Recognizing the significance of African American women in the United States scientific community.

Mr. President, in every year since 1951, Congress has included a provision in the General Government Appropriations Act which states the following:

No part of any appropriation contained in this or in any

other act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes

within the United States not heretofore authorized by

Congress.

I am quoting from section 624 of Public Law 108-447.

This is the law of the land, and yet despite the law, the Congress and the American people continue to hear about propaganda efforts by executive branch agencies. On more than one occasion, this administration has provided tax dollars to well-known conservative talk show hosts to promote its agenda. One was paid a hefty fee to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. Another talk show host was paid to promote the administration's welfare and family policies.

If those examples are not bad enough, in an effort to blur the line between

independent media and administration propaganda, some agencies have produced prepackaged news stories designed to be indistinguishable from news stories produced by free market news outlets.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which is an arm of the Congress, in an opinion dated February 17, 2005, the administration has violated the prohibition on publicity and propaganda. In a memorandum sent to executive branch agencies, the GAO stated:

During the past year, we found that several prepackaged

news stories produced and distributed by certain Government

agencies violated this provision.

So very simply, according to the GAO, the administration broke the law. The GAO specifically cited the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Department of Health and Human Services for violating the antipropaganda law. But these are not the only agencies pretending to be a credible news outlet.

On March 13, 2005, the New York Times wrote about the administration's approach in an article entitled ``Under Bush a New Age of Prepackaged TV News.''

I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

The Times article spotlighted three new segments that each looked the same as any other 90-second segment on the local news. But these are not new. The Federal Government produced all three of these. The Times told of a news segment produced by the State Department featuring a jubilant Iraqi American telling a news crew in Kansas City: ``Thank you, Bush. Thank you, USA.''

The Department of Homeland Security apparently produced a so-called news report on the creation of the Transportation Security Administration. The reporter called the establishment of TSA ``one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history.'' But what the American people, the viewers, did not know was that the so-called reporter was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. How about that?

A third segment broadcast in January was based on a news report produced by the Department of Agriculture. The Agriculture Department apparently employs two full-time people to act--listen now--to act as reporters. They travel the country and create their own so-called news, distributing their work via satellite and mail, always pushing the White House line.

What are things coming to?

In the January report, these U.S. Department of Agriculture employees, claiming to be independent journalists, called President Bush ``the best envoy in the world.''

I am not here to argue whether George W. Bush is America's best envoy to the world, but I would rather leave that discussion to independent analysts, not to administration employees or on-the-payroll journalists pushing the White House line.

Yes, the administration should explain its ideas and positions to the American people. No one argues that fact. Educating the public about issues affecting their lives is an essential role of the Government. But the administration should not engage in a blatant manipulation of the news media. Leave the work of manipulation to the Rush Limbaughs of the world. Keep the job of Government focused on the people. Manufacturing propaganda is a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars, and it is your money, your money, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.

The administration has disputed GAO's views. The administration takes the view that it is OK to mask the source as long as the ads are ``purely informational.''

The White House Office of Management and Budget, with the support of the Justice Department, went so far as to issue a memorandum to agency heads dated March 11, 2005, specifically contradicting the conclusions of the Government Accountability Office. The Justice Department concluded that the Government Accountability Office's:

. . . conclusion fails to recognize the distinction

between covert propaganda and purely informational Video News

Reports, which do not constitute propaganda within the common

meaning of the term and therefore are not subject to the

appropriations restriction.

If paying national columnists and talk show hosts, faking news segments, hiring actors to pretend to be reporters ``do not constitute propaganda,'' what does? What does constitute propaganda? It is time for the administration to back off.

We, the American people, trust the media to provide us with independent sources of information, not biased news stories produced by the administration at the taxpayers' expense. It is time for the White House to be upfront with the American people: no propaganda, no manipulation of the press. The administration should tell the people its position on issues, yes, but should do so honorably and without such deliberate manipulation of the free press. Propaganda efforts such as these are not the stuff for a Republic such as ours. The American people must be able to rely on the independence of the news media. The constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press is not for sale. The country must know that reporters--real reporters--are presenting facts honestly, presenting facts fairly, presenting facts without bias. Democracy should not be built on deception.

Just yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission, on a unanimous vote--on a unanimous vote of 4 to 0--approved a public notice that directs--that directs, hear me--that directs television broadcasters to disclose to viewers the origin of video news releases produced by the Government or corporations when the material runs on the public airwaves. The Commission acknowledged the critical role that broadcast licensees and cable operators play in providing information to the audiences they serve. This information is an important component of a well-functioning democracy. Along with this role comes a responsibility, the responsibility that licensees and operators make the sponsorship announcements required by the foregoing rule and obtain the information from all pertinent individuals necessary for them to do so. The public notice goes on to stress that the Commission may impose sanctions, including fines, including imprisonment, for failure to comply with the ruling. You better watch out. So the FCC, by a unanimous vote, I say, made clear, crystal clear, as clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless sky, what their rules are. They made clear to the broadcasters what their rules are.

Now Congress should make clear what the rules are for Federal agencies. Just yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission, on a unanimous vote, 4 to 0, approved this public notice, I am saying it again, that directs television broadcasters to disclose to viewers the origin of video news releases produced by the Government or corporations--I will say this a third time--when the material runs on the public airwaves.

So this is a warning. We, in the Congress, ought to do our best in support of the ruling and to enforce it.

Let me say now that my amendment prevents any agency from using taxpayer dollars to produce or distribute prepackaged news stories intended to be viewed, intended to be heard, intended to be read, which do not clearly identify the so-called news was created by a Federal agency or funded with taxpayer dollars. That is plain common sense.

I urge Senators to back the law that we, Congress, have passed each year since 1951:

No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other

Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within

the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.

Back it up. My amendment simply makes it clear, I say again, that Congress does mean what Congress says. I urge adoption of the amendment. I will yield the floor, but I want to send my amendment to the desk.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, Mar. 13, 2005]

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News

(By David Barstow and Robin Stein)

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

``Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.,'' a jubilant Iraqi-

American told a camera crew

in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of

Baghdad. A second report told of ``another success'' in the

Bush administration's ``drive to strengthen aviation

security''; the reporter called it ``one of the most

remarkable campaigns in aviation history.'' A third segment,

broadcast in January, described the administration's

determination to open markets for American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second

segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government

produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by

the State Department. The ``reporter'' covering airport

safety was actually a public relations professional working

under a false name for the Transportation Security

Administration. The farming segment was done by the

Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has

aggressively used a well-established tool of public

relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that

major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to

pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In

all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense

Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed

hundreds of television news segments in the past four years,

records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast

on local stations across the country without any

acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that

a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration

policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from

the government. But the administration's efforts to generate

positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive

than previously known. At the same time, records and

interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by

television stations, given industry ethics standards that

discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from

any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the

origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports

themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the

typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the

``reporters'' are careful not to state in the segment that

they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid

overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-

making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts

describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

Some reports were produced to support the administration's

most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq

or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters,

like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school

tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity,

its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its

plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to

fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature

``interviews'' with senior administration officials in

which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed.

Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of

mismanagement, waste or controversy.

Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's

largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles,

Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.

An examination of government-produced news reports offers a

look inside a world where the traditional lines between

public relations and journalism have become tangled, where

local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with

``suggested'' lead-ins written by public relations experts.

It is a world where government-produced reports disappear

into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals,

syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge

cleansed on the other side as ``independent'' journalism.

It is also a world where all participants benefit.

Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up

original material. Public relations firms secure government

contracts worth millions of dollars. The major networks,

which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the

government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates

that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an

unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional

reporting.

The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton

administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent

call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and

government publicity efforts. ``There needs to be a nice

independent relationship between the White House and the

press,'' Mr. Bush told reporters in January, explaining why

his administration would no longer pay pundits to support his

policies.

In interviews, though, press officers for several federal

agencies said the president's prohibition did not apply to

government-made television news segments, also known as video

news releases. They described the segments as factual,

politically neutral and useful to viewers. They insisted that

there was no similarity to the case of Armstrong Williams, a

conservative columnist who promoted the administration's

chief education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act,

without disclosing $240,000 in payments from the Education

Department.

What is more, these officials argued, it is the

responsibility of television news directors to inform viewers

that a segment about the government was in fact written by

the government. ``Talk to the television stations that ran it

without attribution,'' said William A. Pierce, spokesman for

the Department of Health and Human Services. ``This is not

our problem. We can't be held responsible for their

actions.''

Yet in three separate opinions in the past year, the

Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of

Congress that studies the federal government and its

expenditures, has held that government made news segments may

constitute improper ``covert propaganda'' even if their

origin is made clear to the television stations. The point,

the office said, is whether viewers know the origin. Last

month, in its most recent finding, the G.A.O. said federal

agencies may not produce prepackaged news reports ``that

conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing

audience that the agency was the source of those materials.''

It is not certain, though, whether the office's

pronouncements will have much practical effect. Although a

few federal agencies have stopped making television news

segments, others continue. And on Friday, the Justice

Department and the Office of Management and Budget

circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch

agencies to ignore the G.A.O. findings. The memorandum

said the G.A.O. failed to distinguish between covert

propaganda and ``purely informational'' news segments made

by the government. Such informational segments are legal,

the memorandum said, whether or not an agency's role in

producing them is disclosed to viewers.

Even if agencies do disclose their role, those efforts can

easily be undone in a broadcaster's editing room. Some news

organizations, for example, simply identify the government's

``reporter'' as one of their own and then edit out any phrase

suggesting the segment was not of their making.

So in a recent segment produced by the Agriculture

Department, the agency's narrator ended the report by saying

``In Princess Anne, Maryland, I'm Pat O'Leary reporting for

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.'' Yet AgDay, a syndicated

farm news program that is shown on some 160 stations, simply

introduced the segment as being by ``AgDay's Pat O'Leary.''

The final sentence was then trimmed to ``In Princess Anne,

Maryland, I'm Pat O'Leary reporting.''

Brian Conrady, executive producer of AgDay, defended the

changes. ``We can clip `Department of Agriculture' at our

choosing,'' he said. ``The material we get from the U.S.D.A.,

if we choose to air it and how we choose to air it is our

choice.''

Spreading the Word: Government Efforts and One Woman's Role

Karen Ryan cringes at the phrase ``covert propaganda.''

These are words for dictators and spies, and yet they have

attached themselves to her like a pair of handcuffs.

Not long ago, Ms. Ryan was a much sought-after ``reporter''

for news segments produced by the federal government. A

journalist at ABC and PBS who became a public relations

consultant, Ms. Ryan worked on about a dozen reports for

seven federal agencies in 2003 and early 2004. Her segments

for the Department of Health and Human Services and the

Office of National Drug Control Policy were a subject of the

accountability office's recent inquiries.

The G.A.O. concluded that the two agencies ``designed and

executed'' their segments ``to be indistinguishable from news

stories produced by private sector television news

organizations.'' A significant part of that execution, the

office found, was Ms. Ryan's expert narration, including her

typical sign-off--``In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan

reporting''--delivered in a tone and cadence familiar to

television reporters everywhere.

Last March, when The New York Times first described her

role in a segment about new prescription drug benefits for

Medicare patients, reaction was harsh. In Cleveland, The

Plain Dealer ran an editorial under the headline ``Karen

Ryan, You're a Phony,'' and she was the object of late-night

jokes by Jon Stewart and received hate mail.

``I'm like the Marlboro man,'' she said in a recent

interview.

In fact, Ms. Ryan was a bit player who made less than

$5,000 for her work on government reports. She was also

playing an accepted role in a lucrative art form, the video

news release. ``I just don't feel I did anything wrong,'' she

said. ``I just did what everyone else in the industry was

doing.''

It is a sizable industry. One of its largest players,

Medialink Worldwide Inc., has about 200 employees, with

offices in New York and London. It produces and

distributes about 1,000 video news releases a year, most

commissioned by major corporations. The Public Relations

Society of America even gives an award, the Bronze Anvil,

for the year's best video news release.

Several major television networks play crucial intermediary

roles in the business. Fox, for example, has an arrangement

with Medialink to distribute video news releases to 130

affiliates through its video feed service, Fox News Edge. CNN

distributes releases to 750 stations in the United States and

Canada through a similar feed service, CNN Newsource.

Associated Press Television News does the same thing

worldwide with its Global Video Wire.

``We look at them and determine whether we want them to be

on the feed,'' David M. Winstrom, director of Fox News Edge,

said of video news releases. ``If got one that said tobacco

cures cancer or something like that, I would kill it.''

In essence, video news releases seek to exploit a growing

vulnerability of television news: Even as news staffs at the

major networks are shrinking, many local stations are

expanding their hours of news coverage without adding

reporters.

``No TV news organization has the resources in labor, time

or funds to cover every worthy story,'' one video news

release company, TVA Productions, said in a sales pitch to

potential clients, adding that ``90 percent of TV newsrooms

now rely on video news releases.''

Federal agencies have been commissioning video news

releases since at least the first Clinton administration. An

increasing number of state agencies are producing television

news reports, too; the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

alone has produced some 500 video news releases since 1993.

Under the Bush administration, federal agencies appear to

be producing more releases, and on a broader array of topics.

A definitive accounting is nearly impossible. There is no

comprehensive archive of local television news reports, as

there is in print journalism, so there is no easy way to

determine what has been broadcast, and when and where.

Still, several large agencies, including the Defense

Department, the State Department and the Department of Health

and Human Services, acknowledge expanded efforts to produce

news segments. Many members of Mr. Bush's first-term cabinet

appeared in such segments.

A recent study by Congressional Democrats offers another

rough indicator: the Bush administration spent $254 million

in its first term on public relations contracts, nearly

double what the last Clinton administration spent.

Karen Ryan was part of this push--a ``paid shill for the

Bush administration,'' as she self-mockingly puts it. It is,

she acknowledges, an uncomfortable title.

Ms. Ryan, 48, describes herself as not especially

political, and certainly no Bush die-hard. She had hoped for

a long career in journalism. But over time, she said, she

grew dismayed by what she saw as the decline of television

news--too many cut corners, too many ratings stunts.

In the end, she said, the jump to video news releases from

journalism was not as far as one might expect. ``It's almost

the same thing,'' she said.

There are differences, though. When she went to interview

Tommy G. Thompson, then the health and human services

secretary, about the new Medicare drug benefit, it was not

the usual reporter-source exchange. First, she said, he

already knew the questions, and she was there mostly to help

him give better, snappier answers. And second, she said,

everyone involved is aware of a segment's potential political

benefits.

Her Medicare report, for example, was distributed in

January 2004, not long before Mr. Bush hit the campaign trail

and cited the drug benefit as one of his major

accomplishments.

The script suggested that local anchors lead into the

report with this line: ``In December, President Bush signed

into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people

with Medicare.'' In the segment, Mr. Bush is shown signing

the legislation as Ms. Ryan describes the new benefits and

reports that ``all people with Medicare will be able to get

coverage that will lower their prescription drug spending.''

The segment made no mention of the many critics who decry

the law as an expensive gift to the pharmaceutical industry.

The G.A.O. found that the segment was ``not strictly

factual,'' that it contained ``notable omissions'' and that

it amounted to ``a favorable report'' about a controversial

program.

And yet this news segment, like several others narrated by

Ms. Ryan, reached an audience of millions. According to the

accountability office, at least 40 stations ran some part of

the Medicare report. Video news releases distributed by the

Office of National Drug Control Policy, including one

narrated by Ms. Ryan, were shown on 300 stations and reached

22 million households. According to Video Monitoring Services

of America, a company that tracks news programs in major

cities, Ms. Ryan's segments on behalf of the government were

broadcast a total of at least 64 times in the 40 largest

television markets.

Even these measures, though, do not fully capture the reach

of her work. Consider the case of News 10 Now, a cable

station in Syracuse owned by Time Warner. In February 2004,

days after the government distributed its Medicare segment,

News 10 Now broadcast a virtually identical report, including

the suggested anchor lead-in. The News 10 Now segment,

however, was not narrated by Ms. Ryan. Instead, the station

edited out the original narration and had one of its

reporters repeat the script almost word for word.

The station's news director, Sean McNamara, wrote in an e-

mail message, ``Our policy on provided video is to clearly

identify the source of that video.'' In the case of the

Medicare report, he said, the station believed it was

produced and distributed by a major network and did not know

that it had originally come from the government.

Ms. Ryan said she was surprised by the number of stations

willing to run her government segments without any editing or

acknowledgement of origin. As proud as she says she is of her

work, she did not hesitate, even for a second, when asked if

she would have broadcast one of her government reports if she

were a local news director.

``Absolutely not.''

Little Oversight: TV's Code of Ethics, With Uncertain Weight

``Clearly disclose the origin of information and label all

material provided by outsiders.''

Those words are from the code of ethics of the Radio-

Television News Directors Association, the main professional

society for broadcast news directors in the United States.

Some stations go further, all but forbidding the use of any

outside material, especially entire reports. And spurred

by embarrassing publicity last year about Karen Ryan, the

news directors association is close to proposing a

stricter rule, said its executive director, Barbara

Cochran.

Whether a stricter ethics code will have much effect is

unclear; it is not hard to find broadcasters who are not

adhering to the existing code, and the association has no

enforcement powers.

The Federal Communications Commission does, but it has

never disciplined a station for showing government-made news

segments without disclosing their origin, a spokesman said.

Could it? Several lawyers experienced with F.C.C. rules say

yes. They point to a 2000 decision by the agency, which

stated, ``Listeners and viewers are entitled to know by whom

they are being persuaded.''

In interviews, more than a dozen station news directors

endorsed this view without hesitation. Several expressed

disdain for the prepackaged segments they received daily from

government agencies, corporations and special interest groups

who wanted to use their airtime and credibility to sell or

influence.

But when told that their stations showed government-made

reports without attribution, most reacted with indignation.

Their stations, they insisted, would never allow their news

programs to be co-opted by segments fed from any outside

party, let alone the government.

``They're inherently one-sided, and they don't offer the

possibility for follow-up questions--or any questions at

all,'' said Kathy Lehmann Francis, until recently the news

director at WDRB, the Fox affiliate in Louisville, Ky.

Yet records from Video Monitoring Services of America

indicate that WDRB has broadcast at least seven Karen Ryan

segments, including one for the government, without

disclosing their origin to viewers.

Mike Stutz, news director at KGTV, the ABC affiliate in San

Diego, was equally opposed to putting government news

segments on the air.

``It amounts to propaganda, doesn't it?'' he said.

Again, though, records from Video Monitoring Services of

America show that from 2001 to 2004 KGTV ran at least one

government-made segment featuring Ms. Ryan, 5 others

featuring her work on behalf of corporations, and 19 produced

by corporations and other outside organizations. It does not

appear that KGTV viewers were told the origin of these 25

segments.

``I thought we were pretty solid,'' Mr. Stutz said, adding

that they intend to take more precautions.

Confronted with such evidence, most news directors were at

a loss to explain how the segments made it on the air. Some

said they were unable to find archive tapes that would help

answer the qustion. Others promised to look into it, then

stopped returning telephone messages. A few removed the

segments from their Web sites, promised greater vigilance in

the future or pleaded ignorance.

Afghanistan to Memphis: An Agency's Report Ends Up on the Air

On Sept. 11, 2002, WHBQ, the Fox affiliate in Memphis,

marked the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks with an uplifting

report on how assistance from the United States was

helping to liberate the women of Afghanistan.

Tish Clark, a reporter for WHBQ, described how Afghan

women, once barred from schools and jobs, were at last

emerging from their burkas, taking up jobs as seamstresses

and bakers, sending daughters off to new schools, receiving

decent medical care for the first time and even participating

in a fledgling democracy. Her segment included an interview

with an Afghan teacher who recounted how the Taliban only

allowed boys to attend school. An Afghan doctor described how

the Taliban refused to let male physicians treat women.

In short, Ms. Clark's report seemed to corroborate, however

modestly, a central argument of the Bush foreign policy, that

forceful American intervention abroad was spreading freedom,

improving lives and winning friends.

What the people of Memphis were not told, though, was that

the interviews used by WHBQ were actually conducted by State

Department contractors. The contractors also selected the

quotes used from those interviews and shot the video that

went with the narration. They also wrote the narration, much

of which Ms. Clark repeated with only minor changes.

As it happens, the viewers of WHBQ were not the only ones

in the dark.

Ms. Clark, now Tish Clark Dunning, said in an interview

that she, too, had no idea the report originated at the State

Department. ``If that's true, I'm very shocked that anyone

would false report on anything like that,'' she said.

How a television reporter in Memphis unwittingly came to

narrate a segment by the

State Department reveals much about the extent to which

government-produced news accounts have seeped into the

broader news media landscape.

The explanation begins inside the White House, where the

president's communications advisers devised a strategy after

Sept. 11, 2001, to encourage supportive news coverage of the

fight against terrorism. The idea, they explained to

reporters at the time, was to counter charges of American

imperialism by generating accounts that emphasized American

efforts to liberate and rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq.

An important instrument of this strategy was the Office of

Broadcasting Services, a State Department unit of 30 or so

editors and technicians whose typical duties include

distributing video from news conferences. But in early 2002,

with close editorial direction from the White House, the unit

began producing narrated feature reports, many of them

promoting American achievements in Afghanistan and Iraq and

reinforcing the administration's rationales for the

invasions. These reports were then widely distributed in the

United States and around the world for use by local

television stations. In all, the State Department has

produced 59 such segments.

United States law contains provisions intended to prevent

the domestic dissemination of government propaganda. The 1948

Smith-Mundt Act, for example, allows Voice of America to

broadcast progovernment news to foreign audiences, but not at

home. Yet State Department officials said that law does not

apply to the Office of Broadcasting Services. In any event,

said Richard A. Boucher, a State Department spokesman: ``Our

goal is to put out facts and the truth. We're not a

propaganda agency.''

Even so, as a senior department official, Patricia

Harrison, told Congress last year, the Bush administration

has come to regard such ``good news'' segments as ``powerful

strategic tools'' for influencing public opinion. And a

review of the department's segments reveals a body of work

in sync with the political objectives set forth by the

White House communications team after 9/11.

In June 2003, for example, the unit produced a segment that

depicted American efforts to distribute food and water to the

people of southern Iraq. ``After living for decades in fear,

they are now receiving assistance--and building trust--with

their coalition liberators,'' the unidentified narrator

concluded.

Several segments focused on the liberation of Afghan women,

which a White House memo from January 2003 singled out as a

``prime example'' of how ``White House-led efforts could

facilitate strategic, proactive communications in the war on

terror.''

Tracking precisely how a ``good news'' report on

Afghanistan could have migrated to Memphis from the State

Department is far from easy. The State Department typically

distributes its segments via satellite to international news

organizations like Reuters and Associated Press Television

News, which in turn distribute them to the major United

States networks, which then transmit them to local

affiliates.

``Once these products leave our hands, we have no

control,'' Robert A. Tappan, the State Department's deputy

assistant secretary for public affairs, said in an interview.

The department, he said, never intended its segments to be

shown unedited and without attribution by local news

programs. ``We do our utmost to identify them as State

Department-produced products.''

Representatives for the networks insist that government-

produced reports are clearly labeled when they are

distributed to affiliates. Yet with segments bouncing from

satellite to satellite, passing from one news organization to

another, it is easy to see the potential for confusion.

Indeed, in response to questions from The Times, Associated

Press Television News acknowledged that they might have

distributed at least one segment about Afghanistan to the

major United States networks without identifying it as the

product of the State Department. A spokesman said it could

have ``slipped through our net because of a sourcing error.''

Kenneth W. Jobe, vice president for news at WHBQ in

Memphis, said he could not explain how his station came to

broadcast the State Department's segment on Afghan women.

``It's the same piece, there's no mistaking it,'' he said in

an interview, insisting that it would not happen again.

Mr. Jobe, who was not with WHBQ in 2002, said the station's

script for the segment has no notes explaining its origin.

But Tish Clark Dunning said it was her impression at the time

that the Afghan segment was her station's version of one done

first by network correspondents at either Fox News or CNN. It

is not unusual, she said, for a local station to take network

reports and then give them a hometown look.

``I didn't actually go to Afghanistan,'' she said. ``I took

that story and reworked it. I had to do some research on my

own. I remember looking on the Internet and finding out how

it all started as far as women covering their faces and

everything.''

At the State Department, Mr. Tappan said the broadcasting

office is moving away from producing narrated feature

segments. Instead, the department is increasingly supplying

only the ingredients for reports--sound bites and raw video.

Since the shift, he said, even more State Department material

is making its way into news broadcasts.

meeting a need: rising budget pressures, ready-to-run segments

WCIA is a small station with a big job in central Illinois.

Each weekday, WCIA's news department produces a three-hour

morning program, a noon broadcast and three evening programs.

There are plans to add a 9 p.m. broadcast. The staff, though,

has been cut to 37 from 39. ``We are doing more with the

same,'' said Jim P. Gee, the news director.

Farming is crucial in Mr. Gee's market, yet with so many

demands, he said, ``It is hard for us to justify having a

reporter just focusing on agriculture.''

To fill the gap, WCIA turned to the Agriculture Department,

which has assembled one of the most effective public

relations operations inside the federal government. The

department has a Broadcast Media and Technology Center with

an annual budget of $3.2 million that each year produces some

90 ``mission messages'' for local stations--mostly feature

segments about the good works of the Agriculture Department.

``I don't want to use the word `filler,' per se, but they

meet a need we have,'' Mr. Gee said.

The Agriculture Department's two full-time reporters, Bob

Ellison and Pat O'Leary, travel the country filing reports,

which are vetted by the department's office of communications

before they are distributed via satellite and mail. Alisa

Harrison, who oversees the communications office, said Mr.

Ellison and Mr. O'Leary provide unbiased, balanced and

accurate coverage.

``They cover the secretary just like any other reporter,''

she said.

Invariably, though, their segments offer critic-free

accounts of the department's policies and programs. In one

report, Mr. Ellison told of the agency's efforts to help

Florida clean up after several hurricanes.

``They've done a fantastic job,'' a grateful local official

said in the segment.

More recently, Mr. Ellison reported that Mike Johanns, the

new agriculture secretary, and the White House were

determined to reopen Japan to American beef products. Of his

new boss, Mr. Ellison reported, ``He called Bush the best

envoy in the world.''

WCIA, based in Champaign, has run 26 segments made by the

Agriculture Department over the past three months alone. Or

put another way, WCIA has run 26 reports that did not cost it

anything to produce.

Mr. Gee, the news director, readily acknowledges that these

accounts are not exactly independent, tough-minded

journalism. But, he added: ``We don't think they're

propaganda. They meet our journalistic standards. They're

informative. They're balanced.''

More than a year ago, WCIA asked the Agriculture Department

to record a special sign-off that implies the segments are

the work of WCIA reporters. So, for example, instead of

closing his report with ``I'm Bob Ellison, reporting for the

U.S.D.A.,'' Mr. Ellison says, ``With the U.S.D.A., I'm Bob

Ellison, reporting for `The Morning Show.' ''

Mr. Gee said the customized sign-off helped raise

``awareness of the name of our station.'' Could it give

viewers the idea that Mr. Ellison is reporting on location

with the U.S.D.A. for WCIA? ``We think viewers can make up

their own minds,'' Mr. Gee said.

Ms. Harrison, the Agriculture Department press secretary,

said the WCIA sign-off was an exception. The general policy,

she said, is to make clear in each segment that the reporter

works for the department. In any event, she added, she did

not think there was much potential for viewer confusion.

``It's pretty clear to me,'' she said.

the `good news' people: a menu of reports from military hot spots

The Defense Department is working hard to produce and

distribute its own news segments for television audiences in

the United States.

The Pentagon Channel, available only inside the Defense

Department last year, is now being offered to every cable and

satellite operator in the United States. Army public affairs

specialists, equipped with portable satellite transmitters,

are roaming war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, beaming news

reports, raw video and interviews to TV stations in the

United States. All a local news director has to do is log on

to a military-financed Web site, www.dvidshub.net., browse a

menu of segments and request a free satellite feed.

Then there is the Army and Air Force Hometown News Service,

a unit of 40 reporters and producers set up to send local

stations news segments highlighting the accomplishments of

military members.

``We're the `good news' people,'' said Larry W. Gilliam,

the unit's deputy director.

Each year, the unit films thousands of soldiers sending

holiday greetings to their hometowns. Increasingly, the unit

also produces news reports that reach large audiences. The 50

stories it filed last year were broadcast 236 times in all,

reaching 41 million households in the United States.

The news service makes it easy for local stations to run

its segments unedited. Reporters, for example, are never

identified by their military titles. ``We know if we put a

rank on there they're not going to put it on their air,'' Mr.

Gilliam said.

Each account is also specially tailored for local

broadcast. A segment sent to a station in Topeka, Kan., would

include an interview with a service member from there. If the

same report is sent to Oklahoma City, the soldier is switched

out for one from Oklahoma City. ``We try to make the

individual soldier a star in their hometown,'' Mr. Gilliam

said, adding that segments were distributed only to towns and

cities selected by the service members interviewed.

Few stations acknowledge the military's role in the

segments. ``Just tune in and you'll see a minute-and-a-half

news piece and it looks just like they went out and did the

story,'' Mr. Gilliam said. The unit, though, makes no attempt

to advance any particular political or policy agenda, he

said.

``We don't editorialize at all,'' he said.

Yet sometimes the ``good news'' approach carries political

meaning, intended or not. Such was the case after the Abu

Ghraib prison scandal surfaced last spring. Although White

House officials depicted the abuse of Iraqi detainees as the

work of a few rogue soldiers, the case raised serious

questions about the training of military police officers.

A short while later, Mr. Gilliam's unit distributed a news

segment, sent to 34 stations, that examined the training of

prison guards at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, where some of

the military police officers implicated at Abu Ghraib had

been trained.

``One of the most important lessons they learn is to treat

prisoners strictly but fairly,'' the reporter said in the

segment, which depicted a regimen emphasizing respect for

detainees. A trainer told the reporter that military police

officers were taught to ``treat others as they would want to

be treated.'' The account made no mention of Abu Ghraib or

how the scandal had prompted changes in training at Fort

Leonard Wood.

According to Mr. Gilliam, the report was unrelated to any

effort by the Defense Department to rebut suggestions of a

broad command failure.

``Are you saying that the Pentagon called down and said,

`We need some good publicity?' '' he asked. ``No, not at

all.''

I have no objection to that.

I thank the very distinguished Senator for his support and for his statement. It is a very pertinent statement. In the FCC Public Notice 05-84, dated April 13, 2005, on page 2, it says:

This Public Notice is confined to the disclosure

obligations required under Section 317 and our rules

thereunder, and does not address the recent controversy over

when or whether the government is permitted to sponsor VNRs,

which is an issue beyond the Commission's jurisdiction.

My amendment is simple and clear. Here is what it says:

None of the funds provided in this Act or any other Act may

be used by a Federal agency to produce any prepackaged news

story unless the story includes a clear notification to the

audience that the story was prepared or funded by that

Federal agency.

Mr. President, it does not create confusion, as a Senator said a moment ago. It creates clarity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for his comments and support. I thank him profusely.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his willingness to not move to table at this point. I hope we can take a little time and see if we might reach a meeting of the minds on language that might accomplish the purposes that we hoped to accomplish.

For that reason, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have no objection. We can reach an understanding if I am unable to come up with language that is capable of being a workable and effective compromise that we might go ahead and have a vote on the Byrd amendment. Might we have a time limit on the Senator's proposal?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have a proposed modification to the amendment which I have discussed with the distinguished manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Cochran.

I send the modification to the desk and ask that it be stated by the clerk.

Mr. President, I am prepared now to go to a vote, if the distinguished chairman is also prepared. And I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, may I just be sure that we are clear on this language.

I understand that the language as read by the clerk is agreed to on both sides.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

The Senator points out the part of the amendment which is asking for an estimate of the number of troops. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. This issue has come up in a number of different contexts. We are talking about an estimate. We are looking for an estimate in 6 months and 12 months and 18 months. I am just wondering whether the Senator from Illinois saw the New York Times on April 11 where General Casey, top commander in Iraq, told CNN a week ago that if all went well, ``we should be able to take some fairly substantial reductions in the size of our forces.'' And another senior military official said American forces in Iraq could drop to around 105,000 by early next year from 142,000 now.

Clearly, there are estimates that are being considered. It seems that the American people would like to know what these numbers are rather than reading them in the paper. I believe that is what the purpose of the amendment is--to try to communicate to the American people what the best judgment is in terms of the troops. Estimates can vary. As authors of the amendment, we understand that. But I do thank the Senator for referring to the GAO report, the fact that the GAO report of March 14 said that U.S. Government agencies do not report reliable data on the extent to which the security forces are trained and equipped. The number of Iraqi police is unreliable, and the data does not exclude police absent from duty.

All we are trying to do is to get estimates for the American people. Am I correct?

I thank the Senator. I agree with his conclusions. Many of us believe this will be enormously helpful in trying to establish the independent Iraq that all of us would like to see. But I thank the Senator for bringing up this matter.

This follows other evidence that we have had at other times in Defense appropriations legislation, basically to provide this kind of information to the parents, to the military. We are looking for a best judgment, best estimate. Clearly, today the military is thinking in those terms. I believe we ought to have some opportunity to share that information.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for offering this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for bringing up this matter on the supplemental. I welcome the opportunity to join with him and our colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, and others who support the amendment. As we have outlined, this amendment basically requires periodic reports on the progress we are making in training Iraqi security forces.

The Senate is currently debating an appropriations bill that would provide $81 billion, primarily for our ongoing war effort in Iraq. This funding will bring the total U.S. bill for the war in Iraq to $192 billion--and still counting.

All of us support our troops. We obviously want to do all that we can to see that they have proper equipment, vehicles, and everything else they need to protect their lives as they carry out their mission. It is scandalous that the administration has kept sending them into battle in Iraq without proper equipment. No soldier should be sent into battle unprotected. No parents should have to go in desperation to the local Wal-Mart to buy armored plates and mail them to their sons and daughters serving in Iraq.

Our military is performing brilliantly under enormously difficult circumstances. But they don't want--and the American people don't want--an open-ended commitment. After all the blunders that took us into war, we need to be certain that the President has a strategy for success.

The $5.7 billion in this bill for training Iraqi security forces is a key element of a successful strategy to stabilize Iraq and withdraw American military forces.

The administration has spoken frequently about the need for these funds. But there has been no accountability. It is time to put some facts behind our policy, and that is what this amendment does.

The administration has never really given us a straight answer about how many Iraqi security forces are adequately trained and equipped. We're obviously making progress, but it is far from clear how much. The American people deserve an honest assessment that provides the basic facts.

But that is not what we're being given. According to a GAO report in March:

U.S. government agencies do not report reliable data on the

extent to which Iraqi security forces are trained and

equipped.

It goes on to say:

The Departments of State and Defense no longer report on

the extent to which Iraqi security forces are equipped with

their required weapons, vehicles, communications, equipment,

and body armor.

It is clear from the administration's own statements that they are using the notorious ``fuzzy math'' tactic to avoid an honest appraisal.

On February 4, 2004, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said:

We have accelerated the training of Iraqi security forces,

now more than 200,000 strong.

Then, a year later, on January 19, 2005, Secretary Condoleezza Rice said that:

We think the number right now is somewhere over 120,000.

On February 3, 2005, in response to questions from Senator Levin at a Senate Armed Services Hearing, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded that only 40,000 Iraqi security forces are really capable. He said:

48 deployable (battalions) around the country, equals about

40,000, which is the number that can go anywhere and do

anything.

Obviously, we need a better accounting of how much progress is being made to train and equip effective and capable Iraqi Security forces.

I am encouraged by reports from our commanders in Iraq that we are making enough progress in fighting the insurgents and training the Iraqi security forces to enable the Pentagon to plan for significant troop reductions by early next year.

On March 27, General Casey, our top commander in Iraq, said, if things go well in Iraq, ``by this time next year . . . we should be able to take some fairly substantial reductions in the size of our forces.''

According to the New York Times, on Monday, senior military officials are saying American troop levels in Iraq could ``drop to around 105,000'' by early in 2006.

These reports are welcome news after 2 years of war in Iraq.

April 9 marked the second anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, and in these last 2 years we have paid a high price for the invasion of Iraq.

America went to war in Iraq because President Bush insisted that Iraq had strong ties to al-Qaida. It did not. We went to war because President Bush insisted that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear capability. He was not. Long after the invasion of Iraq began, our teams were scouring possible sites for weapons of mass destruction. Finally, last January, 21

months after the invasion, the search was called off all together.

As Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, said in a lecture last month, the United States preferred ``to believe in faith based intelligence.''

Today, American forces continue to serve bravely and with great honor in Iraq. But the war in Iraq has made it more likely--not less likely-- that we will face terrorist attacks in American cities, and not just on the streets of Baghdad. The war has clearly made us less safe and less secure. It has made the war against al-Qaida harder to win.

As CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16, we have created a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq and a worldwide cause for the continuing recruitment of anti-American extremists.

He said:

The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has

become a cause for extremists . . . Islamic extremists are

exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S.

jihadists . . . These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq

experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They

represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational

terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan

and other countries.

Three and a half years after the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaida is still the gravest threat to our national security, and the war in Iraq has ominously given al-Qaida new incentives, new recruits, and new opportunities to attack us.

According to CIA Director Goss, ``al-Qaida is intent on finding ways to circumvent U.S. security enhancements to strike Americans and the homeland.''

Admiral James Loy, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, also warned the Intelligence Committee about the threat from al-Qaida. He said, ``We believe that attacking the homeland remains at the top of al- Qaida's operational priority list . . . We believe that their intent remains strong for attempting another major operation here.''

The danger was also emphasized by Robert Mueller, the FBI Director, who told the Intelligence Committee, ``The threat posed by international terrorism, and in particular from al-Qaida and related groups, continues to be the gravest we face.'' He said, ``al-Qaida continues to adapt and move forward with its desire to attack the United States using any means at its disposal. Their intent to attack us at home remains--and their resolve to destroy America has never faltered.''

In addition to taking the focus off the real war on terror--the war against al-Qaida--the war in Iraq has cost us greatly in human terms.

Since the invasion began, we have lost more than 1500 servicemen and women. More than 11,500 have been wounded. That's the equivalent of a full Army division, and we only have 10 active divisions in the entire army. Despite recent progress, since the Iraqi elections in January we have still lost more than one soldier a day.

We need to train the Iraqis for the stability of Iraq. But we also need to train them because our current level of deployment is not sustainable. Our military has been stretched to the breaking point, with threats in other parts of the world ever-present.

As the Defense Science Board told Secretary Rumsfeld last September, ``Current and projected force structure will not sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments.''

LTG John Riggs said it clearly: ``I have been in the Army 39 years, and I've never seen the Army as stretched in that 39 years as I have today.'' A full 32 percent of our military has already served two or more tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. That fact makes it harder for us to respond to threats elsewhere in the world.

The war has also undermined the Guard and Reserve. Forty percent of the troops in Iraq are Guard or Reservists, and we are rapidly running out of available soldiers who can be deployed.

The average tour for reservists recalled to active duty is now 320 days, close to a year. In the first Gulf War, it was 156 days; in Bosnia and Kosovo, 200 days. In December, General James Helmley, the head of the Army Reserves warned that the Reserve ``is rapidly degenerating into a `broken' force'' and ``is in grave danger of being unable to meet other operational requirements.''

The families of our military, Guard and Reserves are also suffering. Troops in Iraq are under an order that prevents them ever from leaving active duty when their term of service is over.

A survey by the Defense Department last May found that reservists, their spouses, their families, and their employers are less supportive now of their remaining in the military than they were a year ago.

The war has clearly undermined the Pentagon's ability to attract new recruits and retain those already serving. In March, the active duty Army fell short of its recruiting goal by a full 32 percent. Every month this year, the Marines have missed their recruiting goal. The last time that happened was July 1995.

The Army Reserves are being hit especially hard. In March, it missed a recruiting goal by almost half, falling short by 46 percent.

To deal with its recruiting problems, the Army National Guard has increased retention bonuses from $5,000 to $15,000 and first-time signing bonuses from $6000 to $10,000. The Pentagon has raised the maximum age for Army National Guard recruits from 34 to 39. Without these changes, according to General Steven Blum, Chief of the Army National Guard, ``The Guard will be broken and not ready the next time it's needed, either here at home or for war.''

We all hope for the best in Iraq. We all want democracy to take root firmly and irrevocably.

Our men and women in uniform, and the American people deserve to know that the President has a strategy for success. They want to know how long it will take to train the Iraqi security forces to ably defend their own country so American men and women will no longer have to die in Iraq. They want to know when we will have achieved our mission, and when our soldiers will be able to come home with dignity and honor.

At a March 1 hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid, the leader of the Central Command, gave the clearest indication so far about when our mission might end.

General Abizaid said, ``I believe that in 2005, the most important statement that we should be able to make is that in the majority of the country, Iraqi security forces will take the lead in fighting the counterinsurgency. That is our goal.''

Speaking about the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, General Abizaid said, ``I think in 2005 they'll take on the majority of the tasks necessary to be done.'' That's this year.

On March 27, General Casey, commanding General of the Multi-National Force in Iraq said, ``By this time next year . . . assuming that the political process continues to go positively . . . and the Iraqi army continues to progress and develop as we think it will, we should be able to take some fairly substantial reductions in the size of our forces.''

Our troops are clearly still needed to deal with the insurgency. Just as clearly, we need an effective training program to enable the Iraqis to be self-reliant.

But there is wide agreement that the presence of American troops fuels the insurgency. If the Iraqis make significant progress this year, it is perfectly logical to expect that more American troops will be able to return home.

Shortly after the elections in Iraq in January, the administration announced that 15,000 American troops that were added to provide security for the elections would return.

Additional reductions in our military presence, as Iraqis are trained to take over those functions, would clearly help take the American face off the occupation and send a clearer signal to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country.

In US News and World Report in February, General Abizaid emphasized this basic point. He said ``An overbearing presence, or a larger than acceptable footprint in the region, works against you . . . The first thing you say to yourself is that you have to have the local people help themselves.''

Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz stated in a hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 3, ``I have talked to some of our commanders in the area. They believe that over the course of the next six months you will see whole areas of Iraq successfully handed over to the Iraqi army and

Iraqi police.'' Today 2 of those 6 months have passed, and all of us hope that we are on track to meet his goal.

Before the election in Iraq in January, the administration repeatedly stated that 14 of the 18 provinces in Iraq are safe. We heard a similar view in a briefing from Ambassador Negroponte earlier this year.

If some areas can soon be turned over to the Iraqis, as Secretary Wolfowitz indicated, it should be done. It would be a powerful signal to the Iraqi people that the United States is not planning a permanent occupation of their country. If entire areas are being turned over to the Iraqis, we should be able to bring more American troops home.

We know the road ahead will be difficult, because the violence is far from ended.

The President's commitment to keeping American troops in Iraq as long as it takes and not a day longer is not enough for our soldiers and their loved ones. They deserve a clearer indication of what lies ahead, and so do the American people.

President Bush should be able to tell us how much progress--how much real progress--we are making in training the Iraqi security forces. Our amendment asks for specific information on that progress, if it's happening.

President Bush should be able to tell us how many American soldiers he expects will still be in Iraq 6 months from now, 12 months from now, 18 months from now.

General Abizaid and other military officials have begun to provide clarification of that very important issue, and I hope the President will as well.

Our amendment contributes significantly to that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from West Virginia for his amendment. We have to put a stop to all of the taxpayer- financed propaganda put out by our government to influence the American people.

Over the last year, we have found out that the Bush administration has used taxpayer funds to finance ``fake news reports'' by actors posing as reporters, not actual journalists, who read the administration's script on prescription drugs and the No Child Left Behind education program. Even more recently, we have found out that a number of actual real-life journalists have been secretly paid by the Bush administration to promote its political agenda. This is dangerous to our democracy. It's an unethical misuse of taxpayer funds.

Senator Lautenberg and I have generated a series of investigations by the Government Accountability Office critical of the Bush administration's propaganda efforts. We have introduced legislation, the Stop Government Propaganda Act, that the Byrd amendment complements. Our legislation, like the Byrd amendment, specifically prevents the administration--any administration, Democratic or Republican--from paying actors to pose as legitimate journalists in order to push for a political agenda.

I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment. Congress cannot sit still while the administration corrupts the first amendment and freedom of the press.

Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Kansas. I know he and the Senator from New Jersey have demonstrated extraordinary leadership on many issues that have come before this Senate, but certainly on the Darfur Accountability Act. I am an original cosponsor of that bipartisan measure and a strong supporter.

The latest estimates tell us more than 300,000 people have died in Darfur. The world has let this happen. In spite of all of our anguished promises after Rwanda that this would never happen again, it is happening again. Reports from aid workers back from Sudan state that attacks on the ground are still taking place. Villages are still being burned. Much of Darfur is still in a climate of terror. People are still afraid to go out for basics, to venture out for water, for wood, or the necessities of life.

Early this week, Human Rights Watch released a new report that Sudanese security forces, including police deployed to protect displaced persons, and allied jingaweit militias continue to commit rape and sexual violence on a daily basis. Refugee camps are no refuge. Women who fled Darfur to refugee camps in Chad have been imprisoned by Chadian authorities for trying to collect firewood outside their camps. Many of them were raped while in jail.

This has become a charnel house. This is an inferno. This is one of the rings of hell, and it is happening on our watch.

In some areas of Sudan, women who are raped by the jingaweit militia are now being threatened with prosecution. In short, Darfur still cries out for action. If these conditions do not constitute an emergency, I do not know what does.

Do we want to return to the Senate 6 months from now and lament the fact that another 300,000 victims have been added to the death tolls in this area? The amendment which will be offered later seeks a new U.N. Security Council resolution with sanctions, concerted United States diplomacy, an extension of the current arms embargo to cover the Government of Sudan, the freezing of assets and denial of visas to those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, accelerated assistance of the African Union Mission, and a military no- fly zone in Darfur.

One of the other components of this amendment is the appointment of a new special envoy to seek peace in Sudan to fill the role Ambassador Danforth played so well. As in many things, Pope John Paul II was ahead of this. He sent a special envoy last year so that voices of the people of Darfur might be heard.

The Bible tells us: Blessed be the peacemaker. We need to be peacemakers today. Let us hold the Government of Sudan accountable for its crimes and for these atrocities. Let us help the people of Darfur, and in doing so let us help to end this genocide.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, those following the debate on the floor understand we are considering the supplemental appropriations bill that deals with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the tsunami relief, and some other very important elements. I understand there are pending amendments and also an effort to reach an agreement about how future amendments will be offered. So even though I will not be offering an amendment at this time, I would like to say a few words about an amendment which I plan to offer as soon as an agreement is reached and to alert my colleagues and those following the debate what we are seeking to achieve.

This amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor with Senator Kennedy and Senator Levin, relates to troop training in Iraq. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their hard work on the bill. I believe it is imperative we continue to support our troops and address other emergencies in the world, including the devastating tsunami that swept across the Pacific right after Christmas.

We fully support our troops. We also want to see them come home. Training Iraqi troops to take the lead in Iraq is critical to our success in that country and to getting our service men and women back where they belong--with their families at home. Therefore, we are offering an amendment today to measure our progress toward that goal.

In this bill, the Senate is appropriating $5.7 billion for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund. The accompanying committee report states:

The funds shall be available to train, equip, and deploy

Iraqi security forces as well as provide increased

counterinsurgency capabilities.

That is certainly very good. Our troops cannot come home until Iraqi forces can hold their own.

When I was in Iraq just a few weeks ago, General Petraeus took us from the Baghdad airport to a training field nearby, where we saw about 12 Iraqi soldiers who were masked to hide their identity for fear of retribution from their fellow Iraqis as they went through training drills.

I have not been in the military. I can't grade these troops as to their progress. It certainly appeared that they were learning important skills. How many troops in Iraq are reaching that level of competence, I can't say. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Iraqi forces and police must be able to take the lead in conducting counterinsurgency operations. They must be able to protect their own borders, safeguard civilian populations, uphold and enforce the rule of law. When I met with General Petraeus, he said he believed he was making progress toward that goal, but I think

we need to have a better metric to evaluate. We have received mixed messages and mixed information and statistics from the administration about how many Iraqis are trained and what their training really means.

Recent figures we received from the Department of Defense tell us that 136,000 Iraqis have been officially trained and equipped, but it is still not clear what that means. Does it mean that 136,000 Iraqi police, military, and border personnel are ready to defend their country, to protect its citizens and borders? Are they ready to take on and defeat the serious insurgent threat against American troops and Iraqis?

A March GAO study was very skeptical about the numbers. Joseph Christoff, Director of the GAO, testified before the House Government Reform Committee that:

Data on the status of Iraqi security forces is unreliable

and provides limited information on their capabilities.

That was a result of a GAO report of the progress being made by our Department of Defense. We need answers to basic questions. That is why we are offering the amendment--Senator Kennedy, Senator Levin, and I-- requiring the Department of Defense to assess unit readiness of Iraqi forces and evaluate the effectiveness and status of training of police forces.

Our amendment is straightforward. It is a reporting requirement asking for regular assessments of both the military forces and the police who are being trained with our tax dollars. This is simply accountability. As American tax dollars go into Iraq for the training of forces, American taxpayers have the right to know whether we are making progress. Are we meeting our goals? The GAO report indicated, for example, substantial desertions from the ranks of police in Iraq, the number in perhaps the tens of thousands. That is something we need to know if it continues. We need to know how many battalions of soldiers are trained, how effectively they can operate. They face a fierce insurgency. Are they ready for battle? We want to give them the tools to successfully confront it.

Finally, we also ask for an assessment of how many American forces will be needed in 6, 12, and 18 months. We are not imposing a deadline. What we are doing is saying to the administration: Tell us on the one hand the level of success which you are experiencing in training Iraqis to defend their own country and tell us what it means in terms of American forces. When can we expect troops to start returning if this Iraqi training is successful?

As Iraqi troop training expands and improves, we certainly hope American troops will come home. We all want to see progress in Iraq. I want to be able to measure it in a way that everyone in Congress--and certainly everyone across the country--knows we are making meaningful progress.

Yes, I am happy to.

The Senator from Massachusetts is correct. He makes a valuable point. When we in Congress ask the Department of Defense, how are we doing in terms of training troops for the Iraqi side, what are your guesses and best estimates in terms of when American troops can come home, many times they tell us, we can't share that information. They give us widely different numbers.

The Senator from Massachusetts makes the point that spokesmen for the U.S. military apparently speak to the media frequently, volunteering information about how quickly troops can come home to the United States. If it is good enough for CNN, should it not be good enough for the USA; should not American taxpayers be given this information? I think we want to know that.

I understand that we have to stay the course and finish our job. I am committed to that, even though I shared Senator Kennedy's sentiments about the initiation of the invasion. One of the problems with the insurgency is the question of whether we are a permanent occupying force. I hope we make it clear to the Iraqis that we are there to finish the job, to stabilize their country, and come home. As we start moving down the line on this amendment, which the Senator from Massachusetts and Senator Levin have cosponsored, we are going to be moving toward that goal and delivering the right message.

Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd-Lautenberg amendment. I would like to say a few words. I know we may be moving close to a vote, and the chairman of the committee has been patiently awaiting that possibility.

Tonight you are going to turn on your nightly news and try to get some information. People do it all the time. You expect when you turn on your television and turn on a newscast, the information being given to you is objective, at least as objective as people can make it. It isn't a paid advertisement; it is the news. If you are running a paid advertisement, you would know it. It would have laundry detergent on it or some new pharmaceutical drug or a political ad with a disclaimer at the bottom.

When you turn on your newscast, you don't expect to get hit by an ad that doesn't look like an ad. That is what the Byrd amendment is all about. The General Accounting Office took a look at some of the ads that were being sent out by the Bush administration for their policies and programs and said they went too far. They didn't identify the videos they were sending to these television stations were actually produced by the Bush administration, by these agencies, to promote a particular point of view. They basically said these ads deceived the American people. They were propaganda from the Government.

We decided a long time ago you couldn't do that. If you were going to put that kind of information up to try to convince the American people, one way or the other, you have an obligation to tell them so. The basic rule in this country is people want to hear both sides of the story, then make up their own minds. They want to know what is a fact and what is an opinion. Make up your own mind. You can't do it when there is a deception involved.

It is that deception that Senator Byrd is addressing. The Byrd amendment is so brief and to the point, it is worth repeating:

None of the funds provided in this Act or any other Act may

be used by a Federal agency to produce any prepackaged news

story unless the story includes a clear notification to the

audience that the story was prepared or funded by that

Federal agency.

That is pretty simple. Tell us who prepared it. If it was prepared at taxpayer expense by the Senate, it should disclose that. If it was prepared by an agency of the Bush administration, disclose it. Then the American people decide. They watch the show. They say: That is a pretty interesting point of view. That happens to be what the official Government point of view is. I wonder what the other side of the story is.

You have a right to ask that question. But what if it wasn't disclosed? What if what you thought was a news story turned out to be an ad, propaganda? That is a deception. It is a deception Senator Byrd is trying to end.

We sent the General Accounting Office out and we said: Take a look at two or three Government agencies in the Bush administration. See how they are using these videotapes. According to the GAO, the Office of National Drug Control Policy violated the publicity and propaganda prohibition in our law when it produced and distributed fake news stories called video news releases as part of its National Youth Anti- Drug Media Campaign. There is nothing wrong with fighting drugs.

We want to protect our children from that possibility. We want to end the scourge of drug abuse in America. But be honest about it. If it is a Government-produced program, then identify it. That is all Senators Byrd and Lautenberg say in their amendment. In a separate report, the GAO found that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services violated publicity and propaganda prohibition by sending out more fake news stories about the benefits of the new prescription drug law for seniors. I was on the Senate floor when that was debated. There are pros and cons--people who are against it and who are for it. There are two sides to the story. Here came the official Government press release suggesting: Here are the facts for you, Mr. and Mrs. America. It turns out they didn't identify that that official news release came from an agency of the Bush administration.

They used phony reporters, phony news stories, and they told the viewers certain things they hoped they would believe. It turns out they were deceiving the American people.

Remember the case of Armstrong Williams? Interesting fellow. He was hired by the Federal Department of Education to promote the new No Child Left Behind law on his nationally syndicated television show and urged other journalists to do the same. We paid him taxpayer dollars of $240,000 to go on his talk show and say nice things about the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind law. Well, is that fair? Is that where you want to spend your tax dollars? Would it not have been worth a few bucks to put the money into the classroom for children, instead of putting on contract this man who never disclosed his conflict of interest and went about talking on his syndicated TV show as if he were an objective judge? He was so embarrassed by this that the Department stopped paying him and he issued something of an apology. The fact is, he used our Federal taxpayer dollars as an incentive to promote a point of view and didn't tell the American people, deceiving them in the process.

The Social Security Administration has gone through the same thing when it comes to the President's privatization plan. They will be producing these fake news stories and video press releases that mislead people about the nature of the challenge of the problem.

I have an example. One of the things that went out in the Social Security Administration's phony news story was the following statement: ``In 2041, the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted.'' That was put out as an official Government statement--not identified but sent out. It turns out it is not true. In 2041, the Social Security trust fund will not be exhausted. If we don't touch the Social Security trust fund, it will make every single payment to every single retiree, every single month of every single year until 2041. Then if we do nothing to change it after 36 years, it will continue to pay up to 75 to 80 percent. The trust fund is not going to be exhausted. That is a misstatement put out by this administration without identifying the fact that they are trying to promote a point of view which, sadly, is not correct and not honest.

So what Senator Byrd said is simple. If you want to put out something as a Federal Government agency, trust the American people. Tell them who you are. Let them decide whether it is worth believing. Don't pull the wool over their eyes. America is entitled to hear both sides of the story. We are entitled to know what is fact, what is fiction, what is basically news, and what is opinion. I think we can trust the American people to make that judgment. If Members of the Senate cannot trust the American people to make a judgment, how do they submit their own names for election? That is what we do regularly in an election year. I trust their judgment. I trust Senator Byrd's amendment.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) is necessarily absent.

I rise in support of the Byrd amendment. This amendment is important. It is offered at an important time, and it is offered during a period when we have seen so many examples of fake news, or propaganda, to use another word.

I don't think this is partisan. I think it would apply to a Republican or Democratic administration.

The question is, Should the Federal Government be involved in propaganda? Should we be observant of fake news and do nothing about it?

The Senator from West Virginia offers an amendment that is filled with common sense. Let me describe a fake news program. A report narrated by a woman who speaks in glowing terms about an administration's plan and concludes by saying: ``In Washington, this is Karen Ryan reporting.''

The Department of Health and Human Services spent $44,000 in taxpayer dollars on this type of propaganda. Is this what we want to pass for news?

I have talked often in the Senate on a subject very important to me, the concentration of broadcasting in this country. Fewer and fewer people owning more and more broadcast properties, controlling what people see, hear, and think by what is presented to them. As more and more companies are bought, they hollow out the newsrooms, get rid of the newsroom staff, and just have a shell left. Then they are interested in filling that shell with cheap media feeds.

If you read the discussion about what has prompted these television stations to run these prepackaged fake news items, they are looking for fillers for a news script because they got rid of their news people. So this, now, passes as news when, in fact, it is fake news.

In my judgment, it ought to be labeled exactly what it is. That is what the Senator is offering with respect to this amendment. This is not an amendment that is in any way radical. It is an amendment that is filled with common sense.

A few minutes ago my colleague who talked about Public Broadcasting or National Public Radio was clever and funny--and good for him--but this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Winning debates that we are not having is hardly a blue ribbon activity in this Chamber. This debate is not about National Public Radio or anything of the sort. It is about the specific subject that my colleague from West Virginia brings to the Senate.

The subject, incidentally, has more tentacles attached to it. We learned in January a syndicated columnist, Armstrong Williams, had been paid a quarter of a million dollars, actually $240,000, to promote the No Child Left Behind Program on his television show and to urge other African-American journalists to do the same. That contract was not disclosed to the public. It was taxpayers' dollars offered to a journalist, commentator, television personality, and we only learned about it because USA Today obtained the

document through a Freedom of Information request.

That, incidentally, was part of a $1 million deal with the Ketchum public relations firm which was contracted to produce video news releases designed to appear like real news reports.

So there is more to do on this issue than just the Byrd amendment. That is why I say this amendment is modest in itself. It is not, as some would suggest, a big deal. It is a modest amendment that addresses a problem in a very specific way. We really do have more to do dealing with some of the other tentacles--the hiring of public relations firms to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

We found out in late January the Department of Health and Human Services paid $21,500 to another syndicated columnist to advocate a $300 million Presidential proposal encouraging marriage. That contract was not disclosed either.

The list goes on. Fake news. We discovered a while back the White House had allowed a fake journalist, using a fake name, to get a daily clearance to come into the Presidential news conference and daily news briefings and to ask questions. Another part of fake news, I guess, a different tentacle and a different description.

The Byrd amendment is simple on its face. The question is, Do we want fake news being produced with taxpayers' dollars with no disclosure at all; that it is, in fact, propaganda, not news?

I support the Byrd amendment. I hope we will address other parts of this issue at some future time. This amendment is modest enough, and my hope is to engage a majority of the Senate to be supportive of it.

While I have the floor, I might indicate a second time that I intend to offer an amendment that would cease or discontinue funding for the independent counsel who is still active, an independent counsel who was impaneled to investigate the payment of money to a mistress by a former Cabinet official, Mr. Cisneros. That independent counsel has spent now $21 million over 10 years. The particular Cabinet official admitted the indiscretion. He pled guilty in Federal court and he since left office and has since been pardoned by a President in 2001. Yet the independent counsel investigating this is still investigating it, still spending money.

The most recent report showed this independent counsel spent $1.26 million in Federal funds over the previous 6 months, which brings it to $21 million by an independent counsel's office that was launched nearly 10 years ago to investigate a Cabinet official who left the Government very soon thereafter, who then pled guilty, who then was pardoned. In 1995, the independent counsel was named. That was 10 years ago. In 1999, the Cabinet official pled guilty. In 2001, 4 years ago, the Cabinet official was given a Presidential pardon. Yet we have an independent counsel's office that is still spending money.

We ought to shut off that money. I will offer an amendment to do that, telling that independent counsel the money dries up on June 1. Finish your report and leave town--at least if your home is elsewhere-- but finish up the report and get off the public payroll after 10 years, 4 years after the subject in question received a Presidential pardon, 6 years after the subject in question pled guilty in court.

Some things need addressing on an urgent basis. This one does. I understand it, too, will not be, perhaps, germane to this bill, but it is one that I hope every Senator would understand we ought to shut down.

With that, I appreciate the amendment offered by Senator Byrd. I am pleased to come over in support of that amendment this afternoon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask my colleague, the chairman of the committee, my understanding is the pending amendment is the Byrd amendment. But I heard my colleague Senator Byrd indicate he was trying to see whether there was some language that could be changed so this amendment would be acceptable. I have an amendment I had previously announced I would like to offer. It is an amendment dealing with the independent counsel expenditure of $21 million. I twice before mentioned this.

I ask the Senator from Mississippi whether it would be appropriate at this point to offer an amendment. My understanding is we would have to set aside the Byrd amendment to do so. I ask the chairman and also Senator Byrd whether that is possible at this moment.

I will be mercifully brief. This is not an amendment that will take a long time to explain, and I do not intend to delay the proceedings of the Senate at all.

Amendment No. 399

Mr. President, with that in mind and with the cooperation of the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the committee, and my colleague Senator Byrd, as well, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Durbin has asked to be a cosponsor as well. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this matter deals with something I was quite surprised to read about, frankly, in the newspaper, and I have since done some research about it. It was a rather lengthy newspaper article disclosing that an independent counsel who had been appointed 10 years ago in 1995, a Mr. David Barrett, was still in business and was involved in an investigation that has now cost the American taxpayers $21 million.

That was an investigation dealing with a Cabinet Secretary who was alleged to have lied, I believe, to the FBI, to authorities, about a payment he gave to a mistress. So an independent counsel was impaneled and began investigating that charge.

That independent counsel has been working for some 10 years, in fact. But the Cabinet officer who was the subject of the investigation pled guilty in 1999. That was 6 years ago. That Cabinet officer was also subsequently pardoned in the year 2001.

In the most recent 6-month report, the independent counsel who was appointed for investigating this transgression is still in business, and had spent $1.26 million in just that period. And the costs are trending upward, 10 years after he started, 6 years after the subject pled guilty, and 4 years after the subject was pardoned. It is unbelievable.

I do not know anything about the case. I do not really know the Cabinet official in question. I guess I met him some years ago. But this is not about that official any longer. He has pled guilty, been pardoned, and here we are years later with an independent counsel's office still spending money.

I quote Judge Stanley Sporkin, the presiding judge over Mr. Cisneros' trial:

The problem with this case is that it took too long to

develop and much too long to bring to judgment day . . . [the

matter] should have been resolved a long time ago, perhaps

even years ago.

That was a quote from 1999. It is now 2005. The independent counsel is still spending money.

David Barrett, the independent counsel, said in 1999:

We are just glad to have this over and done with. That was

following the plea agreement of Mr. Cisneros. Here it is 6

years later and the independent counsel is still in business.

Mr. Barrett said in July 2001:

I want to conclude this investigation as soon as possible.

It is now 4 years later, with the counsel spending $1.26 million in the last 6 months.

The three-judge panel that is providing oversight to the independent counsel said:

Whether a cost-benefit analysis at this point would support

Mr. Barrett's effort is a question to which I have no answer.

Judge Cudahy, a member of the three-judge oversight panel said:

Mr. Barrett can go on forever. A great deal of time has

elapsed and a lot of money spent in pursuing charges that on

their face do not seem of overwhelming complexity.

Again, this is someone who is accused of lying to the FBI about paying money to a mistress. In the year 1995, the investigation began with Mr. Barrett and the independent counsel. In

1999, the individual pled guilty. In the year 2001, the individual was pardoned. And the independent counsel is still in business spending money. What on Earth is going on?

A former Federal prosecutor following the plea agreement, Lawrence Barcella, said this:

This is a classic example of why this independent counsel

statute was a problem. You give this person all the resources

to go after one person, and the first thing that is lost is

perspective.

Joseph DiGenova, a Republican lawyer and former independent counsel himself, said in the April 1, 2005, Washington Post:

If this does not prove [the independent counsel's]

worthlessness as a governmental entity, I don't know what

does.

I do not come here as a partisan, a member of a political party. I come here as someone outraged to wake up in the morning and read a report about an independent counsel impaneled 10 years ago to investigate a subject who pled guilty 6 years ago and was pardoned 4 years ago, and the independent counsel is still spending the taxpayers' money, $1.26 million over the last 6 months.

My amendment is painfully simple. I propose we stop the spending on June 1 and tell this independent counsel: Finish your report, finish up, move on, and give the taxpayers a break.

That is what the amendment is. It is very simple. I hope it might be considered and supported by my colleagues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will take up where my colleague left off. Before she leaves the floor, I acknowledge what a pleasure it has been to work with her and other members of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to do something for our Guard and Reserve Forces. She has outlined very well what we are trying to do. It shows what can happen when the body will come together on an issue that should never divide us. Whether you are Republican or Democrat or independent, this war affects us all. No one asked the young men and women fighting the war their party identification or affiliation or their political background when they went off to serve our Nation.

The least we can do as a body is stand behind them and their families to provide a benefit they need.

We had a hearing yesterday, to build upon what Senator Clinton said. We had the chief of the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserve components, and the Naval Reserve, and we talked about the stress on the force in terms of the Reserve community. We have 175,000 people today who have experienced duty in this war from the Guard and Reserve. Forty percent of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan are guardsmen and reservists. We could not fight without them.

This is the biggest utilization of the Guard and Reserve since World War II. The skill set they bring to the fight is indispensable. There are civil affairs people helping Afghan and Iraqi officials set up a democracy. We have medical personnel and many others who are indispensable. The military police are predominantly guardsmen and reservists, and they are indispensable in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have done a terrific job.

The reason we are involved in this legislation and we have so much bipartisan support for what we are trying to do is the Guard and Reserve is the only group of part-time Federal employees--and as a guardsman or reservist, you work for the Federal Government. You also work for the State government, but you have a dual status. Reservists are part of the Federal military, the DOD. They are the only group in the whole Federal Government that is not eligible for some form of health care from the Federal Government.

A temporary employee in your office or my office, somebody working in a temporary capacity, is able to sign up for Federal health care benefits that we enjoy. They have to pay a premium. A part-time worker is able to sign up for Federal health care benefits. The only group that works part time and doesn't get any benefits is the Guard and Reserve. The one thing we found from the hearing is that is a mistake. At least 10 percent of the people being called to active duty from the Guard and Reserve are unable to be deployed because of health care problems. About 30 percent of the people in the Guard and Reserve have no private health care insurance. So from a ratings point of view, about 10 percent of the force is taken out of the fight without a shot being fired. That makes no readiness sense. The health care network for the Guard and Reserve today is not doing the job in terms of making the force fit and ready to serve.

When a person is deployed from the Guard and Reserve, they leave behind a family more times than not. Half of the people going into the fight from the Guard and Reserve suffer a pay reduction, having no continuity of health care or predictability of what the benefits will be in a continuous fashion.

How long you will be gone and when you are coming home matters in terms of recruiting and retention. Sixty-eight percent of the Army Reserve's goal is being met in recruiting. The Guard and Active Forces are suffering in recruiting because this war has taken a toll. The more attractive the benefit package is, the more we can appreciate the service, the more likely we are to get the good people and recruit patriotic Americans.

What this legislation is designed to do is fill in that gap and solve the problem that faces the Guard and Reserve families, and that is lack of health care. Every Reserve component chief says that when they talk to the troops, the one thing that means the most to them, on top of every other request, is continuity of health care. So we are proposing a benefit for the Guard and Reserve that they will have to pay for, but we will allow, for the first time, Guard and Reserve members to sign up for TRICARE, the military health care system, like their Active-Duty counterparts have, with one major difference: they will have to pay a premium, unless they are called to active duty, similar to what we pay as Federal employees.

I believe that is a fair compromise. It will allow uninsured guardsmen and reservists to have health care at an affordable price. It will allow people who have uneven health care in the private sector to get constant health care. We will have a system where people, when they are called to active duty, will have the same set of doctors and hospitals that service the family as when they are in the Guard and Reserve status. We think it desperately will help recruiting and retention and readiness, and it will make people ready for the fight.

We have worked on the costs. We are looking at cutting the cost of the program in half by requiring a slightly higher premium from the force and offering TRICARE standard versus TRICARE prime. I believe it fiscally makes sense but still achieves the goal of the original legislation of providing continuity of health care.

The reason we are not offering the amendment on the supplemental is that because of the cost saving we have achieved in redesigning the program, there is no cost to be incurred in 2005. We are working in a bipartisan manner with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to go ahead and offer a full-time military health care benefit to guardsmen and reservists that they can sign up for, to give them continuity of care at a fair premium. It is a good deal for all concerned. The reason we are doing this is obvious: We are utilizing the Guard and Reserve in a historic fashion. If we don't change the benefit structure, we are going to drive the men and women away from wanting to serve. After a while, it gets to be too onerous. I hope we will be able to produce a product in committee in the authorization bill that will allow this program to be offered to the entire force.

Here is what we did last year. I will end on this note. The body reached a compromise last year. Last year, we came up with a program that for every person in the Guard and Reserve who was mobilized for 90 days or more, from September 11, 2001, forward to today, for every 90 days they served on active duty, they would get a year of TRICARE for themselves and their families. That program goes into effect April 26 of this year, a few days from now. I have the brochure called TRICARE Reserve Select. About a third of the force would be eligible. It will cover the Selective Reserve, drilling reservists. That is one change we made.

I am still in the Reserves, but I am in an inactive status. I do my duty over at Bolling Air Force Base. I am not subject to deployment, so I will not be included. The bill we are designing covers people subject to being deployed and being sent to the site. The compromise of last year will allow a year of TRICARE for every 90 days you are being called to active duty.

There are thousands of reservists who will be eligible for this program, and this brochure called TRICARE Reserve Select will be available to your unit, and you need to inquire as to whether you and your family would be eligible to join TRICARE because of your 90-day- plus deployment. The goal this year is to build upon what we did last year by offering the program to the entire drilling force.

The other two-thirds of the Select Reserves who are subject to being deployed, who drill and prepare for combat-related duties so that when they get called, if they do, they will be ready to go to the fight, it will be a benefit for their families that I think most Americans would be glad to provide.

So we have a program in place for those who have been called to active duty for 90 days or more since September 11, 2001. It goes into effect in a week. It will make you and your family eligible for TRICARE a year for every 90 days you serve. So if you serve a year in Iraq, you get 4 years. The goal this year is expanded to total drilling Selected Reserve force. We cut the program in half by increasing the benefit payment required of the Guard and Reserve member and reshaping the benefit package. I think it is more affordable than ever, but the cost of having 10 percent of the force unable to go to the fight is financially and militarily very large. The cost of lack of continuity of health care for Guard and Reserve families is emotionally devastating.

With about two-tenths of 1 percent of the military budget, we can fix this problem and reward Americans who are doing a great job for their country. The likelihood of the Guard and Reserve being involved in a deep and serious way in the war on terror is probably unlimited.

The last fact I will leave with you is this: We talked to the Reserve commander yesterday about the utilization of the Air Reserves. Fifty percent of the people flying airplanes in terms of transport into the theater of operation and servicing the theater of operation with a C- 130 are Reserve or Guard crews. I have been to Iraq 3 times now, and I have flown about 16 or 17 flights on a C-130 from Kuwait into Iraq and Afghanistan. Every crew except one has been a Reserve or Guard crew.

There is a rule in the military that a Guard or Reserve member cannot be deployed involuntarily for more than 24 months. That rule has served the force well because it takes stress off the force, it keeps people gainfully employed because if you are gone all the time, it is hard to keep a civilian job. So we put a cap of 24 months of involuntary service into the theater of operations, into the war zone.

What astonished me was that two-thirds of the pilots and the aircrews in the Guard and Reserve have already reached that mark. Two-thirds of those who serve in the Guard and Reserve have already met their 2-year involuntary commitment.

One fact that keeps this war afloat is that they are volunteering to go back. Legally we cannot make them go back, but they are volunteering to keep flying. And God bless them because two-thirds of 50 percent statutorily do not have to go to this fight. They choose to go to this fight. This benefit package is a recognition of that commitment.

I am very optimistic--to all those Guard and Reserve families who may be listening today--that help is on the way, that this body is going to rise to the occasion, and we are going to improve your health care benefits because you earned it.

I yield the floor.