census. However, one state did file suit in an attempt to throw out census figures derived from a method the state considered impermis- sible sampling. Utah, noting that its population grew by 30 percent in ten years, was disap- pointed it did not gain another seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. In reviewing the census data, it noted that the Census Bureau had relied on a statistical method called imputation to estimate the number of members of a household that census takers could not contact after repeated efforts. Utah discovered that if it could have these IMPUTED numbers removed from the population count it would gain a House seat that had been awarded to North Carolina. A three-judge panel heard Utah’s lawsuit but dismissed it at the urging of the Commerce Department. The panel ruled that the imputa- tion method was not impermissible under the 1999 Supreme Court decision and that it did not violate the Constitution’s census clause. The Supreme Court, in Utah v. Evans (536 U.S. 452, 122 S. Ct. 2191, 153 L.Ed.2d 453 [2002]), upheld the lower court ruling. The Court, in a 5–4 decision, dismissed Utah’s contention that actual enumeration under the census clause was intended as a description of the only methodol- ogy for counting U.S. citizens. As for the imputation method, the Court saw it as different from sampling: “sampling seeks to extrapolate the features of a large population from a small one, but the Bureau’s imputation process sought simply to fill in missing data as part of an effort to count individuals one by one.” Congress appropriated $1 billion for the 2010 census. The Census Bureau has established at its website (http://www.census.gov) a portal for accessing all 2000 census data. The site provides researchers with tables of data while also providing the public with breakdowns of data in easily searchable formats. FURTHER READINGS Anderson, Margo J. 1990. The American Census: A Social History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press. Katz, Bruce, Robert Lang, and Franklin Raines. 2003. Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. U.S. Census Bureau. Available online at www.census.gov (accessed November 23, 2009). CROSS REFERENCE Apportionment CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a NONPROFIT legal and educational organization dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of HUMAN RIGHTS. Since its formation in 1966 by attorneys working for CIVIL RIGHTS demonstrators in the South, the CCR has been a forceful advocate of civil rights for all people. The New York City-based organization seeks to halt what it describes as a steady erosion of civil liberties in the United States and elsewhere. The group addresses such areas as international human rights, government misconduct, sexual politics, indigenous peoples’ rights, nuclear and environmental hazards, women’s rights, civil rights, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,racism,ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE , criminal trials, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, and abuse of the GRAND JURY process. Cofounded by attorneys WILLIAM M. KUNSTLER, Morton Stavis, and others in the heady days of the 1960s social activism, the left-leaning CCR describes itself as “committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change . ” Throughout its history, the CCR has consis- tently generated legal and political controversy. African American civil rights leader MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr. was one of the group’s first clients. Since then, the CCR has won favorable decisions for such diverse figures as antinuclear leaders in the Micronesian republic of Belau and Native American protesters at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Much of the center’s work has involved international caus es and foreign clients. In the early 1970s the CCR sued the U.S. government to discover answers regarding U.S. citizens missing in Chile and U.S. involvement in the support of Chilean leader Salvador Allende. The group broke ground in the battle to establish the right to sue foreign governments or individuals in U.S. courts. In 1986 the CCR represented the government of President Corazon Aquino of the Philippines, in its fight to recover millions of dollars in assets taken by former dictator Ferdinand Marcos. In another case, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980), the organization won a settlement of $10.4 million for a Paraguayan boy who brought suit against an exiled dictator of Paraguay who had ordered the boy’s torture. In 1998 the CCR joined forces with Green- peace USA and other organizations to block the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 308 CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Japanese corporate giant Shintech from con- structing the largest PVC plant in the world in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The local commu- nity surrounding the site of the proposed plant had a population consisting of more than 80 percent minorities, 40 percent of whom lived below the poverty level. It was known for its high degree of chemical POLLUTION, so much so that it was dubbed “Cancer Alley.” The CCR accused the company of, among other things, environmental racism. Shintech abandoned its plans in late 1998. The CCR also played an important role in the 2000 release of Palestinian immigrant Hany Kiareldeen, who was detained by the IMMIGRATION and Naturalization Service (INS) for 19 months solely on the basis of secret evidence that neither he nor his lawyers were permitted to review. The CCR was heavily critical of the adminis- tration of President GEORGE W. BUSH. The center decried the government’s detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The CCR has supported LITIGATION in the federal courts on behalf of those imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay facility. In Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 124 S. Ct. 2686, 159 L. Ed. 2d 548 (2004), the court held that the U.S. courts had authority to determine whether Guantanamo Bay detainees were being held illegally. The case originated when the CCR filed a petition for HABEAS CORPUS petition on behalf of two detainees. The CCR conducts a number of programs. Its Movement Support Network, started in 1984, provides aid to social activist groups, including legal protection for groups experienc- ing harassment by the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) and other government law enforcement age ncies. The Anti-Biased Vio- lence Project (ABVP), established in 1991, uses litigation and education to oppose violence against individuals because of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation and has defended ordinances that curtail hate speech. The CCR’s ELLA BAKER Student Program provides internships to law students. In Green- ville, Mississippi, the CCR operates the Voting Rights Project, a community-based voting rights litigation group that works in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee. The CCR also has a speakers’ bureau and publishes books, pamph- lets, and periodicals including Docket and the MSN News. The CCR maintains its own staff, but works with many lawyers who donate their time PRO BONO (for free). The group has previously been called the Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund and the Law Center for Constitutional Rights. FURTHER READINGS Center for Constitutional Rights. Available online at http:// ccrjustice.org/ (accessed May 13, 2009). Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). Spring 1994. Docket. New York: CCR. CENTERS FOR LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES Center for Law and Education The Center for Law and Education (CLE) offers support services on educational issues for advocates working on behalf of low-income students and parents. It seeks to take a leadership role in both improving the quality of public education for low-income students in the United States and enabling low-income communities to address their own public education problems effectively. As part of the nationwide network of support centers funded by the LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION (LSC), it provides specialized legal assistance to staff members of legal services program s and to members of approved panels representing eligible clients. The center has been at the fulcrum of reforms in education policy. Founded in 1969, the Cambridge, Massa- chusetts, and Washington, D.C., branches of the center offer advice and collaboration on cases, publications, training, federal program advoca- cy, and LITIGATION and assist parent and student involvement in education. The center publishes the NEWSNOTES periodical on a quarterly basis, as well as a host of other manuals, monographs, and reports. Its staff includes attorneys, an editor, and administrative support personnel. The center conducts training work- shops, usually in conjunction with local legal services programs. One of the CLE’s most significant efforts has been the National Title I and School Reform Advocacy Project. This project focus es on Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq., which provides billions of dollars in funding to school districts based on how many poor children the districts serve. The CLE’s project uses Title I as the principal vehicle to seek broad-based school reform. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CENTERS FOR LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES 309 The CLE has been a part of significant lawsuits dealing with the enforcement of federal and state constitutional rights and of federal laws. It focuses on issues such as students’ rights, federally funded programs, special edu- cation, sex and race discrimination, vocational education, bilingual-bicultural education, and Native-American education. Its staff has pressed significant litigation on the fairness of state programs for competency testing, the right of pupils with limited proficiency in English to understand instruction, the rights of students with disabilities, and racial discrimination in education—among other issues. Whenever feasible, the center encourages the development of local lay advocacy resources to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation. A significant portion of the center’s work is supported by grants from private funding. Center for Law and Social Policy As a national PUBLIC INTEREST organization, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) seeks to improve the economic conditions of low- income families with children. The Washington, D.C.–based center also attempts to secure access for poor people to the nation’s civil justice system through education, policy research, and advocacy. CLASP has worked closely with the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities, the Children’s Defense Fund, the American Public Welfare Association, and hundreds of other federal and state advocacy organizations. The center helps develop new strategies to fight poverty and stimulates new approaches in the delivery of lega l services. Since its founding in 1969, CLASP has been involved in important court decisions related to welfare distribution. The center headed efforts to preserve professional legal services for poor people. It organized the first clinical program for law school externs and initiated the National Women’s Law Center and the Mental Health Law Project. In the 1990s CLASP got involved in a debate over proposed changes in the welfare system: The center issued a number of publica- tions and began a process of information dissemination that created a conduit so that commissions on welfare could obtain informa- tion about each other’s activities. As part of its ongoing mission, the center has committed itself to continuous review and analysis of developments in federal and state welfare reform. CLASP advocates streamlined enforcement of CHILD SUPPORT. In the 1990s it initiated the ChildNet campaign that was designed to increase public awareness of the need for reform of the enforcement system for child supp ort. In addition, the center attempted to expand the access of teen parents and impoverished adults to education and training programs. As to legislative issues, the CHILD CARE and Develop- ment Block Grant, vocally supported by the center, tempers proposed limitations on welfare recipients that would make affordable child care less feas ible. The center has promoted income support policies that enhance work, reduce poverty, and promote the well-b eing of families. CLASP maintains a network of state and local advocates who provide training and technical assistance to other advocates and officials. It produces the quarterly Family Matters periodi- cal, newsletters, and periodic updates on new policy developments. It serves as counsel to the hundreds of legal services programs across the United States and their national organizations. Center for Oceans Law and Policy The Center for Oceans Law and Policy concerns itself with the future of the oceans and of the coastal and polar areas of the earth. The center has contributed to decisions made on the protection and use of these areas. It supports research, education, and discussion on legal and public issues surrounding oceans policy. It promotes interdisciplinary interaction at all levels—international, national, regional, and state—by conducting conferences and lectures. The center has dedicated itself to education in areas of oceans law and serves as a primary source for ongoing efforts in international research. In 1976 the center was founded as part of the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville. Since its founding the center has established a number of program s to promote discussion of oceans issues. In one such measure it estab- lished a teaching program in oceans law at the University of Virginia School of Law, along with the first master of law degree program with specialization in oceans law and policy. In addition, a basic course on oceans law and policy is taught by center personnel at American University, Georgetown University Law Center, and GEORGE WASHINGTON University Law School. Working with the University of Virginia’slaw GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 310 CENTERS FOR LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES library, the center established the Newlin Collection on Oceans Law and Policy, believed to be the largest collection of formal and informal materials in oceans law anywhere in the world. The center’s activities include advocacy in five different areas : publications and research (the biennial Director’s Report and the Oceans Policy Study Series); international associateships and fellowships; curriculum and teaching pro- grams in oceans law and policy; conferences and seminars; and the Newlin Collection. Through teaching, research, and the dissemination of information, the center seeks to help promote rational choices for maintaining a vital part of the earth’s well-being. The center is supported by the Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation. Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law The National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ) (formerly the Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, or Welfare Law Center) seeks an income support system that provides an adequate standard of living for people in the United States. In attempting to achieve this goal it respects individual rights of privacy, indepen- dence, SELF-DETERMINATION, and fair treatment. NCLEJ works as a NONPROFIT legal and policy organization providing assistance to advocates and low-income people’s organizations on welfare policy issues in Washington, D.C., and in the rest of the United States. Since 1965 NCLEJ has pursued an aggressive policy of advocacy for low-income people. Its work concentrates on public assistance pro- grams that provide cash subsistence benefits to millions of economically disadvantaged people. The center works to facilitate programs suc h as Aid to Families with Dependent Children and general assistance programs at the state and local levels, which together provide services to more than 15 million adults and children. A professional staff of seven attorneys and policy analysts contributes to the center’s UNDERSTANDING of welfare policy and law. First, welfare recipients and economically disadvan- taged people receive direct representation in federal litigation before appropriate administra- tive and legislative bodie s; this includes liti- gation befo re the U.S. Supreme Court, which has established basic due process rights for welfare recipients and ended discriminatory practices of welfare agencies. Second, the center seeks nonpartisan policy analysis designed to identify objective welfare policy issues. Third, the center attempts to increase popular understanding—and dispel myths—about pub- lic assistance programs by means of public education. Fourth, the center disseminates legal analyses of developments in welfare law and policy to more than 1,400 welfare spe cialists in every state and to the poverty LAW JOURNAL Clearinghouse Review. Finally, it provides spe- cialized case assistance with training and training materials for local lawyers, paralegals, and other advocates throughout the United States who are engaged in work that coincides with the center’s mission. The center remains focused on welfare reform proposals. The center receives financial support from foundations, corporations, the Legal Services Corporation, the Interest on Lawyer Account Fund of the State of New York, law firms, church groups, community organizations, and individuals. Under section 501(c)(3) of the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, the center is a nonprofit corporation with tax exempt status. Center for the Study of the Presidency The New York City–based Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress (CSPC) pro- motes citizenship education, especially for youth. It seeks an understanding of U.S. political and economic systems and relies on a network of college and university faculty and students for its intellectual support. The center conducts high-profile roundtable disc ussions with political leaders as well as special studies of U.S. political policies. It also maintains a research clearinghouse on the presidency. The founding of the CSPC in 1968 received support from former President DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER who said, “The result [ of the center] cannot fail to be good … for the Nation.” The New York State Board of Regents chartered the center. Since CSPC’s founding, Dr. R. Gordon Hoxie, a former chancellor of Long Island University, has served as its president and chief executive. Pursuant to the EDUCATION LAW of the state of New York, its board of trustees is limited to 25 members. Membership in the center includes business, professional, and government leaders as well as contributors in academia. Corporations and foundations assist in the center’s $1 million budget. The center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational corporation. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CENTERS FOR LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES 311 The CSPC has several objec tives. Primarily, it focuses on sec uring an understanding of the U.S. constitutional system of government. The center seeks to make itself an objective, nonpartisan body for PUBLIC POLICY research and provides educational programs for college and university students. CSPC works to strengthen democratic institutions both at home and abroad: As part of its comprehensive mission and international scope, the center attempts to build a sense of interdependence and under- standing between peoples and nations, while recognizing and respecting cultural differences. The initiation of most of the center’s basic programs occurred before the end of 1970. The Annual Leadership Conference, the Annual Student Symposium, the Fellowship Program, the Annual Lecture Series, and the center’s publications (annual reports and the Center House Bulletin) date to its early days. In 1974, the Annual Awards Program was added to its activities. In the 1990s, the Annual Business Leaders Symposium and a program for White House interns joined its offerings. The center is exempt from federal INCOME TAX .TheINTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has also determined that the center is not a private foundation, making it eligible for “distributions” from foundations. Jerry Lee Center of Criminology (Formerly the Sellin Center) Founded in 1960 and located in Philadelphia, the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology (formerly the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and CRIMINAL LAW, which closed in 1998 and was rededicated and rename d in 2001) researches crime, delinquency, the police, judicial systems, prisons, social control, and social deviance. Housed in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, the center trains graduate students toward master’s and doctorate degrees. Studies at the center have produced numerous professional presentations and government reports, books, articles, and monographs. The Jerry Lee Center views criminology as the scientific study of crime and criminals and society’s reaction to both. The center empha- sizes the contributions of different discipl ines— behavioral sciences, psychology, anthropology, legal studi es, psychiatry, neu rology, biology, and the criminal just ice system—to criminology. The center has worked on one of its primary projects since the early 1970s. Delinquency in a Birth Cohort analyzes the largest population of delinquents ever studied in the United States. The project has had a major effect on criminal justice thought throughout the world and has become a frequently cited publication in the field of criminology. Another project focuses on delinquency in the People’s Republic of China. Students in both the center and China have participated in this extensive project. Many of the center’s studies—of both national and international scope—have been cited in TESTI- MONY before the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees. The Jerry Lee Center works with officials in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation. It provides technical assistance to the mayor’s and district attorney’s offices and to judges and other officials in Philadelphia. The center also works with the New Jersey Public Defender’s Office using an extensive database to assess possible discriminatory practices in the imposi- tion of CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. FURTHER READINGS Center for Law and Education (CLE). Available online at http://www.cleweb.org/ (accessed May 14, 2009). Center for Law and Social Policy. Available online at http:// www.clasp.org/ (accessed May 14, 2009). Center for Oceans Law and Policy. Available online at http:// www.virginia.edu/colp/ (accessed May 14, 2009). Jerry Lee Center for Criminology. Available online at http:// www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/ (accessed May 14, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Schools and School Districts; Environmental Law CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES On July 1, 2001, the Health Care Financing Administration was reorganized and changed its name to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS serves as an operating division of the HEALTH AND H UMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT .Itwasestablishedin1977to combine under one administration the over- sight of the MEDICARE Program and the federal portion of the MEDICAID Program (Reorg. Order of Mar. 9, 1977, 42 Fed. Reg. 13,262). As part of the 2001 reorganization, three new business centers were developed: the Center for BENEFICIARY Choices, the Center for Medicare Management, and the Center for Medicaid and State Operations. The Center GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 312 CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES for Beneficiary Choices provides beneficiaries with information about Medicare, Medicare Select, MedicareþChoice, and Medigap options. It also manages the MedicareþChoice plans, consumer research and demonstrations, and grievances and appeals. The Center for Medi- care Management oversees the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program. This entails developing payment policies and managing Medicare fee-for-service contrac tors. The Cen- ter for Medicaid and State Operations oversees programs administered by the states, including Medicaid, the State Children’s HEALTH INSURANCE Program (SCHIP), insurance regulation func- tions, survey and certification, and the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Act (CLIA). Medicare provides health insurance c over- age for U.S. citizens age 65 or older, for younger people receiving SOCIAL SECURITY benefits, and for persons needing dialysis or kidney transplants for the treatment of end- stage renal disease (42 U.S.C.A. § 1395 et seq.). Medicare beneficiaries may receive medical care through p hysicians of their own choosing or through health maintenance organizations and other medical plans that have contracts with Medicare. Medicaid is a medical assistance program jointly financed by state and federal govern- ments for low-income individuals (42 U.S.C.A. § 1396 et seq.). Medicaid covers health care expenses for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (formerly Aid to Families with Dependent Children), low-income preg- nant women, and other individuals whose medical bills qualify them as medically needy. Most states also cover medical expenses for older U.S. citizens who are low-income, as well as blind and disabled individuals receiving assistance under the Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI). SSI coverage is further extended to some infants and low-income pregnant women and, depending on the state, to other low-income individuals with medical bills that qualify them as medically needy. The mission of CMS is to promote the timely delivery of quality health care to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and to ensure that the Medicare and Medicaid pro- grams are administered in an efficient manner. The agency must also ensure that program beneficiaries are aware of the services for which they are eligible, that those services are accessi- ble and of high quality, and that agency policies and actions promote efficiency and quality within the total health care delivery system. A quality assurance program administered by CMS is responsible for developing health and safety standards for provider s of health care services authorized by Medicare and Medicaid legislation. This program helps to ensure that Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries receive quality health care services at a reasonable cost. CMS is based principally in Baltimore, Maryland. It also has an office in Washington, D.C., along with several regional offices and field offices. FURTHER READINGS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available online at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ (accessed May 14, 2009). Medicare Resource Center. Available online at http://www. medicare.gov/ (accessed May 14, 2009). U.S. Government Manual, GPO Access. Available online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/; website home page: http://www.gpoaccess.gov (accessed May 14, 2009). CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY that pro- vides national security intelligence to senior U.S. lawmakers. The CIA is one of 16 agencies that are part of the Intelligence Community. Prior to 2004, the CIA was the principal body that coordinated all intelligence activities, but many of those high-level functions were transferred to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The Director of the CIA (DCIA) reports to the DNI. The CIA was established following WORLD WAR II , from which the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers with vast military might and sharply conflicting world views. To protect the nation’s security in all international matters and to ensure continued democracy and freedom for the United States, Congress created the CIA with the National Security Act of 1947 (ch. 343, 61 Stat. 495 [1947]). Gathering information from other countries relevant to national security is a sensitive task requiring considerable secrecy and covert activity. Unlike most other organiza- tions, the CIA receives comparatively little media coverage when it is doing its job well. For this reason, most of the information that reaches the media concerning the CIA is negative. The CIA is headquartered at a 258-acre compound in Langley, Virginia, and maintains twenty-two other offices in the Washington, D.C., area. The main compound includes a printing plant that produces phony documents, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 313 such as birth certificates, passports, and driver ’s licenses, for use by its agents. The plant also produces the President’s Daily Brief, an eight- page CIA document that is presented to the president every morning. Another facility is used exclusively for recruiting spies to work for the CIA; another houses the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which monitors and translates broadcasts from 47 countries. The CIA is divided into four main compo- nents, including Directorate of Intelligence, which provide intelligence analysis; the National Clandestine Service, which collects human- source intelligence; the Directorate of Science and Technology, which focuses on technical operations; and Directorate of Support, which supports other missions of the CIA. Along with entities that are overseen by other agencies, these CIA components are part of the Intelli- gence Community. Although all aspects of the CIA revolve around gathering intelligence and maintaining the security of the nation, the actual responsi- bilities of the agency are many and varied. Under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Preven- tion Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638, many of the intelligence oversight respon- sibilities previously assumed by the CIA were transferred to the DNI. The office of the Director of Central Intelligence became the DCIA. The responsibilities of the DCIA include: n Collection of intelligence through human sources and other means n Correlation and evaluation of intelligence related to national security n Coordination of collecting national intelli- gence outside the United States n Performance of other duties as directed by the DNI The DCIA is appointed by the president and subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. In its earliest days the CIA operated in a shroud of secrecy. Increased media attention has made the country more aware of CIA activities. Since the mid 1970s the CIA has often received more attention for breaking the law than it has for upholding national security. The Church Committee Hearings In 1974 the New York Times broke a story that the CIA had violated its charter by spying on U.S. citizens who openly opposed the VIETNAM WAR . An investigation followed, headed by Senator Frank Church (D-ID). Church and his committee uncovered a wealth of damaging information about the agency that went far beyond the issue of the Vietnam War . The Church committee hearings chan ged the way the public looked at the agency responsible for the security of its country. The Church committee found that the CIA had been intercepting and reading mail ex- changed between the United States and the Soviet bloc. The CIA had records on more than 300,000 U.S. citizens who had no ties with ESPIONAGE or intelligence. The CIA had also conducted LSD tests on unknowing participants, one of whom was driven to suicide. Through the CIA, the United States had tried to assassinate at least five foreign leaders, including Cuban premier Fidel Castro. The CIA had first decided to embarrass the Cuban leader and thereby damage his popu- larity. To accomplish this, the agency plotted to make Castro’s beard fall off by placing thallium salts in his shoes. The agency had a second plot— to give Castro a personality disorder by contam- inating his cigars. The agency had even enlisted the help of the mafia in its attempt to assassinate Castro. These shocking disclosures brought demands for closer scrutiny of CIA activities. Following the Church committee hearings, Congress amended the National Security Act of 1947 in 1980 to require the CIA to inform the House and Senate Intelligence Committees of “significant anticipated intelligence activity.” Within six years the CIA found itself in trouble once more for failing to inform Congress of its activities. During the mid- 1970s, Senator Frank Church headed a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into abuses committed by the CIA, including monitoring of U.S. citizens with no intelligence ties, the testing of LSD on unsuspecting participants, and numerous assassination attempts on the lives of foreign leaders. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 314 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY The Iran-Contra Affair On November 3, 1986, the Lebanese magazine Shiraa reported that Robert McFarland, U.S. National Security Adviser, had come to Iran with a shipment of arms from the United States. This revelation spurred what was ultimately termed the IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR and spoiled an otherwise secret operation. The CIA had involved itself in a covert action in which arms were shipped to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages. The payments received from the Iranians were, in turn, diverted to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels who were fighting the Communist Sandanis ta regime, at a time when U.S. military aid to the Contras was prohibited by federal law . All of this was done without the knowledge of Congress; the CIA informed neither the House Intelligence Committee nor the Senate Intelli- gence Committee of its actions. President RONALD REAGAN had not approved the agency’s covert activity. One year after the arms had been sold, WILLIAM J. CASEY, Director of Central Intelligence and a cabinet member, asked the president to approve the transaction retroactively. Reagan signed an agreement to that effect, which specified that Congress was not to be told of the approval. John Poindexter, the National Security Adviser at the time, later testified that he destroye d the only copy of the agreement in order to save President Reagan from political embarrassment. Despite great media attention and congres- sional finger-pointing, actual punishments for the Iran-Contra affair were few and lenient. Casey was never indicted in the scandal. McFarland and Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger w ere brought up on criminal charges, but both were pardoned on Christmas Eve 1992 by President George H. W. Bush. All other persons linked to the scandal were either pardoned by Bush or were pu nished with small fines, probation, or both, or had their convic- tions overturned on APPEAL. The Ames Scandal On February 21, 1994, Agent Aldrich Ames became the highest-ranking CIA official ever arrested. Ames had been selling U.S. secrets to the Soviet Union. Ames’s responsibilities as a CIA agent included directing the analysis of Soviet intelli- gence operations and recruiting Soviet agents who would betray those operations. This position put Ames in frequent contact with Soviet officials at the Sov iet Emba ssy in Washington, D.C. Ames began selling U.S. security secrets to the Soviets, a venture that earned him more than $2.5 million before his arrest. Some of this information involved betraying double agents, disclosures that led to the deaths o f at least 12 Soviet and Eastern European spies. The CIA began to search for a mole (a double age nt) in 1986 after two intelligence officers at the Soviet Embassy who had been recruited as double agents by the FBI were recalled to Moscow, arrested, tried, and execut- ed. The CIA was jolted again in 1989 when three more of its most valued Soviet double agents met their deaths by firing squad in Russia. In 1991 the CIA began to work with the FBI in investigating East Germany and other former Warsaw Pact countries for leads to possible moles in the U.S. government. Ames became one of the suspects and was quietly transferred to the CIA’s counternarcotics center. Because the FBI was in charge of counterintelligence domes- tically, Ames fell under its jurisdiction of investi- gation. CIA officials played down the possibility of one of its key employees being a spy and blocked independent scrutiny by the FBI. Ames contin- ued to betray the CIA and the country. The CIA was sharply criticized for its un- willingness to consider one of its own a double agent and for its refusal to allow the FBI to Aldrich Ames was arrested in February 1994, for selling U.S. secrets to the Soviet Union. His betrayal of double agents led to the death of at least 12 Soviet and Eastern European spies. Ames was sentenced to life imprisonment. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 315 investigate the situation. For years, the agency failed to monitor Ames’ overseas travel, to ques- tion his personal finances, or to detect unautho- rized con-tacts between Ames and Soviet officials. As early as 1989, the CIA had been warned that Ames appeared to colleagues and neighbors to have accumulated sudden wealth. Ames was questioned about the source of the money during a routine 1991 background check. He said he had inherited money from his father-in-law. From 1985 onward, Ames and his wife Rosario bought a $540,000 house for cash, put $99,000 worth of improvements into the house, purchased a Jaguar, bought a farm and condo- minium in Colombia, and invested $165,000 in stocks. In one year, they charged more than $100,000 on their credit cards. According to court documents, the Ames’ spent nearly $1.4 million from April 1985 to November 1993. All of this took place while Ames’ annual CIA salary never exceeded $70,000. According to CIA officials, indications of wrongdoing by CIA employees were often overlooked because super- visors were far too trusting of employees, whom they treated as family. When Ames got a call to go to his CIA office in the morning of February 21, 1994, he had no inkling that after almost nine years his career of selling secrets to Moscow was about to end. With Ames planning to travel to Russia the next day on CIA business, the FBI believed that it had to act. A block and a half from Ames’ house, his Jaguar was forced to the curb, and Ames was arrested by FBI agents. On April 28, 1994, Ames pleaded guilty to the criminal charges of espionage and TAX EVASION.He received a se ntence of life imprisonment without PAROLE, t he maximum s entence he could have expected if convicted after trial. The End of the Cold War TheimportanceofthethreatimposedbyAmes’ dealings with the Soviet Union was seemingly diminished with that country’sdissolution.De- spite the apparent end of the COLD WAR and the break-up of the former Soviet Union, the United States continues to spy on the Russian Republic. The former Soviet U nion also continues its own covert activities within the United States. Some question the continued need for the CIA in the post-Cold War era. Supporters need point no further than the war with Iraq to justify continued backing for the agency. The CIA was responsible for supplying intelligence reports that allowed the United States to cripple the Iraqi efforts in the Gulf War with an initial air strike. Without the assistance of the CIA, the war might not have reached such a swift ending. Supporters also argue that it is unfair to criticize a covert organization for its failures when so little attention is given to its succe sses. When the CIA is functioning efficiently and effectively, its operation is invisible to the country’s citizens; it is only in failure that the secrecy of the agen cy is betrayed to scrutinizing eyes. Since the end of the Cold War, some mem- bers of Congress have called for severe cuts in the CIA’s budget or dissolution of the agency. President BILL CLINTON said that such ideas are “profoundly wrong,” and that the United States still faces many threats and challenges, includ- ing terrorism, drug trafficking, and nuclear proliferation. “I believe making deep cuts in intelligence during peacetime is comparable to canceling your HEALTH INSURANCE when you’re feeling fine,” he said. September 11th and the Aftermath Having seemingly lost some of its purpose with the end of the Cold War, the CIA found a new purpose in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This new purpose came with both criticism and concern as to whether the CIA was up to the challenge of tackling terrorism. There was strong debate after September 11th as to what role the CIA should play, and how it fit in to the new security paradigm. Like every other domestic and foreign intelligence service in the United States, the CIA was apparently caught by surprise on September 11th. There w ere some w ho argued that it shou ld not have been. It was shown that the CIA had tracked two of the terrorists from that day at an al Qaeda summit in January 2000. The CIA did nothing to share the information with other agencies, and both men were allowed to enter the United States. The CIA also told President GEORGE W. BUSH at a briefing in August 2001 that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden might be planning to hijack a plane. Again, nothing was done with this information. Although President Bush defended the agency and refused to fire its director, George Tenet, he conceded that the cooperation between the CIA and the FBI could have been better: “In terms of whether the FBI and CIA communicated properly, I think it’s clear that they weren’t,” GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 316 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Intelligence Reform The SEPTEMBER 11 TH ATT ACKS exposed significant weaknesses in the intelligence efforts of U.S. agencies, including the CIA. Congress responded by enacting the Intelligence Reform and Terror- ism Prevention Act of 2004, which removed many of the oversight powers from the CIA and its director. Although the CIA continues to play an important role within the Intelligence Com- munity, the agency’s role is more defined than it was in the past. FURTHER READINGS Benjamin, Daniel, and Steven Simon. 2002. The Age of Sacred Terror. New York: Random House. Central Intelligence Agency. Available online at https:// www.cia.gov (accessed May 23, 2009). Curl, Joseph. 2002. “Bush Concedes FBI, CIA Faults, But Doubts Attacks Avoidable.” Washington Times (June 5). Gellman, Barton. 2001. “CIA Weighs ‘Targeted Killing’ Missions.” Washington Post (October 28). Kessler, Ronald. 1992. Inside the CIA. New York: Pocket Books. Ranelagh, John. 1986. The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA from Wild Bill Donovan to William Casey. New York: Simon & Schuster. Rudgers, David F. 2000. Creating the Secret State: The Origins of the Central Intelligence Agency, 1943–1947. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. United States Intelligence Community. Available online at http://www.intelligence.gov (accessed May 23, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Espionage; Federal Bu reau of Investigation; Iran-Contra Affair; September 11th Attacks; Terrorism CENTURY DIGEST® A volume of the American Digest System that arranges by subject summaries of court opinions reported chronologically in the various units of the National Reporter System during the period from 1658 to 1896. There are more than 400 subject classifica- tions within the digest, each corresponding to a legal concept, such as evidence. All the cases for the period covered in the Century Digest that discuss similar points of law can be found under a specific topic designation. CROSS REFERENCE Legal Publishing. A sample birth certificate. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. Birth Certificate STATE OF FLORIDA VOID IF ALTERED OR ERASED FLA FLA OFFICE of VITAL STATISTICS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CERTIFICATION OF BIRTH NAME: DATE OF BIRTH: PLACE OF BIRTH: CERTIFICATE NUMBER: DATE FILED: MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME: FATHER'S NAME: TEST RECORD SMITH III 1/01/62 SEX: MALE DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA 109–62–200000 1/05/62 DATE ISSUED: 8/20/02 MARY ANN JONES TESTING RECORD SMITH JR This is to certifiy that this is a true abstract of the official record filed with that office. THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED OR PHOTOCOPIED ON SECURITY WATERMARKED PAPER AND CONTAINS SECURITY PAPERS. DO NOT ACCEPT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE PRESENCE OF THE WATERMARK. THE DOCUMENT FACE CONTAINS A MULTICOLORED BACKGROUND AND GOLD EMBOSSED SEAL. THE BACK CONTAINS SPECIAL LINES WITH TEXT AND SEALS IN THERMOCHROMATIC INK. By State Registrar WARNING: 5796940 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CENTURY DIGEST® 317 . Georgetown University Law Center, and GEORGE WASHINGTON University Law School. Working with the University of Virginia’slaw GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 310 CENTERS FOR LAW AND LEGAL. school reform. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CENTERS FOR LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES 309 The CLE has been a part of significant lawsuits dealing with the enforcement of federal and. corporation. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CENTERS FOR LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES 311 The CSPC has several objec tives. Primarily, it focuses on sec uring an understanding of the U.S.