over)

       August 20, 2000: Tampa Bay Buccaneers v. New England 
     Patriots (Preseason)
       October 8, 2000: Indianapolis Colts v. New England Patriots
       November 5, 2000: Buffalo Bills v. New England Patriots
       September 23, 2001: New York Jets v. New England Patriots
       September 30, 2001: Indianapolis Colts v. New England 
     Patriots
       October 7, 2001: Miami Dolphins v. New England Patriots
       October 14, 2001: San Diego Chargers v. New England 
     Patriots
       November 11, 2001: Buffalo Bills v. New England Patriots
       December 9, 2001: Cleveland Browns v. New England Patriots


              Games Walsh May Have Filmed But Not Positive

       October 15, 2000: New York Jets v. New England Patriots
       August 18, 2001: Carolina Panthers v. New England Patriots 
     (Preseason)
       December 22, 2001: Miami Dolphins v. New England Patriots


            Games Walsh Witnessed Steve Scarnecchia Filming

       September 9, 2002: Pittsburgh Steelers v. New England 
     Patriots
       November 16, 2003: Dallas Cowboys v. New England Patriots

[[Page 11539]]

       September 25, 2005: Pittsburgh Steelers v. New England 
     Patriots


       Games for Which the Patriots Turned Over Tapes to the NFL

       2006 Season: Games v. New York Jets, Miami Dolphins and 
     Buffalo Bills (unclear on specific dates because each team 
     played two games against the Patriots)
       September 9, 2007: New York Jets v. New England Patriots 
     (Estrella caught by Jets)


              Games the Media Reported the Patriots Taped

       August 31, 2006: New York Giants v. New England Patriots 
     (Preseason)
       September 17, 2006: New York Jets v. New England Patriots
       November 19, 2006: Green Bay Packers v. New England 
     Patriots
       December 3, 2006: Detroit Lions v. New England Patriots

         The Videotaping Had a Significant Impact on the Games

       The overwhelming evidence flatly contradicts Commissioner 
     Goodell's assertion that there was little or no effect on the 
     outcome of the games. During his February 1, 2008 press 
     conference, Commission Goodell stated, ``I think it probably 
     had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any 
     game.'' Later during that press conference, Goodell stated 
     again, ``I don't believe it affected the outcome of any 
     games.'' Commissioner Goodell's effort to minimize the effect 
     of the videotaping is categorically refuted by the persistent 
     use of the sophisticated scheme which required a great deal 
     of effort and produced remarkable results.
       The filming enabled the Patriots coaching staff to 
     anticipate the defensive plays called by the opposing team. 
     According to Walsh, he first filmed an opponent's signals 
     during the August 20, 2000 pre-season game against the Tampa 
     Bay Buccaneers. After Walsh filmed a game, he would provide 
     the tape for Ernie Adams, a coaching assistant for the 
     Patriots, who would match the signals with the plays.
       Walsh was told by a former offensive player that a few days 
     before the September 3, 2000 regular season game against 
     Tampa Bay, he (the offensive player) was called into a 
     meeting with Adams, Bill Belichick and Charlie Weis, then the 
     offensive coordinator for the Patriots, during which it was 
     explained how the Patriots would make use of the tapes. The 
     offensive player would memorize the signals and then watch 
     for Tampa Bay's defensive calls during the game. He would 
     then pass the plays along to Weis, who would give 
     instructions to the quarterback on the field. This process 
     enabled the Patriots to go to a ``no-huddle'' offense, which 
     would lock in the defense the opposing team had called from 
     the sideline, preventing the defense from making any 
     adjustments. When Walsh asked whether the tape he had filmed 
     was helpful, the offensive player said it had enabled the 
     team to anticipate 75 percent of the plays being called by 
     the opposing team.
       Tampa Bay won the August 20, 2000 pre-season game by a 
     score of 31-21. According to the information provided by Matt 
     Walsh, the Patriots used the film to their advantage when the 
     Patriots played Tampa Bay in their first regular season game 
     on September 3, 2000. The Patriots narrowed the spread, 
     losing by a score of 21-16. After the game, Charlie Weis, the 
     Patriots' offensive coordinator, was reportedly overheard 
     telling Tampa Bay's defensive coordinator, Monte Kiffin, ``We 
     knew all your calls, and you still stopped us.'' The tapes 
     Walsh turned over to the NFL indicate the Patriots filmed the 
     Dolphins during their game on September 24, 2000, a game the 
     Patriots lost by 10-3.
       According to Walsh, when the Patriots first began filming 
     opponents, they filmed opponents they would play again during 
     that same season. The Patriots played the Dolphins again that 
     season on December 24, 2000; they again narrowed the spread, 
     losing by a score of 27-24.
       According to Walsh, he filmed the Patriots' game against 
     Buffalo on November 5, 2000, a game the Patriots lost 16-13. 
     When the Patriots played the Bills again that season on 
     December 17, 2000, the Patriots won by a score of 13-10.
       During the following season, Walsh filmed the Patriots' 
     game against the Jets on September 23, 2001, a game the 
     Patriots lost by a score of 10-3. When the Patriots played 
     the Jets again that season on December 2, 2001, the Patriots 
     won by a score of 17-16.
       The tapes Walsh turned over to the NFL indicate the 
     Patriots filmed the Dolphins during their game on October 7, 
     2001, a game the Patriots lost by 30-10. When the Patriots 
     played the Dolphins again that season on December 22, 2001, 
     the Patriots won by a score of 20-13.
       The Patriots filmed opponents' offensive signals in 
     addition to defensive signals. On April 23, 2008, the NFL 
     issued a statement indicating that ``Commissioner Goodell 
     determined last September that the Patriots had violated 
     league rules by videotaping opposing coaches' defensive 
     signals during Patriots games throughout Bill Belichick's 
     tenure as head coach.'' (Emphasis added). However, the tapes 
     turned over by Matt Walsh on May 8, 2008 contain footage of 
     offensive signals. The tapes turned over to the NFL and the 
     information provided by Walsh prove that the Patriots also 
     routinely filmed opponents' offensive signals.
       Why did the Patriots videotape signals during games when 
     they were not scheduled to play that opponent during the 
     balance of the season unless they were able to utilize the 
     videotape during the latter portion of the same game? The NFL 
     has not addressed the question as to whether the Patriots 
     decoded signals during the game for later use in that game. 
     Mark Schlereth, a former NFL offensive lineman and an ESPN 
     football analyst, is quoted in the New York Times on May 14, 
     2008:

       Then why are you doing it against teams you aren't going to 
     play again that season?
       Schlereth said that the breadth of information on the 
     tapes--mainly, the coaches' signals and the subsequent play--
     would be simple for someone to analyze during a game. There 
     are enough plays in the first quarter, he said, to glean any 
     team's ``staples,'' and a quick view of them could prove 
     immediately helpful.
       ``I don't see them wasting time if they weren't using it in 
     that game,'' Schlereth said.

 Coaches, Players and Sports Commentators/Experts Confirm Videotaping 
                 had a Significant Impact on the Games

       Jim Bates, the Miami Dolphins' defensive coordinator in 
     2001 who stepped down as the Denver Broncos' Assistant Head 
     Coach of defense in January 2008, was referenced and quoted 
     in the Palm Beach Post on May 13, 2008:

       Bates wouldn't declare that the Patriots stole the 2001 AFC 
     East title, but he wasn't afraid to accuse the Patriots of 
     putting the Dolphins at a ``tremendous disadvantage'' in 
     their critical rematch that essentially decided the division.
       ``There's only a certain number of plays that truly 
     determine winning and losing,'' Bates said. ``It might come 
     down to five plays. Sometimes it's just one play. A critical 
     play at a critical time to move the sticks and get a first 
     down, it definitely can change the outcome of a game.'' . . . 
     .
       ``To know their personnel as soon as they do . . . it's a 
     tremendous advantage,'' Bates said. ``You're not panicking to 
     get players in and out of the game as far as matching up with 
     the offense.''
       The same Palm Beach Post article referenced comments made 
     by former Dolphins quarterback Jay Fiedler. Although Fiedler 
     contended that stealing offensive signals didn't have much 
     impact on a game, the Post article said that:

       Fiedler, a Dartmouth grad known as a cerebral quarterback, 
     certainly would have welcomed inside information on the 
     opposition's defensive signals.
       ``That's what you put all the hours of film study 
     throughout the week for,'' Fiedler said, ``to get that little 
     advantage out on the field, to see the little rotations in 
     the defense or how they line up or the alignments to tip off 
     what kind of blitz is coming.''
       ``If the quarterback knows what's coming, he can dissect it 
     at the line of scrimmage. In most cases you're not going to 
     get an advantage, but if there's an exotic blitz coming, then 
     usually there are ways to exploit that.''

       Commenting on the Patriots' videotaping in a Pittsburgh 
     Post-Gazette sports article ``On the Steelers'' on May 25, 
     2008, Ed Bouchette said:

       The practice was unique to Belichick and his crew. Some pro 
     scouts advancing games have told me that they've tried to 
     steal the signals of opposing coaches on the sideline which 
     is as legal as trying to pick up the third-base coaches' 
     signals in baseball. Some say it can help, some say it's 
     futile and wastes time.
       ``I didn't think it was worth the time and energy you were 
     looking at,'' said Hal Hunter, who spent 23 years in the 
     league as a coach and pro scout, including four as the 
     Steelers' offensive line coach in the 1980s.
       But, if you can set up a sophisticated system like the 
     Patriots had, it was worth it. New England would break down 
     its videotape of the coaches using their hand signals from 
     earlier games and match it with the defense that was used on 
     that play.
       Where it helped the most came when they went to their no-
     huddle offense. Because a defense does not know when the ball 
     will be snapped in the no-huddle, it must call its plays 
     quickly. The quarterback, then, could simply wait until the 
     defense was signaled in and the word was relayed to him by 
     his coaches in his headset what to call against it.
       Defenses normally use the same or similar signals from game 
     to game and even year to year under the same coordinators. 
     The reason is simple: It's not as easy to change signals in 
     football as it is in baseball, where the calls are simple. It 
     will confuse the players--the reason for so many of those 
     ``miscommunications.''

       The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's issue of May 9, 2008 noted 
     the comment of Steelers linebacker Larry Foote who joined the 
     team the season after the 2002 championship game and started 
     against the Patriots when the teams met in a title game three 
     years later. The Tribune-Review said:

       (Foote) believes the Patriots may have gained an advantage 
     by taping signals, but he doesn't know how much.

[[Page 11540]]

       ``If they know our defense, that's a big advantage,'' Foote 
     said yesterday. ``But we don't know the degree of it. We'll 
     never know the degree of it.''

       In a highly critical article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 
     on May 16, 2008 entitled ``Getting Tougher to Keep NFL Image 
     Clean,'' Bryan Burwell asserts that the Patriots had a 
     competitive advantage on their taping, and concludes his 
     column with the question ``Who says crime doesn't pay?''

          Key Conclusion: NFL Investigation Lacked Credibility

       The most important conclusion from the NFL investigation is 
     its lack of credibility. This judgment emerged from the NFL's 
     calculated effort to appear objective while pulling its 
     punches and acting only when compelled by public pressure.
       (1) Commissioner Goodell's letter to me dated January 31, 
     2008 stated that my letters of November 15, 2007 and December 
     19, 2007 had just come to his attention: ``I saw today for 
     the first time your letters inquiring about my investigation 
     into the taping of defensive signals by the New England 
     Patriots.'' The Commissioner's representation that this was 
     the first the NFL had known of my letters was contradicted by 
     an email exchange on January 25, 2008 between NFL counsel and 
     my staffer, Ivy Johnson, that the NFL had received my letters 
     and would reply to them in due course after the Super Bowl.
       (2) The Commissioner originally represented in his news 
     conference on February 1, 2008 in advance of the Super Bowl 
     that the taping was limited to the September 9, 2007 game and 
     six other games. Specifically, he stated: ``I believe there 
     were six tapes, and I believe some were from the preseason in 
     2007, and the rest were primarily in the late 2006 season.'' 
     That representation was flatly contradicted in the meeting of 
     February 13, 2008 between Commissioner Goodell and me where 
     he admitted that the taping had gone on back to the year 
     2000.
       (3) The NFL's judgment on the penalty was not credible--
     really not rational. The Patriots were caught taping the Jets 
     on September 9, 2007. The Commissioner imposed the penalty on 
     September 13, 2007. The NFL reviewed the tapes for the first 
     time on September 17, 2007. The NFL announced the tapes had 
     been destroyed on September 20, 2007. How could the penalty 
     be rationally imposed before examining the evidence?
       (4) The Commissioner's stated reason for destroying the 
     tapes lacks credibility. He said in his January 31, 2008 
     letter that ``the tapes and the notes were destroyed by our 
     office in order to ensure that they could not be used for any 
     purpose going forward. Our goal was to ensure that the 
     Patriots would not secure any possible competitive advantage 
     as a result of the misconduct that had been identified.'' 
     That objective could have been obtained by storing the tapes 
     in a vault and they would have been preserved for future 
     inspection if the need arose. The NFL would have avoided the 
     inevitable smell of destroying evidence.
       (5) Like destroying the tapes, the NFL's destruction of the 
     Patriots' notes of tapings lacks a credible reason--raising 
     the obvious inference that there is something to hide. That 
     applies to all the destruction of notes, but especially to 
     the destruction of notes on the tapings of the Steelers 
     games.
       In the AFC Championship game on January 27, 2002, the 
     Patriots defeated the Steelers by a score of 24-17. Hines 
     Ward, Steelers wide receiver, was quoted: ``Oh, they knew. 
     They were calling our stuff out. They knew, especially that 
     first championship game (2002) here at Heinz Field. They knew 
     a lot of our calls. There's no question some of their players 
     were calling out some of our stuff.'' When the Patriots 
     played the Steelers again during their season-opener on 
     September 9, 2002, the Patriots again won, this time by a 
     score of 30-14.
       On October 31, 2004, the Steelers beat the Patriots 34-20, 
     forced four turnovers, including two interceptions, and 
     sacked the quarterback four times. In the AFC Championship 
     game on January 23, 2005, the Patriots won 41-27 and 
     intercepted Ben Roethlisberger three times. The Steelers had 
     no sacks that game.
       (6) No objective, credible investigation would permit a 
     representative of the subject of the inquiry to be present at 
     the questioning of a key witness. Walsh said that Dan 
     Goldberg, an attorney for the Patriots, was present at his 
     interview and asked questions. With some experience in 
     investigations, I have never heard of a situation where the 
     subject of an investigation or his/her/its representative was 
     permitted to be present during the investigation. It strains 
     credulity that any objective investigator would countenance 
     such a practice. During a hearing or trial, parties will be 
     present with the right of cross-examination and 
     confrontation, but certainly not in the investigative stage 
     with the sensitive questioning of a witness.

           Comments (Criticism/Compliments) on My Activities

       Some newspapers, especially in New England, have been 
     critical of my role, and there were some hostile comments on 
     two radio interviews I volunteered to do on the Dennis and 
     Callahan Show on WEEI (Boston radio) on February 8, 2008 and 
     May 16, 2008, but there were many columns, editorials and 
     letters to the editor supporting my position.
       Harvey Araton, writing in the New York Times sports section 
     on May 9, 2008, called me the ``crusading Senator Arlen 
     Specter'' in a column seeking for the NFL to bar Belichick 
     from coaching the Patriots for one season saying, ``One year 
     out. Then let's see Belichick dare spy again in 2009.''
       In its May 10, 2008 edition, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 
     commented about the Steelers organization limiting comment on 
     Spygate, saying:

     Which brings us to Sen. Arlen Specter, a lifetime politician 
     who doesn't have to straddle the Steelers' company line. He 
     refuses to go away and shut up about the New England Patriots 
     videotaping opposing coaches' signals. Bless his heart. The 
     Steelers should be glad they have Specter on their side.

       Even the Boston Globe had a favorable comment about me in 
     its May 11, 2008 edition by Mike Reiss captioned ``Tale of 
     the Tape Re-Visited'': ``. . . it would be difficult to argue 
     that (Specter) did not add clarity to the situation.''
       Fox Sports on May 14, 2008 criticized the NFL's 
     investigation, saying:

       Kudos to the dogged efforts of the media and Pennsylvania 
     Senator Arlen Specter for demanding more on Spygate after 
     Goodell's essentially declared ``Mission accomplished.''

       An article by Jeff Jacobs in the May 13, 2008 edition of 
     the Hartford Courant captioned ``Goodell-Walsh Meeting: Only 
     the Truth Will Do'':

       . . . but give Specter this much: He did provide some 
     focus, and it was in their meeting Goodell finally confirmed 
     how long Belichick had been videotaping other teams.

       As noted by Don Banks in the May 14, 2008 article on Sports 
     Illustrated's website, SI.com:

       I happen to agree with the always-skeptical senior senator 
     from Pennsylvania that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has an 
     inherent conflict of interest whenever he undertakes to 
     investigate his own league.

       The Los Angeles Times edition of May 16, 2008 in a column 
     by Sam Farmer captioned ``Arlen Specter Has Good Reason To 
     Keep An Eye On NFL, Spygate'' challenged my objectivity and 
     added: ``Yes he's a politician. But he could still be 
     right.''
       The Bradenton Herald in a May 16, 2008 column captioned 
     ``NFL Fumbles Again'' supported my position saying:

       Again, we stand alongside the senator on his statement: 
     ``What is necessary is an objective investigation. And this 
     one has not been objective.
       The NFL's stand on this scandal is a self-serving ``trust 
     us, we did the right thing.''
       Would anyone trust the White House with that kind of 
     position? We hold our public officials to high standards, we 
     demand transparency and accountability.
       Specter is threatening the NFL's antitrust exemption. With 
     its highly visible and unique position in our culture, the 
     league owes the public transparency and accountability.
       This isn't just about sports. This is about truth, justice 
     and the American way.
       The NFL doesn't get it--yet.

       The Herald added:

       Specter is right on target with his outrage: ``That 
     sequence is incomprehensible,'' he said this week in 
     repeating his criticism of the decision to destroy the 
     materials. ``It's an insult to the intelligence of the people 
     who follow it.''

       In an editorial in Chester, Pennsylvania's Daily Local 
     dated May 17, 2008, captioned ``Specter Isn't Accepting 
     Goodell's `Spygate is Over' Stance,'' the writer notes:

       Fortunately for the football fan, Arlen Specter continues 
     to refuse to play by those rules. And because he is a U.S. 
     Senator, he has a high-volume microphone of his own.
       Roger Goodell does not get to announce when an alleged NFL 
     scandal goes away. The people do, and the people are 
     represented in Congress. That makes Specter correct: The NFL 
     should be open to independent analysis of the possibility of 
     cheating--cheating by certain teams not against other teams, 
     but against the customers, who have the right to expect fair 
     contests.
       Goodell may be right. There may be nothing to Spygate.
       But Specter is definitely right: It's not Goodell's 
     decision.

       The New York Daily News in a column on May 18, 2008 said 
     that it ``might not be enough'' to conclude with the judgment 
     ``Belichick cheated, was punished, humiliated and now his 
     record is tainted.'' Commenting on my involvement, the New 
     York Daily News said:

       Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican, has endless and 
     admirable energy, especially for a 78 year-old man undergoing 
     chemotherapy treatments for Hodgkin's disease, and he says he 
     is concerned about the integrity of the game.

       The May 18, 2008 edition of the New York Times contained an 
     article captioned ``Politicians Challenge Integrity of NFL,'' 
     written by William C. Rhoden, noting:

       Sprawling industries cannot adequately police themselves 
     and Specter, to his credit,

[[Page 11541]]

     is questioning whether the N.F.L. has properly handled 
     allegations that Belichick had assistants videotape 
     opponents' signals. Specter has called for an independent 
     ``objective'' investigation into the Patriots' taping 
     practice.
       ``This one,'' he said, referring to the NFL's in-house 
     investigation ``has not been objective.'' Specter said 
     Goodell was caught in an ``apparent conflict of interest'' 
     because the N.F.L. doesn't want the public to lose confidence 
     in the league's integrity.
       The conflict isn't ``apparent,'' it's tremendous. The 
     N.F.L. is a multibillion dollar industry that sells itself on 
     fair competition and championships that are won fairly and 
     squarely.

       Noting that, ``Specter is not an objective party. He has 
     two professional football teams in his state,'' the Rhoden 
     article continued:

       That being said, the issues he (Specter) raises about the 
     NFL's actions against New England are legitimate. This book 
     has more chapters.
       The politics of business and the business of politics 
     usually compromise the sort of fair and honest competition we 
     celebrate in competitive athletics.
       What a sad sign of the times: the sports industry has gone 
     so far a field that we need politicians to reel it back in.

       While expressing a preference for solutions on ``some 
     things that are `truly problems','' the May 18, 2008 edition 
     of the Chambersburg Public Opinion (Pennsylvania) newspaper 
     said:

       Congress is not getting into football. It has been involved 
     in it because it is required to do so because of the 
     antitrust exemption given to the league by the government.
       If the mega-rich owners will give back their antitrust 
     exemptions, pay their fair share of taxes and stop asking 
     taxpayers to pay for their stadiums, they would be able to 
     tell the likes of Specter to go take a ride.
       But that is not the case, and is why Specter is within his 
     right to press the issue.

       Lee Jenkins, writing in the May 26, 2008, edition of Sports 
     Illustrated, comments:

       It is commendable that Specter, an unabashed Eagles fan, is 
     willing to fight to protect the ethics of competitive 
     athletics.

       Jenkins then commented about other areas which might 
     benefit from congressional oversight, saying:

       But Congress could use its power in other areas of sports--
     by scrutinizing readily available sports supplements that 
     aren't regulated by the FDA, perhaps, or by studying the 
     legality and rationality of using public funds to finance 
     stadiums. There are significant digital-age First Amendment 
     issues relating to how much control leagues have over who 
     covers their games and how the news and images they generate 
     can be used, and there is the wisdom of granting pro leagues 
     antitrust exemptions.

       An article in the St. Louis American, dated May 22, 2008, 
     by Mike Claiborne (``NFL Out of Control at the Top, Cheats--
     and Protects Cheaters''), said:

       . . . the league tried to look the other way as long as 
     they could until Senator Arlen Specter decided he was not 
     satisfied with the answers he had been given.

       Noting his preference for more attention to other national 
     problems, Claiborne added:

       I have come to appreciate his tenacity. Now that he has 
     rattled the cage, the league cannot wait to have some games 
     be played so the issue can be moved to the back pages. A 
     little cooperation with their TV partners, and it will be 
     `Spy-Who?'

       Sportswriter Dave Fairbank, writing in the Newport News, 
     Virginia Daily Press on May 24th in a column titled ``Sports 
     Need Integrity, or Else,'' said in part:

       Specter, that dogged, old cancer survivor, thought the 
     NFL's reaction last fall a little too quick, neat and self-
     serving, so he continued to talk it up and conducted his own 
     inquiry.
       He released the findings in a 2,500 word memo 10 days ago, 
     more than seven months after the initial incident that caused 
     all of the hooha. He said Goodell's remarks and the NFL 
     investigation weren't credible. He believes a Mitchell 
     Report-type of investigation is warranted.
       You can make the argument that Congress has more pressing 
     business than NFL cheats and sneaks. But where Specter is 
     correct is the point that the NFL ought not to be its own 
     police force in all instances, any more than Big Oil or the 
     Bar Association or the U.S. government.

       After saying it was time to move on, a sports column in the 
     Pittsburgh Post-Gazette May 25, 2008, by Ed Bouchette ``On 
     the Steelers'' said:

       Specter did his job; by raising Cain he rattled the NFL 
     into at least acknowledging the scope of the scandal and 
     forced more details onto the public record.

                              The Penalty

       I have not taken issue with the penalty. In my May 14, 
     2008, news conference, I was asked what punishment the 
     Patriots should have received and I said I would not get into 
     that. I said I wanted to find the facts to deal with the 
     issues for the future.
       As noted earlier, Harvey Araton, in the New York Times on 
     May 9, 2008, called for banning Belichick for one year. 
     Similarly, Gregg Easterbrook, writing on ESPN.com on May 17, 
     2008, called for the suspension of Belichick for at least a 
     year. On the subject of discipline toward Belichick, the May 
     8, 2008, edition of the New York Daily News in an article by 
     Gary Myers captioned ``Double-sided Tape for Bill Belichick'' 
     stated:

       It appears that Belichick will escape further discipline 
     from Goodell. That hardly clears him from cheating all these 
     years.

       The Seattle Times, in a May 11, 2008, story by Steve Kelley 
     captioned ``Belichick's Penalty Should Match Severity of 
     Violations,'' stated:

       Integrity separates the NFL from the WWE. It is the 
     difference between pro football and pro jai alai.

       The toughest position was taken by the Pittsburgh Tribune 
     Review in its May 11, 2008, edition, saying the fines, 
     penalties and even suspension of Belichick were ``too 
     lenient'' and adding:

       Sadly, ``cheating'' and ``sport'' have become synonymous. 
     And if the Patriots have any integrity, they'll fire 
     Belichick. And if the NFL has any guts, it will ban Bill 
     Belichick from the league.
       Anything less renders sportsmanship meaningless.

       The publicity in exposing Belichick and the Patriots 
     conduct has been a far greater punishment than dollars and 
     draft choices. History will impose the final judgment on the 
     penalty for Belichick and the Patriots.

                            Some NFL Reforms

       The disclosure of the Patriots' taping has produced some 
     potential reforms which, if enforced, could improve the 
     integrity of the game.
       During their 2008 annual spring meeting earlier this 
     spring, the Commissioner proposed, and the NFL owners 
     accepted, a new policy that requires all club owners, 
     executives and head coaches to certify annually that they 
     have complied with league rules and policies and have 
     reported any violations they know. They also lowered the 
     standard of proof for establishing any violations of league 
     rules to ``preponderance of the evidence.'' Goodell also 
     reserved the right to expand programs and technology to 
     monitor and enforce compliance by, for example, conducting 
     regular spot checks of game-day locker rooms, press boxes, 
     coaches' booths, coach-to-player communications systems, and 
     other in-stadium communications systems.
       The NFL had already made changes to the rules prior to the 
     start of the 2007 season. The New York Times suggested those 
     changes were in response to earlier instances when the 
     Patriots were caught filming. According to a May 11, 2008 
     story in the Times, the 2007 NFL operations manual shows that 
     many of those changes concern policies on the placement of 
     cameras and microphones. The league also mandated that 
     neutral operators, who have not previously worked that team's 
     home games, run the coach-to-quarterback radio systems, as 
     well as game clocks, for playoff games. In addition, the 
     league required that players with radio components in their 
     helmets wear a decal--a lime-green dot--on their helmet. In 
     the manual, the league also promised to make unannounced 
     visits to teams to make sure no one tampered with the radio 
     systems. It would obviously be useful if the NFL and other 
     sports leagues would publicly disclose rules and procedural 
     changes to provide transparency in their operations instead 
     of waiting for leaks and news media ferreting out their 
     private moves which have a public impact with an arguable 
     public right to know.

       A Thorough, Objective, Transparent Investigation is Needed

       On the totality of the available evidence and the potential 
     unknown evidence, the Commissioner's investigation has been 
     fatally flawed. The lack of candor, the piecemeal 
     disclosures, the changes in position on material matters, the 
     failure to be proactive in seeking out other key witnesses, 
     and responding only when unavoidable when evidence is thrust 
     upon the NFL leads to the judgment that an impartial 
     investigation is mandatory.
       There is an unmistakable atmosphere of conflict of interest 
     between what is in the public's interest and what is in the 
     NFL's interest. The NFL has good reason to disclose as little 
     as possible in its effort to convince the public that what 
     was done wasn't so bad, had no significant effect on the 
     games and, in any event, has been cleaned up. Enormous 
     financial interests are involved and the owners have a mutual 
     self-interest in sticking together. Evidence of winning by 
     cheating would have the inevitable effect of undercutting 
     public confidence in the game and reducing, perhaps 
     drastically, attendance and TV revenues.
       Commissioner Goodell has conducted a closed door 
     investigation without specifying what key Patriot personnel 
     have said. He gives only generalized statements and those 
     shift with the wind to accommodate changes in the weather. 
     Uniform comments made by the owners raise the obvious 
     implication that they have coordinated their responses and 
     were issuing statements to the news

[[Page 11542]]

     media from talking points which sought to minimize the 
     seriousness of the taping. They all said it had no impact on 
     the games, specified that they were satisfied with the 
     Commissioner's results even though their teams may have been 
     prejudiced and said that they were ready to move on.
       The May 16, 2008 story by Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles 
     Times highlighted the credibility issue when decisions are 
     made among 32 owners behind closed doors:

       The NFL is a $6-billion-a-year enterprise. Thanks to 
     Congress, it also enjoys an exemption from antitrust laws, a 
     luxury rarely afforded other businesses. With that comes 
     responsibility, especially when the league's credibility is 
     called into question. Making decisions among 32 owners in 
     closed-door meetings is not always the most forthright way to 
     go about things.
       It wasn't so long ago that people wondered why the 
     government should be meddling with the big business of Wall 
     Street. Few people question that now.
       A greater degree of transparency is essential the next time 
     a Spygate-type situation arises. That might help stem the 
     flood of rumors, half-truths and outright myths that swirled 
     around the New England story.

       Congress conferred an antitrust exemption upon professional 
     sports, including football, because it was viewed as 
     necessary to their ability to organize a successful football 
     league. Over the years, the exemption, which allows the NFL 
     teams to jointly sell their television rights, has yielded 
     incredible profits for the NFL. It has been reported that the 
     NFL will generate $7.6 billion in revenue this season. 
     Congress has provided the antitrust exemption without any 
     guarantee of accountability. In light of the NFL's 
     investigation of the Patriots' taping, I thought it necessary 
     to ask the important questions to determine how widespread a 
     practice taping opponents' signals was and whether more could 
     be done to ensure the integrity of the game.
       The public interest is enormous. Sports personalities are 
     role models for all of us, especially youngsters. If the 
     Patriots can cheat, so can the college teams, so can the high 
     school teams, so can the 6th grader taking a math 
     examination. The Congress has granted the NFL a most 
     significant business advantage, an antitrust exemption, 
     highly unusual in the commercial world. That largesse can 
     continue only if the NFL can prove itself worthy. Beyond the 
     issues of role models and antitrust, America has a love 
     affair with sports. Professional football has topped all 
     other sporting events in fan interest. Americans have a right 
     to be guaranteed that their favorite sport is honestly 
     competitive.
       It may be that the entire matter will have to percolate for 
     a while. The attention span of the American people, including 
     sports writers, is limited by the rush of ongoing superseding 
     events on compelling national and international issues. 
     Sports fans and others may have lost interest for reasons 
     stated by Dave Fairbank in the Newport News, Virginia Daily 
     Press on May 24, 2008 when he commented on why the public 
     tires of investigations and has not demanded a Mitchell-type 
     inquiry:

       Granted many of you who eyeball pro sports have reached the 
     saturation point. You don't care which baseball players used 
     steroids. You don't want to hear if the Patriots filmed games 
     and tried to steal signals.
       You are so over Donaghy and the idea of fixed NBA games. 
     You don't want to know which Olympic athlete tested positive 
     when.
       You want games. Period. Scores, rivalries, matchups, 
     pennant races, playoff runs.

       There are signs bubbling below the surface that potential 
     imminent events could stimulate renewed interest in the NFL's 
     integrity. The NFL is mentioned in investigations of other 
     sports.
       The New York Times, on May 25, 2008, sounded an alarm on 
     fixing in sporting contests noting:

       With Internet gambling predicted to surpass $20 billion in 
     2008, and with illegal wagering accounting for $150 billion 
     in the United States, by some estimates, the temptation for 
     those seeking to influence the outcome of games has never 
     been greater. Now, a raft of gambling scandals in sports, 
     from cricket to soccer and most recently tennis, has raised 
     an uncomfortable question: Are the games we watch fixed?

       A report commissioned by the major tennis governing bodies 
     recommended that 45 matches played in the last five years be 
     investigated because betting patterns gave a ``strong 
     indication'' that gamblers were profiting from inside 
     information. And those matches, the report said, may be only 
     the tip of the iceberg.
       Betfair offers betting on major sports based in the United 
     States, like the NFL, the NBA and Major League Baseball. But 
     it does not take any wagers from the United States or China, 
     Japan, Hong Kong or India, places where online gambling is 
     illegal. (Emphasis added.)

       In a May 29, 2008 Philadelphia Inquirer article, Phil 
     Sheridan begins with analyzing the basketball scandal 
     involving referee Tim Donaghy and then moves to other sports 
     including the NFL:

       Instead of being critical of an official's call, fans now 
     openly suspect the NBA (and the NHL and the NFL) of dictating 
     the outcomes of postseason games. Instead of trusting in the 
     fundamental integrity of the games, fans have good cause to 
     wonder whether there isn't some secret script.

       Within the past week, two major newspapers have carried 
     comments calling for an extended investigation. The May 29, 
     2008 Philadelphia Inquirer editorial noted its change of 
     position on my activity:

       Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) criticized the NFL for 
     prematurely shutting down the investigation and destroying 
     any related evidence.
       The senator's involvement initially prompted this Editorial 
     Board to conclude that he should be spending his time and 
     taxpayers' money on weightier issues. But, in retrospect, 
     Specter may be on to something.
       Given the inherent conflict that the NFL has with its 
     teams--after all, it prospers when they prosper--an 
     independent investigation seems warranted. That's the route 
     the governing bodies of professional tennis took after 
     allegations surfaced regarding match fixing.
       An independent review recommended that 45 pro tennis 
     matches played in the last five years be investigated. The 
     review found betting patterns in those matches that showed 
     large wagers had been placed on underdogs, an indication that 
     bettors might have had inside information. The inquiry 
     continues.
       Meanwhile, what's most disturbing about the betting and 
     taping scandals in the NBA and NFL is how both of those 
     leagues' commissioners seem more eager to move beyond the 
     controversies than to get to the truth. Independent, thorough 
     investigations are needed to ensure fans of the integrity of 
     the games.

       After commenting that I appear vulnerable because Comcast 
     of Philadelphia is at war with the NFL and the Eagles lost 
     the Super Bowl to New England in 2004, Skip Rozin wrote in 
     the May 31, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal: ``But 
     neither of these facts blunts the point of his (my) inquiry; 
     the NFL seems to beg for intervention.'' Rozin then 
     references the response to the 1919 World Series White Sox/
     Black Sox scandal where newly appointed commissioner 
     (formerly federal judge) Kenesaw Mountain Landis banned the 
     eight players involved for life, even though a court found 
     insufficient evidence to convict them. Rozin concluded:

       When steroid abuse recently threatened to turn that same 
     sport and its records into a joke, it took the threat of 
     congressional intervention to force Major League Baseball to 
     act.
       Throwing games, taking steroids, spying on opponents--it's 
     all cheating. And any attack on the credibility of the game 
     is a serious threat. The NFL had a chance to act decisively 
     to clean its own house, but it failed to do so, leaving the 
     door open to Congress.

       In a March 3, 2008 Philadelphia Inquirer column, Michael 
     Smerconish called Commissioner Goodell's response to the 
     Patriots' videotaping ``odd,'' characterized responses by 
     other franchise owners as ``teams seem to be reading from 
     timid talking points . . .'' and said ``if the NFL appears 
     lax in this matter, it risks being compared to professional 
     wrestling where nothing is `real'.'' Smerconish concluded:

       What's needed is (a) truly independent investigation, and 
     (b) an NFL commissioner who is intolerant of cheating--in the 
     mold of baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who 
     took the helm in 1920 after the Chicago Black Sox scandal--to 
     protect pro football from itself.
       After thinking and rethinking this matter, it is hard for 
     me to understand the willingness of the public, the media and 
     even the NFL to accept the status quo. There is no higher 
     value in our society than integrity. Americans' addiction to 
     sports, with the NFL at the top, is based on the excitement 
     generated by the potential for the unexpected great play 
     which can only happen with honest competition from great 
     athletes. The clouds are heavy and getting heavier.
       My strong preference is for the NFL to activate a Mitchell-
     type investigation. I have been careful not to call for a 
     Congressional hearing because I believe the NFL should step 
     forward and embrace an independent inquiry and Congress is 
     extraordinarily busy on other matters. If the NFL continues 
     to leave a vacuum, Congress may be tempted to fill it.

 Collateral Considerations: I Challenged the NFL's Conduct Long Before 
              Comcast Became a Major Pennsylvania Company

       Occasional rumors have been floated to the media that I am 
     motivated to protect Comcast in its battles with the NFL. The 
     solid historical record demonstrates that I have been 
     concerned about the NFL's conduct long before Comcast became 
     a power.
       In 1982, I was approached by the NFL to request Senator 
     Strom Thurmond, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
     to have hearings on the proposed move by Al Davis and the 
     Oakland Raiders from Oakland to Los Angeles. I had introduced 
     S. 2821 on August 9, 1982, to prevent a professional football 
     team from leaving a city where it has established ties unless 
     it could not survive as a profitable business. In my 
     statement introducing S. 2821, I said:


[[Page 11543]]


       This legislation is premised on the judgment that sports 
     fans in a city have a form of a `proprietary interest' in 
     their team which should preclude the owners from moving the 
     franchise unless it is a failing business. In my judgment, a 
     sports team is ``affected with the public interest.''
       I believe a sports team is different from a regular 
     business entity. If an ordinary business moves away another 
     such business will take its place if a reasonable profit 
     could be made. That is customarily not so with a sports team.
       It is my sense that two generations of sport fans still 
     resent the movement of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York 
     Giants baseball franchise. Conversely people understood that 
     the necessity for the relocation of the St. Louis Browns and 
     the Philadelphia, and later Kansas City, Athletics.
       On August 16, 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee began 
     hearings on that legislation. The key witnesses were NFL 
     Commissioner Pete Rozelle and Al Davis, owner of the Oakland 
     Raiders.
       On January 3, 1985, I introduced S. 172 with the same 
     objective when the Eagles threatened to move to Phoenix. In 
     my floor statement, I said:

       According to media accounts, the estimated cost to 
     Philadelphia taxpayers of the concessions made by the city to 
     retain the Eagles is at least $30 million over the next 20 
     years. On December 17, [1984,] I wrote to Commissioner 
     Rozelle and stated that the National Football League, rather 
     than the city of Philadelphia, should bear the cost of any 
     concessions which have been made to keep the Eagles in 
     Philadelphia.
       Commissioner Rozelle answered on December 19, 1984 without 
     responding to my question concerning the cost of the 
     concessions made by the city of Philadelphia and my belief 
     that such costs should be born by the National Football 
     League.
       On March 19, 1987, I introduced similar legislation, S. 
     782, The Professional Sports Community Protection Act of 
     1987.
       On March 19, 1996, I again introduced similar legislation, 
     S. 1625, The Professional Sports Franchise Relocation Act of 
     1996.
       On March 19, 1999, I introduced the Stadium Financing and 
     Franchise Relocation Act of 1999, S. 952, conditioning the 
     NFL and MLB antitrust exemptions on their paying part of 
     construction costs for new stadiums by requiring the Leagues 
     to deposit ten percent of the amounts received under the 
     joint agreement for the sale or transfer of the rights in 
     sponsored telecasting of games to finance the construction or 
     renovation of playing facilities, upon request of a local 
     governmental entity.
       Comcast was not affected by the NFL's antitrust exemption. 
     Paul Tagliabue, attorney for the NFL, appearing with 
     Commissioner Rozelle in the 1982 hearing, confirmed the point 
     that the antitrust exemption did not cover pay and cable when 
     he said:

       [T]he words ``sponsored telecasting'' in that statute were 
     intended to exclude pay and cable. That is clear from the 
     legislative history and from the committee reports. So, that 
     statute does not authorize us to pool and sell to pay and 
     cable.


 Comcast Has Only in the Last Decade Become a Powerful Mega-Corporation

                                  1982

       Total Assets: $171,404,000
       Total Revenue: $62,838,000
       Basic Cable Subscribers: 284,000
       Employees: 994


                                  1985

       Total Assets: $360,998,000
       Total Revenue: $117,312,000
       Basic Cable Subscribers: 516,000
       Employees: 1318


                                  1987

       Total Assets: $1,034,876,000
       Total Revenue: $309,250,000
       Basic Cable Subscribers: 1,336,000
       Employees: 2794


                                  1996

       Total Assets: $12,088,600,000
       Total Revenue: $4,038,400,000
       Basic Cable Subscribers: 4,300,000
       Employees: 16,400


                                  1999

       Total Assets: $28,685,600,000
       Total Revenue: $6,209,200,000
       Total Cable Subscribers: 6,200,000
       Employees 25,700


                                  2007

       Total Assets: $113,400,000,000
       Total Revenue: $30,900,000,000
       Total Video Subscribers: 24,100,000
       Employees: 100,000

My Work on the Patriots Videotaping Did Not Interfere With Other Senate 
                                 Duties

       I take very seriously any suggestion that this matter 
     impacted on my other Senate work. The facts are that the few 
     hours I spent on the NFL issue did not detract from my Senate 
     duties. For twenty-eight years in the United States Senate 
     and before that as Philadelphia's District Attorney, I have 
     established a record of comprehensively covering all my 
     responsibilities.
       A few hours were involved in writing an occasional letter, 
     meeting with Commissioner Goodell and Matt Walsh and being 
     interviewed by sports columnists and radio-TV talk show 
     hosts. A listing of some of my Senate activities from October 
     2007 to May 2008 confirms I was diligent in attending to my 
     Senate duties.
       During that period I missed only two votes out of 180 
     (98.8% attendance). Those two votes were missed on April 4, 
     2008 when I was getting a PET scan at the Hospital of the 
     University of Pennsylvania.
       It is with some reservation that I am inserting this 
     section because it may appear overly defensive. But the facts 
     are the facts and I think the record should be documented on 
     this important issue.

          Some of My Senate Activities: October 2007--May 2008


                              Legislation

       Gas Prices, S. 879--Cosponsored S. 879 with Senator Kohl to 
     take away the OPEC's antitrust protection exemption to 
     increase oil supply thereby reducing the cost of oil at the 
     barrel and gasoline at the pump.
       Patent Reform, S. 1145--Cosponsored S. 1145 with Senators 
     Leahy and Hatch to provide comprehensive patent reform.
       Climate Change, S. 1766--Cosponsored S. 1766 with Senator 
     Bingaman to provide comprehensive legislation to combat 
     global warming.
       Mortgage Default Protection, S. 2133--Introduced 
     legislation to authorize bankruptcy courts to modify the 
     terms of variable rate mortgages, mortgages where there 
     frequently was misrepresentation by leaders and/or 
     misunderstanding by borrowers.
       Economic Stimulus Measure, S. 2539--Introduced S. 2539 to 
     give businesses 50% bonus depreciation for purchases made 
     during 2008 and 2009, a modified version of which was 
     included in the 2008 stimulus package.
       State Secrets, S. 2533--Cosponsored S. 2533 with Senator 
     Kennedy to require courts to evaluate state secrets claims as 
     a check to avoid potential executive branch abuse.
       Terrorist Surveillance Program and DOJ/FBI Oversight--Held 
     extensive oversight hearings with the Attorney General, the 
     FBI director, and the Homeland Security Secretary to provide 
     judicial oversight for wiretapping.
       Foreign Intelligence Surveillance--Committee and floor 
     amendment to substitute the U.S. government for the telephone 
     companies to secure judicial review for warrantless 
     wiretapping.
       Recidivism Reduction, S. 1060--Cosponsored S. 1060 with 
     Senator Biden which was signed into law by President Bush on 
     April 9, 2008 entitled ``Second Chance Act of 2007.''
       Journalist Protection, S. 2977--Cosponsored S. 2977 with 
     Senator Lieberman to protect American journalists from libel 
     suits brought in foreign countries with less protections of 
     free speech.
       Intellectual Property Enforcement, S. 2317--Cosponsored S. 
     2317 with Senators Leahy and Cornyn to help the Justice 
     Department combat copyright infringements.
       Media Shield, S. 2035--Obtained vote of 15-4 in Senate 
     Judiciary Committee on a bill co-sponsored by Senators 
     Schumer and Lugar that provides evidentiary privilege to 
     reporters.
       Foreign Maintenance of Aircraft, S. Amdt. 4590--Cosponsored 
     S. Amdt. 4590 with Senator McCaskill to significantly 
     increase government oversight of airline repair work 
     performed abroad.
       Alternative Minimum Tax, S. Amdt. 4189--Sponsored S. Amdt. 
     4189 to eliminate the unfair alternative minimum tax (AMT).
       Court Security Improvement, S. 378--Cosponsored S. 378 with 
     Senator Leahy to improve court security. Held hearings and 
     helped pass the bill, which was signed into law by President 
     Bush on January 7, 2008.

   Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services & 
                               Education

       Nov./Dec. 2007--Helped negotiate a $146 billion FY08 
     appropriations bill, providing increases for the NIH, CDC, 
     special education, children's graduate medical education, 
     nursing program, mentoring, low income home energy 
     assistance, community health centers, and advance directives.
       April 2, 2008--Chaired hearing on the National Labor 
     Relations Board regarding representation elections and 
     initial collective bargaining agreements to safeguard 
     workers' rights.
       May 7, 2008--Attended FY 09 Budget Hearing with Labor 
     Secretary Chao to discuss issues of concern to Pennsylvania 
     including funding for mentoring, elimination of the 
     employment service state grants, Job Corps, worker safety 
     fines, and mine safety.
       May 2008--Helped negotiate funding in the FY08 
     Supplemental, including additional $400 million for NIH; $110 
     million for Unemployment Insurance Administrative Costs; $26 
     million for CDC; $1 billion for LIHEAP; and to delay SCHIP 
     regulation.
       May 1, 2008--Wrote to Andy von Eschenbach, Commissioner of 
     FDA asking for his professional judgment regarding the budget 
     needs of the FDA to protect the public's health resulting in 
     an additional $275 million for the FDA.

              JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: OCTOBER 2007 TO MAY 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Executive
                                                           Judiciary
             Nominee               Floor statements        Committee
                                                          statements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Southwick 5th Cir........  Oct 23-24, 2007...  ..................
John Daniel Tinder 7th Cir......  Dec. 18, 2007.....  ..................
David Dugas LA..................  Feb. 13, 2008.....  ..................
Robert Conrad 4th Cir...........  Mar. 3-4, 2008.     Feb. 14, 2008. May
                                   April 1, 10, 16,    15, 2008.
                                   2008 May 6, 19,
                                   20, 2008.

[[Page 11544]]

 
Peter Keisler D.C. Cir..........  Mar. 3-4, 2008.     Feb. 14, 2008. May
                                   April 1, 10, 16,    15, 2008.
                                   2008. May 6, 19,
                                   20, 2008.
Steve Matthews 4th Cir..........  Mar. 3-4, 2008.     Feb. 14, 2008. May
                                   April 1, 10, 16,    15, 2008.
                                   2008. May 6, 19,
                                   20, 2008.
Catharina Haynes 5th Cir........  April 10, 2008....  ..................
Stanley Thomas Anderson WD TN...  April 10, 2008....  ..................
John Mendez ED CA...............  April 10, 2008....  ..................
James Randal Hall SD GA.........  April 10, 2008....  ..................
Brian Stacy Miller ED AR........  April 10, 2008....  ..................
Stephen Agee 4th Cir............  May 20, 2008......  May 15, 2008.
Raymond Kethledge 6th Cir.......  May 20, 2008......  May 15, 2008.
Helene White 6th Cir............  May 20, 2008......  May 15, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    BREAKDOWN IN CONFIRMATION PROCESS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Executive Judiciary
             Floor statements                   Committee  statements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ........................................  Feb. 28, 2008
March 3, 2008.............................  ............................
March 4, 2008.............................  ............................
April 1, 2008.............................  ............................
  ........................................  April 3, 2008
April 10, 2008............................  ............................
April 16, 2008............................  ............................
  ........................................  April 24, 2008
May 6, 2008...............................  ............................
  ........................................  May 8, 2008
  ........................................  May 15, 2008
May 19, 2008..............................  ............................
  ........................................  May 22, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Reporter's Privilege--Wrote op-ed on Reporter's Privilege 
     that appeared in the Washington Post on May 5, 2008 and the 
     Philadelphia Inquirer on May 11, 2008.
       Rural Violent Crimes--On March 24, 2008, travelled to 
     Rutland, Vermont with Senator Leahy to hold a Senate 
     Judiciary Committee field hearing on ``The Rise of Drug-
     Related Violent Crime in Rural America: Finding Solutions to 
     a Growing Problem.''

                        Mentoring At-Risk Youth

       October 15, 2007--Mentoring event with juveniles at the 
     Eagles stadium attended by Jevon Kearse.
       November 12, 2007--Hosted ``Philadelphia Mentoring 
     Awareness Day'' with over 170 Philadelphia elementary school 
     children and professional and former professional athletes.
       January 7, 2008--Met at CIGNA headquarters with 
     Philadelphia mentors from Big Brothers Big Sisters program 
     and other mentoring organizations in Philadelphia.
       February 4, 2008--Held meeting, site visit, and media 
     availability at the National Comprehensive Center for Fathers 
     with the Rev. Dr. Wilson Goode to promote mentoring 
     initiatives in the Philadelphia region.
       February 21, 2008--Met with Mayor Nutter at City Hall 
     regarding crime issues including mentoring and held a media 
     availability to discuss our efforts to support mentoring as a 
     key element in fighting crime.

                          Pennsylvania Travel

       11/05/07--Lehigh Valley, Dauphin County, Cumberland County.
       11/12/07--Chester County.
       11/16/07--Lehigh Valley, Delaware County.
       11/17-18/07--Chester County.
       11/19/07--Montgomery County, Delaware County.
       11/20/07--Lehigh Valley, Dauphin County, Luzerne County, 
     Lackawanna County.
       11/26/07--Allegheny County, Westmoreland County.
       11/26/07--Allegheny County.
       12/01/07--Montgomery County, Dauphin County.
       12/10/07--Dauphin County, Montgomery County.
       12/15/07--Bucks County.
       01/08/08--Lackawanna County, Dauphin County.
       01/14/08--Allegheny County, Westmoreland County.
       01/15/08--Allegheny County.
       02/04/08--Montgomery County,
       02/08-09/08--Dauphin County, Cumberland County.
       02/11/08--Lackawanna County, Luzerne County, Dauphin 
     County.
       02/18/08--Chester County, Delaware County.
       02/19/08--Allegheny County, Washington County.
       02/20/08--Allegheny County.
       02/21/08--Montgomery County.
       02/22/08--Chester County.
       02/29/08--Montgomery County.
       03/08/08--Montgomery County.
       03/10/08--Lackawanna County, Dauphin County.
       03/15/08--Delaware County, Montgomery County.
       03/16/08--Chester County.
       03/17/08--Berks County, Montgomery County.
       03/21/08--Chester County.
       03/22/08--Lehigh Valley, Luzerne County, Northampton 
     County.
       03/27/08--Allegheny County.
       03/28/08--Allegheny County, Armstrong County, Delaware 
     County.
       03/29/08--Delaware County.
       03/31/08--Montgomery County.
       04/04/08--Dauphin County, Cumberland County.
       04/07/08--Allegheny County.
       04/14/08--Lehigh Valley, Dauphin County, York County.
       04/18/08--Allegheny County.
       04/19/08--Allegheny County.
       04/21/08--Bucks County.

          Visits/Legislation on Deportation of Criminal Aliens

       Introduced S. 2720 on March 4th to deny visas and foreign 
     aid to countries which refuse to take back their criminal 
     aliens.


                                 Visits

       February 8, 2008 at SCI Camp Hill.
       February 11, 2008 at the Luzerne County Prison.
       February 18, 2008 at the Chester County Prison.
       February 19, 2008 at the Allegheny County Prison.
       March 31, 2008 at the Philadelphia County Prison.
       April 4, 2008 at the Dauphin County Prison.

                             Foreign Travel

       December 22, 2007-January 3, 2008 (Israel, Pakistan, 
     Jordan, Syria, Austria, and Belgium).
       Dec. 23-26 (Israel)--Met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, 
     President Shimon Peres, Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu, 
     Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and Defense Minister Ehud 
     Barak.
       Dec. 25 (West Bank)--Met with Palestinian Authority 
     President Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and 
     Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat.
       Dec. 26-28 (Islamabad, Pakistan)--Met with President Pervez 
     Musharraf, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General 
     Tariq Majid, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Scheduled to 
     meet with Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto on 
     Dec. 27 at 9 PM--she was assassinated three hours earlier.
       Dec. 29-30 (Damascus, Syria)--Met with President Bashar al-
     Assad, Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem, and opposition 
     leader Riad Seif.
       Dec. 30-Jan. 2 (Vienna, Austria)--Met with International 
     Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohammed 
     ElBaradei.
       Jan. 2-3 (Brussels, Belgium)--Met with US Ambassador to 
     NATO Victoria Nuland.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.

                          ____________________