23391: Esser: Porter Goss, Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Haiti (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. E s s e r <torx@joimail.com>

Council On Hemispheric Affairs - COHA
http://www.coha.org

September 24, 2004

Recently Confirmed Porter Goss is Still the Wrong Man for the Job as
Evidenced by His Haitian Involvement


∫ As a CIA veteran and chairman of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, Porter Goss brings an exceedingly
controversial record as CIA head and probable future intelligence
czar.

∫ After leaving the CIA, Goss’ subsequent sixteen- year career in the
House of Representatives allowed him to forge connections with fellow
Republicans who have used their personal hatred of ousted Haitian
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to cloud their judgment on key
intelligence oversight functions regarding the impoverished island
nation.

∫ As the spokesman for an International Republican Institute
delegation of election monitors to Haiti in 1995, Goss tried to
discredit the parliamentary victory of pro-Aristide candidates that
far more credible foreign observers than himself had validated.

∫ In March, Goss refused to investigate last February’s de facto coup
in Haiti, further calling into question his integrity as Intelligence
Chair and a likely future supreme intelligence czar.

∫ Democrats criticize Goss for being too partisan, as was
demonstrated by his failure to investigate the leak that exposed CIA
agent Valerie Plame, and by his unwillingness to criticize the Bush
Administration’s many intelligence failures during his tenure as
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

∫ Goss is an ideologue and not a sound analyst. He casually excuses
his history of biased and unbalanced judgments by acknowledging that
at times he may have been too passionate and enthusiastic during past
debates. Perhaps Goss’ greatest criticism was provided by the man
himself in an interview conducted in the spring of 2004. After being
when questioned about his ability to head the CIA, he replied, “I am
not qualified.”

On August 10, 2004, President Bush nominated Porter Goss, an
eight-term Republican congressman from the fourteenth district in
Florida, to be the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The full senate confirmed his nomination on September 22, after
receiving the approval of the Senate Intelligence Committee. If his
experience in Haiti is any guide, his confirmation portends a new and
darker chapter in the CIA’s history. During his appointment, Goss was
lauded by President Bush as a man who knows the CIA “inside and
out≤[and] the right man to lead the agency at this critical moment in
our nation’s history.” However, despite Bush’s enthusiastic support
of the Goss nomination, the Florida congressman himself stated once
again that he was not fit to be the director of the CIA. In a March
3, 2004 interview for Michael Moore’s movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, Goss
undermined Bush’s statement by claiming that: “I [Goss] couldn’t get
a job with the CIA today. I am not qualified≤I don’t have the
language skills≤I don’t have the cultural background probably. And I
certainly don’t have the technical skills≤So, the things that you
need to have, I don’t have.” Based on Goss’ own testimony, a telling
case could be made that he, in fact, is not qualified to head the
CIA, let alone the entire U.S. intelligence community.

The Resume
Reading his resume, Goss appears to be qualified for the job. From
the late 1950’s through the early 1970’s, he worked as a CIA covert
operative throughout Europe and Latin America—specifically in Haiti,
Mexico and the Dominican Republic during a very tumultuous
period—before retiring from the agency. He gradually became involved
in local state politics and eventually ran for Congress in 1988.
During his sixteen years in the House of Representatives, Goss served
on the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee and has been the
Committee’s chairman since 1996. His resume aside, Goss’ voting
record exposes a rightwing ideologue who has furthered his
ultra-conservative agenda by acting as a front man for a variety of
extremist causes and groups.

In fact, as chairman of his intelligence committee, Goss has had
relatively few ascertainable professional accomplishments with
intelligence issues throughout his career. During the period that his
committee oversaw America’s intelligence community, the CIA
consistently underestimated other nations’ commitment to the “Treaty
on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”, which allowed India to
conduct nuclear tests in 1998. The intelligence community failed to
recommend urgent action in order to protect U.S. embassies in
Tanzania and Kenya, and the USS Cole, a navy destroyer at the Port of
Aden, Yemen, from Al-Qaida bombings. Goss was also the committee
chairman when U.S. warplanes mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy in
Belgrade, Yugoslavia, during a NATO operation in 1999, causing a
marked increase in friction between the two major trading partners.
In addition to his history of negligence and failure to effectively
wield his authority as chair of the House committee, he has been
criticized for being too partisan to head the CIA, something he also
has acknowledged.

Goss’ Enmity toward Haiti’s President Aristide
Goss has had a profound, though less publicized, influence on some of
the murkier and more controversial aspects of U.S. policy towards
Haiti. Most consistently, Goss has combined his classic odium towards
democratic President Aristide with his Republican Party’s unabated
anti-Aristide agenda, to undermine democratic practices on the
island. Superficially, it seems that Goss’s immediate hostility
toward the former president of Haiti stems from their interactions
throughout the 1990s.

Aristide was first forced into exile in 1991 by an armed military
uprising less than a year after his inauguration. The beleaguered
leader eventually moved to Washington, where he won considerable
support from Democratic legislators, particularly from members of the
Congressional Black Caucus. These relationships with prominent
Congressional Democrats also made him many important enemies in
Washington, including Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, former
Congressman Ben Gilman from New York and of course Goss from Florida.
Senator Helms was so ardently anti-Aristide that he once described
the Haitian president as “psychotic” during a hearing on the Senate
floor. Gilman and Goss, while less flamboyant, nonetheless had
assiduously worked behind the scenes to undermine American support
for Aristide.

So why does the Republican Party and the International Republican
Institute (IRI)—an organization with which Goss has been heavily
involved—so intensely loathe Aristide? To begin, Aristide was a
threat to these institutions because of his social agenda of
mobilizing the poor. With him in power, it was much harder to take
advantage of Haiti’s poverty and to exploit the cheap labor for
foreign assembly plants moving to the island. Throughout his time in
office, Aristide worked towards improving the quality of life of the
poor by supporting labor unions and eventually doubling the minimum
wage. He also prioritized reforms in the educational and healthcare
sectors. In a December 1999 article, author Nirit Ben-Ari quotes
Wesleyan University professor Alex Dupuy, explaining why Aristide’s
objectives were so problematic for the U.S. and the Republican Party:
“In Haiti, the problem for Washington was how to compel its
traditional allies—the bourgeoisie and the military establishment—to
accept minimal democracy, severe their ties with the system of
corruption, and abandon their age-old practice of treating the masses
like slaves, while at the same time preserving Haiti as a source of
cheap labor who accept the new game plan and whom the local
oligarchies and the United States supported. Unfortunately, the
Haitian masses who had been excluded from this new schema, spoiled it
(in the opinion of U.S. strategists) by voting for their own
unexpected and unpredictable candidate.” That candidate was Aristide
and with ostensibly radical social programs and transforming vision,
he proved himself to be a thorn in the Republican Party’s side.

It is not a coincidence that Andy Apaid Jr., a self- serving
millionaire, businessman and coup plotter, coordinated one of the two
main opposition groups to Aristide, Group of 184. Apaid illegally
holds both U.S. and Haitian passports and reportedly owns 15 textile
and other assembly plant factories in Haiti. With these factories, he
has made huge profits by supplying U.S. contractors with assembled
goods that are produced at sweatshop wages. Apaid and Goss each held
the other in high esteem.

Goss and the GOP v. Aristide
The campaign to oust Aristide is just one example of a longstanding
Republican tradition of supporting pro- U.S. dictators in Haiti,
rather than those political figures who champion a strong social
agenda for their own people. In 1971, the Nixon administration
restored U.S. military aid to the oppressive regime of Jean- Claude
Duvalier under the pretext that he would serve as a counterweight to
communism in the region. When the Duvalier regime eventually
collapsed in 1986, the Regan Administration ferried the despised
dictator to safety. After Duvalier, U.S. author Max Blumenthal
contends that Washington supported a “procession of GOP-backed
puppets and military dictators≤until the charismatic Aristide won
Haiti’s first democratic election in 1990.” Aristide’s presidency did
not last long. In 1991, only nine months after Aristide’s
inauguration, he was deposed by a military junta led by Colonel Raoul
Cedras, and together with the FRAPH—a paramilitary group founded by
CIA agent Emmanuel ‘Toto’ Constant—the nation came to be terrorized
for years during the military’s rule that siphoned off millions of
dollars from illicit drug money. Cedras, a U.S. trained Haitian army
officer, enjoyed enthusiastic support from well-known Washington
conservatives like Senator Helms. From his powerful position as
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Helms has been
one of Porter Goss’ strongest congressional allies when it came to
Haitian policies.

In for the Kill
In 1994, after much political pressure, the Clinton Administration
modified its political freeze on Aristide, arranging to fly him back
to the island and return to the presidency. Prior to the
reinstallation of Aristide, Cedras had agreed with the U.S. ultimatum
to relinquish power and flee into exile in Panama. Not surprisingly,
these efforts to support Aristide were strongly contested by
Republican legislators, most of whom loathed the former president for
his left-of-center politics. Just one year after Aristide’s return,
Goss began to systematically undermine him in an effort to score
political points against the Democrats. When the Republicans gained
control of Congress in 1995, Helms, Gilman and Goss sponsored a
number of restrictive bills against Aristide, such as ordering U.S.
troops out of Haiti.

The premature departure of U.S. forces, including various categories
of specialists, meant that Aristide’s enemies were never disarmed and
a professional police force and justice system were never
established. It also meant that a U.S. embargo against weapons
consigned to the Haitian police was initiated. Many projects aimed at
building Haiti’s infrastructure were also halted or scaled back.
Furthermore, the Republicans pushed legislators to cancel all U.S.
aid to the nation and to finance Aristide’s opposition by ear-marking
federal funds into non-governmental Haitian organizations hostile to
the president.

In addition to successfully severing U.S. military and economic
support, Rep. Goss sought to depict Aristide and his supporters as
leftwing radicals. For instance, he insinuated that Aristide’s
recognition of Havana, something that almost every nation in the
world had done, was a sign of his intent to do “mischief against
America’s interests” and “a clear signal of the collaboration of Cuba
and Haiti.” Effectively linking Haiti to Washington’s communist
pariah by ballooning a modest association into a fictional alliance,
Goss managed to stoke House conservatives’ worst fears that Aristide
would become the second Castro of the Caribbean. These statements
served to enflame anti-Aristide sentiments amongst the public and
members of Congress.

During the 2000 Haitian parliamentary elections, Goss headed an
International Republican Institute (IRI) delegation to monitor the
ballot. This organization surreptitiously described its mission as
aiming to “advance democracy, freedom, self government and the rule
of law worldwide.” In reality, the IRI is a back- door, hard-right
relic from the Reagan era, which receives almost all of its
government funds through the National Endowment of Democracy. Because
the IRI is a relatively well-funded division of the
ultra-conservative wing of the U.S. Republican party, it still surges
with the spit and polish of the Cold War.

The Institute dedicated itself to exacerbating Clinton’s already
anti-Aristide strategy in Haiti by using U.S. taxpayer’s funds to
back the opposition. In an obvious attempt to challenge the
legitimacy of Aristide-backed Rene Preval’s 1996 electoral victory,
Goss launched allegations of fraud and voter tampering. Even though
Preval won 88 percent of the vote and his Lavalas party won a
“landslide victory in the Senate and Lower House,” Goss still tried
to discredit the election. After the State Department’s Agency for
International Development (USAID) verified the legitimacy of Preval’s
victory, Goss, with no evidence to back his claims, stated that,
“this raises the question of political manipulation of this
election.” Meanwhile, the chief of USAID claimed that the elections
were a “very significant breakthrough for democracy,” and that there
was no detected evidence of “any systematic effort to commit fraud.”
The number of registered voters in Haiti also reached about 90
percent of those eligible and it was the first election be virtually
free of violence and fraud. Despite all this, Goss was undoubtedly
upset because Preval’s election raised the unpleasant prospect for
the IRI’s Republican patrons and corporate donors of a unified and
legal leftwing Haitian government.

In 1999, Goss again attacked Aristide’s regime in a Washington Post
op-ed, stating that living conditions in Haiti were worse during his
presidency than when the country was ruled by the ruthless military
dictatorship of Raoul Cedras. Never mind the fact that Cedras was a
master human rights’ violator and was closely associated with the
paramilitary group responsible for the death of three thousand
Haitian civilians, he was also a senior member of the nation’s
thriving drug trafficking scene. Goss’ statement comparing Aristide
to Cedras served two strategic purposes: to speciously turn U.S.
public opinion against Aristide, and to buttress and abet the
opposition forces’ determination to sabotage efforts being made by
Aristide to seek a negotiated settlement with the island’s most
extreme opposition members. The opposition refused to negotiate with
Aristide representatives because it knew that it had the professed
backing from a master U.S. Republican politician, as well as his
all-powerful Senate ally, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Jesse Helms.

Perhaps the most sober indictment of the IRI inadvertently came out
during a radio interview with Stanley Lucas, once the IRI’s senior
program officers for Haiti, whose Haitian relatives were linked to a
major massacre of pro-Aristide Lavalas Party members. Lucas, who had
consistently undermined any effort by other U.S. agencies to build
democratic institutions in Haiti, also worked to subvert peace drafts
and to pressure IRI-funded opposition groups to turn down the
power-sharing agreements being offered by Aristide. As Max Blumenthal
reports, on February 8, 2001, Lucas appeared on the virulently
anti-Aristide Haitian station Radio Tropicale to suggest strategies
for removing Aristide from power. The people could force Aristide to
accept early elections and be voted out, or they could charge
Aristide with corruption and arrest him. The final alternative
offered by Lucas suggested that Aristide be dealt with like the
Congolese had dealt with President Laurent Kabila. Lucas then asked
the audience, “You did see what happened to Kabila?” (Kabila was
assassinated in January of 2001).

The IRI and Bush Administration have done more than publicly threaten
Aristide with various forms of political reprisals. Blumenthal has
detailed how $3 million in U.S. funds have been channeled through the
IRI to Haiti’s opposition groups for the past six years. Despite the
Institute’s pro-democratic rhetoric, the real purpose of these funds
was to destabilize Aristide and his constitutionally- elected
government. The money went to train, unite, and finance Aristide’s
opponents, which the IRI single-mindedly achieved.

Coincidentally, just three days before Aristide was forced from
office, Goss issued several statements strongly suggesting that
Aristide step down from power. On February 26, 2004, the Florida
Congressman called Haiti a “gathering storm of bloodbath.” He
continued, “Aristide can end this turmoil at any time by resigning as
the head of government≤If he truly wants to save his nation, the best
outcome for Mr. Aristide right now would be to step down at once.”
Goss was in favor of replacing Aristide, preferably with someone
whose political agenda was more inline with the Republican and IRI
member’s policies.

Unfortunately, since the former president’s departure, conditions in
Haiti have worsened. Lydia Polgreen of the New York Times reported
that Haiti now faces “an exhausted treasury, a vast corrupt and
demoralized state work force, wary international donors and lingering
doubts about the manner in which Mr. Aristide left the country,” as
well as widespread reports detailing the persecution of officials and
former supporters of the Lavalas Party. Aristide’s removal, although
positive for Goss and his Party, has been discernibly less so for
most Haitian civilians.

In the same statement, Goss declared that, “Haitians need true,
decent, democratic leadership elected fairly and freely by the
people.” Ironically, this is exactly what Haitians were receiving
before Aristide was ousted. Polgreen claimed that Haitians are very
suspicious of the new unelected government and its foreign support,
and to the majority, Aristide continues to be their only legitimate
leader. As Alix Jean, a Lavalas partisan, stated, “we believe in
democracy, and we have a democratically elected leader. His name is
Jean-Bertrand Aristide.” But Republicans, like Goss, had a decidedly
different future for Haiti in mind.

Aristide Forced From Office
On February 29, 2004, according to official U.S. sources, Aristide
requested transport to an undisclosed location where he signed a
letter of resignation. He was then accompanied to an airport by U.S.
Marines and was firmly assisted aboard the plane. However, Aristide’s
version of what transpired on February 29 is somewhat different. The
former president claims that he was awoken in the middle of the
night, and forced to sign a letter of resignation “if he wanted to be
protected against his enemies.” He was then transported by armed
guards to the airport, forced onto a plane, and flown to the Central
African Republic. Aristide’s claim that this was a stage-mounted
affair is lent some credibility by the speculations of Rep. Maxine
Waters (D-CA.). Waters observed that “clearly the United States
government has been very much involved in orchestrating this coup
d’etat. Not only did diplomats from the embassy go to President
Aristide’s home, the Marines were there also. And Mr. Moreno, who is
the chief of staff at the embassy, said to him, ‘You have to leave,
and you have to leave now, or you will be killed.’”

It was in part due to Goss that the events of that evening are likely
to never be certain; the House Chairman completely ignored demands
calling for an investigation of the extent of U.S. involvement
surrounding Aristide’s abrupt departure from Haiti. Given his party’s
strong anti-Aristide sentiments and its goal of ousting the leader,
the former president’s dire fate comes as no surprise. Goss needs to
be held accountable by critics since his actions did little to
advance democratic processes in Haiti or elsewhere in Latin America.
As author Yifat Susskind writes, “the current crisis is not about
supporting or opposing Aristide the man, but about defending
constitutional democracy in Haiti. In a democracy, elections—and not
vigilante violence—should be the measure of the ‘will of the people’.
Aristide has repeatedly invited the opposition to participate in
elections and they have refused, knowing that they cannot win at the
polls.” The fact that Goss refused to investigate the events of
February 29 convincingly demonstrates that Aristide’s flight into
exile and his present residence in South Africa was exactly what
Goss, the IRI, and the Republican Party wanted.

Goss at the Emergency Hearing on Haiti
After Aristide’s forced departure from the island, the House
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere called an emergency open
hearing to address concerns over his resignation. Members of the
Congressional Black Caucus as well as Congressman Goss participated
in the hearing. Several Democratic members raised allegations that
U.S. forces had kidnapped Aristide, characterizing the events of
February 29 as a coup d’etat and not a legitimate resignation. Roger
Noriega was a main target of the CBC’s ire during the hearing.
Noriega, the hapless Assistant Secretary of State for the Western
Hemisphere, was previously a protégé of both Senator Helms and
Congressman Gilman—Goss’s strongest congressional allies on Haiti. He
also was very familiar with one of the leaders of the rebel coup, Guy
Philippe, known to be a close friend of Stanley Lucas’. Noriega was
not only a virulent opponent of Aristide’s, but also the least likely
to defend the Haitian president or the constitutionalism he
represented in the event of a coup. According to former U.S.
ambassador to El Salvador and Paraguay Robert White, “Noriega has
been dedicated to Aristide’s ouster for many, many years, and now he
is [prior to the ousting on February 29] in a singularly powerful
position to accomplish it.” During the hearing, Noriega vociferously
denied any coercive U.S. role in Aristide’s fall from power. As the
Assistant Secretary began to feel the pressure, Goss played a central
role as his savior by diffusing Democratic criticisms and describing
Aristide’s departure as “the results that are the best that we can
hope for.”

As chairman of the House Select Permanent Committee on Intelligence,
Goss had a specific obligation under its mandate to investigate the
controversial U.S. role in the Haitian uprising. The Hughes Ryan Act
requires both the Senate and House Committees on Intelligence to be
notified of all covert activity; any failure to notify House or
Senate chairs should itself be grounds for an independent
investigation and subsequent punishment. By failing to investigate
the role of the intelligence agency in Aristide’s ouster, Goss
indicated that he was not interested in discovering why a
democratically- elected head of state was removed from power with the
avid support of key Republicans on the Hill. This occurred only hours
after Secretary of State Colin Powell reiterated that the U.S. would
not permit the removal of a constitutionally- elected leader by a
“gang of thugs,” which lamentably was precisely what occurred.

Congressional Democrats were quick to rebuke the administration,
saying that U.S. inaction on this matter sent a “chilling signal” to
democratically- elected governments in Latin America. Rep. Gregory
Meeks (D-NY) went as far as to ascertain that the administration and
its foot soldiers—including Porter Goss, “didn’t want a diplomatic
solution to this problem. [They] wanted to get rid of Aristide.” It
is evident that very conservative Republicans like Goss will stop at
nothing to promote their ultra-conservative agenda—even going so far
as to undermine the democratic processes upon which their government
relies.

The GOP’s Right-Hand Man
Before Goss was confirmed as the CIA director, Senator Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV) declared that “the selection of a politician, any
politician from either party, is a mistake≤Having independent,
objective intelligence going to the president and the Congress is
fundamental to America’s national security.” House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), agreed with Rockefeller saying, “you must keep
the politics out of intelligence.” Goss’ nomination worried many, for
he has consistently been unable to abandon his partisanship even on a
domestic scale. For example, over the past few months Goss has
publicly criticized Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, while
being fawningly supportive of the Bush administration. Earlier this
year, Goss attacked Kerry’s support of budget cuts for the country’s
intelligence services. Yet, an August 24, 2004 Washington Post
article reported that Goss had endorsed even larger budget cuts for
the CIA.

Goss’ partisanship is also made evident by his attempts to cover up
several embarrassing failures of the Bush administration, such as his
inaction regarding the Valerie Plame affair. Plame is an ex-CIA agent
and wife of the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson. A
strong critic of the Bush administration’s prewar estimate of Saddam
Hussein’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, Wilson was
especially suspicious of Bush’s assertion that Saddam Hussein had
attempted to buy uranium from the African republic of Niger.
Democrats were outraged when the right-wing columnist, Robert Novak,
publicly revealed Plame’s identity, placing her personal security in
grave danger. Wilson blamed White House officials for their
underhanded actions, while many members of Congress demanded an
investigation by the House Intelligence Committee. Goss ignored these
critics, mockingly stating that, “[If] somebody sends me a blue dress
and some DNA, I’ll have an investigation.” He did nothing further to
investigate this matter.

Other incidents showed Goss’ unremitting partisan conduct during his
tenure as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He succeeded in
suppressing a press brief, entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike
in the U.S.,” that was prepared for the President on August 6, 2001.
When questioned before the 9/11 Commission, Goss unwaveringly
supported the White House and the CIA’s position, arguing that all
the administration’s intelligence prior to the attacks should not be
reported to the public on the grounds that it was “classified.” As a
result, the press brief was exempted from the 9/11 report, leaving
millions of Americans uninformed about the whole truth regarding the
terrorist attacks.

Not surprisingly, Goss staunchly supported Bush and Vice President
Cheney’s thesis that an independent investigation into the terrorist
attacks of September 11 was unnecessary. The 9/11 commission
contested Goss’ record as Intelligence Chair, stating that he had
paid little attention to al-Qaida and failed to prioritize terrorism
as a key threat to the nation. In fact, under Goss’ leadership, the
Intelligence Committee held only two hearings on terrorism in the
three years prior to the September 11 attacks, compared to seven by
the Senate Intelligence Committee and eight by the Armed Services
Committee.

Furthermore, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), a member of Goss’ House
Intelligence committee, accused the chair of refusing to investigate
the administration’s various intelligence failures. For instance, the
committee never questioned the administration about its failure to
produce any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, nor did it investigate the
abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Goss’ unwillingness to act prompted Reyes
to state that, “we [the Intelligence Committee] have not done our
job; we have not had the kind of oversight we should have had in
those areas.” Because Goss has had a history of ignoring major
intelligence failures, particularly when those failures implicate the
derelictions of the Republican leadership, future breakdowns in
urgent intelligence issues may be unavoidable under his watch.

An Appointment that the Nation Will Come to Rue
Goss’ markedly partisan history during his congressional career does
not bode well for the integrity of the nation’s future intelligence
gathering prospects. As the new director of the U.S. intelligence
community, he will likely continue to use his political ties in
pursuit of a neo-Conservative agenda to the detriment of the nation’s
intelligence needs and long term interests. If Haiti is an example,
Goss will surely work to sanction regime change efforts against other
populist presidents to be found heading a number of South American
countries, as well as elsewhere in the hemisphere. Goss’ personal
vendetta and clouded judgment, as exhibited in his consistent hostile
treatment of Aristide, is most certainly a matter that Congress
should have seriously considered when it came time to confirm the
nation’s new CIA head and soon-to-be first intelligence czar.

This analysis was prepared by Jenna Liut, COHA Research Associate.

Additional research provided by Edward Kenny.
.