A bill to designate the National Museum of Wildlife Art, located at 2820 Rungius Road, Jackson, Wyoming, as the National Museum of Wildlife Art of the United States.

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, it is my understanding that under the previous order, I will be recognized for up to 1 hour.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her statement with which I agree. This is called an emergency supplemental. It is the nature of an emergency supplemental that it funds things that were unanticipated, such as natural disasters and military operations that we didn't anticipate. That is the nature of an emergency supplemental. Yet, when you look at it, at the real nature of this bill, there is no emergency or unexpected element here. This is funding the third year of a war in Iraq.

Did we expect to be gone from Iraq by this time? I don't think anybody suggested that. Yet the administration continues to bring the funding of our troops into the Congress on an emergency basis. Why would they do that? Why would they not put it through the ordinary appropriations process? There are two good reasons. First, it isn't added to the national debt each year. The President can say, when he presents his budget, that we are close to being in balance. In fact, we are not even close. We have the largest deficit in the history of the United States of America under the Bush administration. You have to add this to it. This is a real cost to the American taxpayers, to our Government. But by putting it in separately, it is a little sleight of hand, so that you don't add the $81 billion to the actual cost.

Secondly, if this went through the ordinary appropriations process, there would be hearings and questions would be raised--questions I would like to raise after I visited Iraq with the Senator from Washington. Why, in a third year of the war, are we still trying to find armor plating for humvees and trucks to protect our troops? Why, in the third year of the war, after giving every dollar the administration asked for, don't we have protective body armor for all of our soldiers? Why, in the third year of the war, don't we have the most modern helmets and firearms that our troops need to be safe, to perform their mission and come home?

Hard questions. I might also like to ask a few questions about some of the major contractors who are being paid for this war. Millions, if not billions, of dollars are going to companies on no-bid contracts. You know the names. Halliburton leads the list. I will tell you this. It is considered entirely inappropriate in Congress to raise the question about whether Halliburton has been paid too much or improperly. You just don't ask those questions around here. Those are things which Congress has no business asking about, according to the Republican majority. Those are questions that would be asked if this appropriations bid went through the regular process.

Instead, it comes to us as an emergency. We don't have time to talk about it or to ask any questions. They say: Come on now, the troops are at risk. Let's pass the bill and get it over with.

That is what we face every year. The majority knows that even those of us who voted against the use of force resolution for the invasion of Iraq have said we are going to vote for the money for the troops. If it were my son or daughter, my brother, or someone in my family whose life is at risk in Iraq, whether I agree with the way we went into the war is irrelevant. I am going to give those soldiers, marines, and our other Armed Forces every penny they need to perform their mission and come home safely. We can debate the policy and whether we are going to make the mistake we made in Vietnam, where our policy debate turned into a debate at the expense of our troops. And so the administration and the Republican majority take advantage of it. They pushed this bill through on a take-it-or-leave-it emergency basis, and they say do not ask any hard questions. We do not want to talk about armor for humvees. We do not want to talk about Halliburton. Take it or leave it.

That is sad. Yet in their hurry to bring this bill to the floor, they load it up with things that are not related to the war in Iraq. We heard what the Senator from Washington said. There is a major change in the law in this bill about the issuance of driver's licenses in the United States of America. Why in the world is that in this bill, the emergency bill for the troops? I think she has made it clear.

Let me give a little background. If we were fair, we would not call this the emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30; we would call this the Larry Lindsey memorial bill. Why? Because Larry Lindsey happened to be the Budget Director under President Bush who made a big mistake. When we invaded Iraq, Mr. Lindsey predicted the war would cost somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion. Mr. Lindsey was dismissed from his job as a result of suggesting the war might cost that much money.

And remember Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz? They asked him: How will we pay for the war in Iraq? He assured us in open testimony that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and at one remarkable Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld even predicted Iraqi tourism dollars would help finance the new Iraq.

Fast forward to today. With the Senate's passage this week of this bill, American taxpayers would have committed nearly $300 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are still waiting for that tourism money, we are still waiting for that Iraqi oil money, and Mr. Lindsey is now in civilian life for suggesting the war might cost a third of what it has actually cost.

That is the reality, and there is no end in sight. We are not going to delay passage of this bill; there is too much at stake. Mr. President, 150,000 American soldiers rely on our prompt action on this bill, and it will pass here today, as it should.

Let me speak about some elements of this bill I think should be part of the record. Democrats are going to support this bill not only because it helps the troops, because it does fund some true emergencies. There is $900 million in emergency relief for the victims of the South Asia tsunami, one of the greatest natural disasters in modern memory, and $400 million for humanitarian assistance in the Darfur region of Sudan. If this genocide in Darfur is not an emergency, what is? Unfortunately, what is missing from Darfur accountability passed by the Senate is seeking justice and security for the victims of this campaign of murder, rape, and destruction.

I am also going to vote for this bill because it does include a provision which I added on the Senate floor reaffirming America's commitment to not engage in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or other detainees. I believe reaffirming this longstanding American commitment to this fundamental standard of international law and decency will help restore our credibility and our moral

standing in a world which questions what happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. As many military experts have told us, it will also reduce the chance that American military personnel, when captured, would be tortured.

The bill contains $5.7 billion to train Iraqi troops. Six or 7 weeks ago when I was in Baghdad, they showed us a handful, a dozen of these troops who were in an exercise. I am not a military expert. I do not know if they were real soldiers. I do not know if they were really trained, but thank goodness there is some effort underway to try to replace American soldiers with Iraqi soldiers.

It also contains crucial requirements that progress and training be monitored and measured, language Senator Kennedy, Senator Levin, Senator Byrd, and I worked hard to preserve. It is not enough for high- ranking administration officials to assure us that 130,000 Iraqi troops have been trained when only a small fraction are actually ready to fight, or when tens of thousands of U.S.-trained Iraqi police officers have gone AWOL. We cannot find them. Knowing how many Iraqi troops are ready to defend the nation will give us a better idea of when we can bring our troops home, and the sooner the better.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with us on the troop training and torture amendments, some of the reasons I will vote for this bill.

The final conference report does include other issues that trouble me when it comes to our troops. I have been trying for almost 3 years to make certain that Federal Government employees who are members of the Guard and Reserve and who are activated to serve overseas do not find themselves facing extraordinary financial hardships. In the Pentagon, we go to businesses across America and say: If you want to be a patriotic business, if you want to show your love of America, show your love for the men in the Guard and Reserve, and the women as well, and if they are activated, help their families; cover them with health insurance, if you can; make up the difference in pay, if you can. And many of them have stepped forward and said: We are going to do it. In fact, almost 1,000 different corporations and units of government-- State and local--have said we are going to stand behind those Guard and Reserve families. They are making enough of a sacrifice, they are putting their lives on the line, and we will stand behind the families who stay home so that soldier, worried about his life, does not have to worry about the mortgage payment. We even have a Web site sponsored by our Federal Government saluting these great companies for standing behind our Guard and Reserve, as we should.

But let me let you in on a secret. There is one major employer in America that refuses to stand behind the Guard and Reserve. There is one major employer that employs 10 percent of the Guard and Reserve in America, 1 out of 10, that refuses to make up the difference in pay. Who could that employer be? It is the U.S. Government.

The Federal Government refuses to make up the difference in pay for these soldiers and marines in our country. How can we possibly explain that? We are praising companies and other governments that stand behind their people while we fail to do the same.

So on three different occasions, I offered an amendment on the floor, and it was adopted, which said we will stand behind the Guard and Reserve. We will make up the difference in pay, just as other companies do. Take a look at the companies that have done their patriotic duty. They are big names: Sears and Roebuck, out of my State of Illinois, IBM, General Motors, United Parcel Service, Ford, 24 State governments. But not the U.S. Federal Government. And, Mr. President, do you know what the problem is? Every time we pass it on the floor, so many Members race up here to vote for it, saying: Oh, we are all for the men and women in uniform; God bless them; give me a flag to wave; we are all with them. And then as soon as it gets in conference committee, they strip it. Year after year they take out this protection for Federal employees who are literally risking their lives today in the Guard and Reserve.

According to a recent survey made by the Defense Department, 51 percent of the Guard and Reserve members suffer a loss of income during long periods of active duty. Three-quarters of Guard and Reserve members surveyed cited income as one of the major reasons they were leaving the service. We know recruiting is down, retention is under pressure, and yet we refuse to make up the difference in pay for 1 of every 10 Guard and Reserve.

Today, 17,000 Federal employees are activated. To date, 36,000 have been activated and deactivated. So large numbers of men and women are affected by this amendment. And in the darkness of the conference, after the doors are closed, when the press has left, when nobody is watching, they take out this protection for Federal employees.

The lead sponsors of this provision are going to continue the effort with me. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, and Senator George Allen, a Republican from Virginia, have joined me. Our measure is endorsed by the Reserve Officers Association, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, and the National Guard Association of the United States.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Budget Committee staff studied our plan. They agree it would not add $1 to the budget because the cost of the affected workers' salaries is already included in the budget.

The last time the conferees met, I asked the chairman, Senator Cochran, for his assurance that the Republicans would not do what they have done in the past and kill this amendment without giving us a chance for an up-or-down vote in front of God and the world. I was given that assurance, but sadly it did not happen.

The conference committee recessed and disappeared and, unfortunately, we never had a chance to have an open vote on whether we would stand behind these Guard and Reserve members. That is unfortunate. I had hoped the assurance by the chairman would mean we would get that vote. It did not happen.

It appears the White House overrode anyone's intent to bring this measure up for consideration. Josh Bolton, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, released a letter saying the White House opposed our reservist pay amendment because it would ``increase costs and have a negative impact on morale and unit cohesion.''

Think about that. The argument is that the soldiers under fire worrying from day to day whether they will be alive would compare pay stubs and have a general conversation about how much money are you getting from your employer, how much are you receiving, as if they would care. Those units go into battle together to protect their lives. I do not think they resented that one soldier in that unit had help because he happened to be an employee of Sears, another soldier because he happened to be an employee of one of the 23 State and local governments. They are not going to hold that against their fellow soldiers. That is going to undermine morale? They have to say: You are lucky; I happen to work for the Federal Government, and I get no help. I come here and risk my life, and this amendment is defeated in the darkness of a conference committee every single year.

That argument is just nonsense.

What message are we sending to conscientious employers? Unfortunately, the wrong message: Do as we say, not as we do. Listen to the Federal Government, listen to the Members of Congress with all their patriotic speeches, and then watch as we deep-six this provision year after year. It is an unfortunate message to some of the best men and women in America who risk their lives for our freedom.

We also wanted to push for more veterans health services. Senator Murray of Washington offered a $2 billion amendment, and she said if the war is an emergency, treatment of the veterans of the war should be an emergency. We know that is true. We know these veterans come home with real needs.

I had hearings across my State on posttraumatic stress disorder. I have been around this business for a long time. I have never, ever witnessed what I did then. We had men and women coming in who had served in Iraq and returned, young men and women who risked their lives wearing the uniform of America. They are home now, but

the war is still on their mind. For many of them, it is a destructive memory, things they saw and things they did which they cannot get out of their minds. They come back and finally realize they need a helping hand. They are estranged from their families. Their spouses are saying: That is not the same soldier who I sent over there. What happened to him?

They find themselves despondent, angry, unable to cope with ordinary life, turning on members of their family in anger, and they need help. Sadly, too many of them need help they cannot find at the veterans hospitals. So if we promise these men and women when they serve our country that we will stand behind them, should not the Veterans' Administration, the hospitals and clinics, be ready to stand behind them, when they come home, for their injuries, for this posttraumatic stress disorder? Is it too much to ask that we have family therapists who will work with spouses and children who have seen a different father or a different mother come home? I believe it is only reasonable.

Senator Murray led the way. She asked for $2 billion to be put in as an emergency for veterans hospitals and clinics. It was turned down on the Senate floor.

I am glad that the death gratuity is increased. Twelve thousand dollars for your life in service of your country? I am glad we have raised that to $100,000 tax free for spouses and children of those who die in service. It also increases from $250,000 to $400,000 the life insurance benefits that are available. There is one catch. In the Senate, we voted to increase these benefits for the families of all Active-Duty service members, but behind the closed doors of this conference committee which met in private and in secret, the Republicans changed the rules. They decided on their own, without a vote, without a discussion, to restrict the new death benefits and the new life insurance benefits only to families of service members who die in a combat zone. That simple geographical distinction, ``in a combat zone,'' could disqualify about half of all families who have lost a loved one serving on active duty since the start of the war in Afghanistan. These families will not be eligible for the new benefits because the husbands and fathers, wives and mothers died outside of what is technically classified a combat zone. That is arbitrary, that is wrong, it is unfair. Whether a soldier dies in Iraq or training to go to Iraq, his sacrifice is equally great, the loss to his family equally devastating, and our Government owes an equal debt to his wife and children.

We have had testimony from those uniformed officials who appear before the Armed Services Committee and we ask them about this. Admiral John Nathman, Vice Chief of Naval Operations for the Navy, said: ``They can't make that distinction. I don't think we should, either,'' in terms of who is dying in a combat zone and who is not.

General T. Michael Moseley, Air Force Vice Chief, said:

I believe a death is a death, and I believe this should be

treated that way. . . .

Sadly, these people were not listened to and, unfortunately, this bill does not provide the protection which our soldiers truly need and deserve.

Senator DeWine and I, on a bipartisan basis, are lead sponsors of a bill to change that benefit and to make it fair. I certainly hope we can.

This bill also shortchanges our first front-line troops at home, the first responders. All across America, police, fire departments, and EMT squads are stretched thin. Many lack equipment. Many of them are not getting the HAZMAT and other specialized training they need. This bill does not contain one dollar, not one dime for first responders.

We have so few Border Patrol agents that vigilante groups such as the armed Minutemen have decided to take it upon themselves to patrol the borders of the United States. Yet this bill contains funds to hire only 500 new Border Patrol agents--not enough to do the job. New York City has 40,000 police officers. We have 10,000 border agents to secure the entire U.S.-Canadian and U.S.-Mexican borders, even with the new agents in this bill. The Republicans have argued we can afford to give a $35,000 tax break to a person who is earning over $1 million a year, but we cannot afford to hire 500 Border Patrol agents. Their priorities speak for themselves. Homeland security is not a job for armed volunteers; it is a job for professionals, and it ought to be a priority for this Congress.

Now let me speak for a moment to this REAL ID bill. This is a serious problem. If one is going to use a driver's license to prove their identity, wherever it may be--stopped by a highway patrolman or getting on an airplane--we need to make sure that driver's license is authentic.

We have 50 States with different standards for establishing one's identity. It is a serious problem, serious enough that when the 9/11 Commission report came out and we put together a bipartisan bill to respond to it, we included a provision in that bill that required the Federal Government and State governments to work together to come up with realistic, operable standards to prove identity for those who were applying for driver's licenses. We passed that bill overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. I was happy to be one of the cosponsors of that legislation and glad that the President signed it. Then Members of the House said: We do not agree with that cooperative process. We want to establish the standards on our own. We want to write them into law. And they created something called the REAL ID Act.

We did not have public hearings on the REAL ID Act. We did not invite in the Governors. We did not invite the State motor vehicle agencies. We did not have a conversation about an honest and realistic way to approach it. We were given this on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

The American people deserve to know what they can look forward to under this REAL ID Act, which is part of this emergency supplemental. Some say that it is just simply going to keep illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses. If that were the case, it would be a much different and much smaller bill.

Under this law, to get a driver's license in any State in America, one will need to present several pieces of identification. One has to provide a photo ID document or a non-photo document containing both the individual's full legal name and date of birth; and documentation of the individual's date of birth, Social Security number or the individual's non-eligibility for a Social Security number, and the name and address of the individual's principal residence.

Now there is a catch to this. One has to come into that driver's license station with that proof. What is it going to be? Well, they at least need a birth certificate, that is for sure, or something like it. They are also going to need some proof of their Social Security number. They are also going to need some proof of their residence. Now when they bring those documents in for their driver's license, the State employee whom they face, who is issuing the driver's license, cannot just accept them at face value; they have to take the documents and verify them with the agency that issued them. Until they verify them, a person cannot receive a driver's license.

Imagine if one is a naturalized American citizen who was born in the former Yugoslavia. You present your birth certificate to the clerk at the Department of Motor Vehicles. There are two big problems.

How is that clerk in Springfield, IL, at secretary of state Jesse White's motor vehicle facility, going to verify the authenticity of documents issued by a government that no longer exists? Good question. I do not know the answer.

There is another problem. The REAL ID Act says that the State cannot accept any foreign document other than an official passport. So, even if the clerk could verify the birth certificate, he cannot accept it.

Imagine you are the person behind the counter.

What are you going to do? With whom do you check? Whom do you call? And what do you do about the people standing in line waiting for their turn to put more documents on the desk?

If you think a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles is a bad experience today, wait until the REAL ID takes effect. This is not necessarily going to make America any safer. It will make States poorer. The estimates are it will cost States about $500 million to $700 million, another unfunded mandate,

and in return for this massive cost and inconvenience we will get, at best, marginal increases in security.

The States have 3 years to put this in place and, incidentally, if we find States that don't have it in place in 3 years, an interesting thing happens. No one's driver's license from a State that hasn't been certified to be in compliance can be used for Federal identification. And if it turns out the State of Illinois, at the end of 3 years, still does not have this together, what is going to happen? It means myself, as a resident from Illinois, presenting a driver's license at the airport, will be turned away. Illinois licenses are not accepted. That is what this bill says--without 1 minute of hearing in the Senate, without 1 minute of debate on the floor of the Senate.

This is an unworkable and unfunded mandate.

In a conference committee, I said to the chairman: I think we need a vote on this. I think members ought to be asked to stand up and explain why they are going to support this without any hearing, without any deliberation. I want to debate it, and I would like to have an official vote so we know where the Members of the Senate and the House stand on this proposal.

I believed that I had an assurance that I would receive it, but I didn't. Ultimately, the committee recessed. No votes were taken. It comes to us now as part of this funding for the troops on a take-it-or- leave-it basis. That is not a good way to legislate.

Let me also say I think this REAL ID is going to create hardships that are totally unnecessary. We can ascertain the identity, and we should, of the people applying for driver's licenses. But the way this was written is sadly not going to achieve that in the most efficient way. The REAL ID Act is another provision on which I wanted a vote, wanted a discussion, and wanted an open debate. Unfortunately, it did not occur.

Many Democrats, despite this provision, will still support this bill because we have said from the start we are going to stand behind our troops. I think the administration, the Republican leadership in Congress, is testing us. How many things can they load into this bill to force us to vote for something we are troubled with, and that is what it is all about. We all know this is not the way to pay for a war and it is not the way for Congress to operate. The late Larry Lindsey-- I say ``late'' because he is no longer in public service--was fired for saying the war might cost $200 billion. Now we are up to $300 billion and counting. Sadly, too many of the important decisions on funding this war are still being made by one party behind closed doors.

We will pass this bill, Democrats will support it, but this has to be the end of it. We need to fix this broken process. The American people deserve better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, an important component of this $82 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations conference agreement is the $5.7 billion appropriated for the Iraq Security Forces Fund. I commend Senators Stevens and Inouye, the chairman and ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, for their efforts in securing the full budget request for this important effort. Security must be a high priority in Iraq. The sooner the Iraqis develop their own capacity to stabilize and secure their country, the sooner our men and women in uniform can come home to their families.

An important part of security in Iraq involves communications systems. The deployment of an Advanced First Responders Network, AFRN, throughout Iraq will begin to address the current lack of mission- critical public-safety communications capabilities. The AFRN system, when deployed throughout Iraq, will allow for focused coordination of security planning and execution, rapid data collection and analysis of changing security threats, rapid coordination and deployment of security assets to address threats, effective planning to reduce/ prevent future security threats, and a more secure environment that will foster democracy and economic development.

The AFRN infrastructure in Iraq has been designed to address needs

throughout the country, including border regions and pipelines. However, additional funding is needed to meet this objective.

Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the chairman and the ranking member, Senators Stevens and Inouye, whether continued funding of the AFRN could be a qualified activity within the $5.7 billion included in the conference agreement for the Iraq Security Forces Fund?

I thank Senators Stevens and Inouye for their insight into this matter.

australian nationals

Mr. President, I support our troops and their families. I am behind them 100 percent. They deserve our gratitude, not just with words, but with deeds. This emergency supplemental appropriations bill helps us do just that.

The House and Senate have worked hard to respond to the President's request for additional funding to support our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have provided more than $75 million in defense-related spending, including vital support to our soldiers and their families. We have also provided more than $6 billion in assistance to our friends and allies, including $681 million to aid in the recovery from last year's terrible tsunami in Indonesia.

We have provided a total of $17.4 billion to speed up the Army's purchase of trucks, additional up-armored humvees, and upgrades to Abrams tanks. There is also $1 billion for additional purchases of Army and Marine Corps trucks, tactical vehicles like humvees, night vision and other important protective equipment to keep our soldiers as safe as possible on the battlefield. We have also preserved support for the C130J aircraft, so vital to transporting troops and materiel around the world.

U.S. troops will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan long enough to ensure that those nations can defend themselves against chaos and terrorism. It is important that we provide training and equipment to prepare Iraqi and Afghan security forces to take over when American troops come home.

To do this, we have provided $7.0 billion to train security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is also $1.78 billion for Afghan reconstruction and counter-narcotics efforts. In addition to providing $7.7 million to support U.S. diplomatic and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, we have provided $20 million in assistance to Iraqi families who have been affected by coalition operations in Iraq.

We must do everything we can to care for soldiers when they are injured. I am very proud that we have provided an additional $211 million for the Defense Health program.

This funding also includes assistance to provide meal and telephone services for soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in Iraq or Afghanistan. It also provides assistance for family members to travel to be with an injured service member recovering from combat injuries. To help soldiers with the enormous medical costs that can be associated with combat injuries, we have also made it possible for service members to get traumatic-injury protection as part of their military insurance package. This insurance rider can be worth as much as $100,000 to service members enrolled in the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, SGLI, program. We have also made it available retroactively, to help out those soldiers and families already dealing with combat and combat- related injuries.

Mr. President, more than 1,700 service men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the debt of gratitude we owe the families they leave behind is to ensure that they do not have to face a financial crisis while they are dealing with the loss of a loved one.

I am very proud that we have been able to help alleviate their burden, by increasing from $12,000 to $100,000 the fallen heroes compensation for family members of troops who make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. This benefit is applied retroactively, to include all service members who have died since the global war on terror began in October 2001. In addition, the family of a service member who has died will be allowed to remain in military housing for a year, rather than the six months currently allowed. We have also increased the life insurance benefit provided under the SGLI, from $250,000 to $400,000. This increase will also be applied retroactively to 2001.

I am disappointed that the conferees did not accept the advice of the Senate--and of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Richard Myers--and provide the fallen heroes compensation to families of all service members who die on active duty.

Instead, Congress has expanded all aspects of the current coverage to include those who die in designated combat zones and in combat-related activities, such as training. This is a good start, but I agree with General Myers that every family who loses a loved one on active duty deserves the gratitude of this nation and should benefit from the fallen heroes fund.

We also need to make sure that families receive the full amount of this compensation. Working closely with Senator Grassley, I have taken steps

to ensure that the full benefit will be tax free. Senator Grassley has assured me that this important correction will be added to the next tax bill considered in the Senate.

We know that nearly 40 percent of the soldiers deployed today in Iraq and Afghanistan are citizen soldiers who come from the National Guard and Reserves. More than half of these will suffer a loss of income when they are mobilized, because their military pay is less than the pay from their civilian job. Many patriotic employers and state governments eliminate this pay gap by continuing to pay them the difference between their civilian and military pay.

I am very disappointed that this conference report does not include the Reservist Pay Security Act, which would ensure that the U.S. government also makes up for this pay gap for Federal employees who are activated in the Guard and Reserves. This legislation has passed the Senate three times, and three times it has been stripped out of the conference report. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to build support for this important provision to help our National Guard and Reserves.

Mr. President, Americans joined the world in mourning the loss of more than 150,000 victims of the Indian Ocean Tsunami last Christmas. Together, we prayed for the 7 million displaced survivors that God may give them the strength to persevere and overcome this, the largest natural disaster of our time.

But expressions of sympathy are not enough. As I said at the time of this terrible disaster, the United States must set the example and lead the world in the humanitarian effort of recovery and rebuilding. Congress has provided $656 million for the tsunami recovery and reconstruction fund to support on-going and long-term relief efforts, including programs aimed specifically at women and children in the affected areas. We have also provided $25 million for U.S. tsunami warning programs to help prevent future human disasters on the scale we have seen in Asia.

The people of Darfur continue to suffer the terrible effects of war in the Sudan. Congress has provided $248 million for humanitarian assistance to Darfur and $37 million for Sudan peace implementation assistance. We have also included $50 million to be made available to the African Union, for peacekeeping efforts in Darfur. Also, part of the $90 million provided for food aid and famine relief can be used to help improve conditions in Darfur.

Because it is just as important to support our communities at home as it is to support our troops in the field, I will continue to fight for responsible military budgets. For that reason, I joined the Senate's efforts to insist that the President fund our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the regular budget and appropriations process. After three years in Afghanistan and two years in Iraq, we should not be funding these operations as if they were surprise emergencies.

Unfortunately, because much of the funding included in this conference report has been designated as an ``emergency,'' it will not count against our budget limits and instead just gets added to our ever-growing national debt.

This emergency supplemental is a Federal investment in supporting our troops and their families.

We support out troops by getting them the best equipment and the best protection we can provide. We support them by getting them the best health care available when they are injured in service to our Nation. And we support them by ensuring that their families do not face a financial crisis at the moment when they are grieving the loss of a soldier who has sacrificed everything for our country.

I am proud to vote yes for our troops and their families. I am also proud to vote yes because this bill contains important provisions to help small and seasonal businesses in the United States.

The emergency supplemental contains language that provides real relief to small businesses that need temporary seasonal workers by the summer. This emergency supplemental contains the language I offered on the floor of the Senate to temporarily solve the H2B visa shortage. It passed this body by a overwhelming bipartisan vote of 96-4 and was adopted by both House and Senate conferees to be part of the final bill.

I know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle supported this amendment because it is a limited fix to the H2B worker shortage that many coastal states and resort states are facing. This solution is desperately and immediately needed by small and seasonal businesses throughout the country.

My amendment helps us keep American jobs, keep American companies open, and yet retain control of our borders

I am very proud that we were able to work together, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, to pass this measure. This bill was a simply fix, it was temporary and it does not get in the way of comprehensive reform

The amendment and the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act on which it is modeled will help small business by doing three things:

No. 1, temporarily exempting good actor workers from the H2B cap, so employers apply for and name employees who have already been in U.S.;

No. 2, protecting against fraud in the H2B program; and

No. 3, providing a fair and balanced allocation system for H2B visas.

This amendment first and foremost protects American jobs.

It provides a short-term fix to the H2B visa cap which will only be in place through fiscal year 2006. It has four simple provisions:

One, it exempts returning seasonal workers from the cap for this year and next. That means that people who have worked here before and who have gone back home are the only ones who would be eligible. The exemption works this way--an employer requests a visa and lists the name of the returning worker on his petition. The employer must provide supporting documentation to the Department of Homeland Security or the State Department that the worker is a returning worker who has come to the United States in one of the 3 prior years under the H2B program.

This exemption does not exempt any new workers because employers must show that the worker was in the US previously in order for that worker to be exempt from the cap. Employers can petition for exempted workers at any time during the fiscal year--regardless of whether the cap on H- 2B visas has been met or not. The legislation explicitly states that exempted workers are outside the cap.

The employer does not automatically get the exempted worker, they still must go through the whole DOL and DHS process before they can get exempted workers. That means that employers still must prove to the Department of Labor that they cannot find American workers to fill these jobs. Only then will DOL give them the ability to continue the application process and get the workers who they need through DHS and State. Employers will go through the whole process for new or returning workers. Returning workers will be exempt from but new workers will be subject to the cap.

This provision is both forward looking and retroactive back to the beginning of the fiscal year, or October 2004. That means that DHS will have to determine how many returning workers were admitted prior to the passage of this Act and open up those spaces to new workers. That makes it fair so that summer employers have the same bite at the apple that winter employers had. DHS estimates that between 30,000 and 35,000 workers are returning workers and they will be able to use the information they have in their databases and in coordination with the Department of State to ensure that spots that were counted in the cap and used by exempted workers will now be opened up for new workers to use so that summer employers can get their fair share.

This fix also has strong antifraud provisions to make sure that everyone is playing by the rules and that no one is misusing the program. And it gives DHS added teeth to prevent fraud and enforce our Nation's immigration laws. A $150 antifraud fee ensures that Government agencies processing the H-2B visas will get added resources to detect and prevent fraud. This money is added to an antifruad fund to give the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State and the Department of Labor some added resources to train workers so that they can identify fraud in the program.

We also add strong new sanctions to the law. These sanctions are permanent and further strengthen DHS's enforcement power by allowing sanctions against those who have a significant misrepresentation of facts on a petition. We increase fines and allow DHS to bar violating employers from the H-2B program for up to 5 years. This section also sends a strong message to employers--don't play games with U.S. jobs. Our bill reserves the highest penalties for employer actions which harm U.S. workers.

We also make the system better by creating a fair allocation of visas. Under current law summer employers lose out because winter employers get all the visas. So our bill does two things: First, as I said above, we exempt returning workers from the cap, so returning workers don't count for the cap. But we also divide the cap between summer and winter. What that means is that of the 66,000 visas and we make 33,000 available from October thru March and 33,000 available from April thru September. Winter employers get half and summer employers get half. And we make this change permanent to make sure that even if comprehensive reform cannot be reached by 2006, then at least summer and winter employers are competing for the limited number of visas on a level playing field.

Finally, we give the Department of Homeland Security the ability to implement this law now, without having to issue regulations. That means that employers get real relief now. DHS has a limited exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act to implement the exemption section, the antifraud fees and also the allocation of visas section. These exemptions are to prevent any barriers or delay to the immediate implementation of those provisions.

So that is what this strong bipartisan legislation is all about. This is the language that 94 Senators in this body supported and that the House adopted into the emergency supplemental conference report.

Now we want to make sure that DHS can start its implementation immediately so I want to make sure that they are very clear about what the congressional intent of this legislation is:

Section 402 is intended to increase the number of H-2B admissions available for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. This legislation was drafted with the understanding that the preexisting USCIS method of implementing the H-2B limitation is based upon accepting for filing the number of petitions (only some of which name the specific workers) that is projected to result in the authorized number of admissions, with allowance made for an expected number of petitions that will be denied or revoked and of workers with approved petitions who will not apply for or qualify for visas or admission, based upon State Department information.

Consistent with this general methodology, and with the fact that USCIS has already received sufficient petitions for fiscal year 2005 to fill the cap and has not required any information to be provided as to whether the petitions were filed for ``returning workers'', it is intended that USCIS to make its best estimate as to the number of previously filed petitions that likely were for returning workers, based on State Department information, and accordingly to free up numbers for fiscal year 2005 to be available to otherwise qualified H- 2B aliens, whether or not they are ``returning workers.''

In addition, H-2B workers will be available to petitioners identifying and certifying specific aliens to be returning workers. For fiscal year 2006, the number of new H-2B admissions available will be 66,000, plus any aliens for whom the certification and confirmation requirements of section 214(g)(9)(A), (B), and (C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by this section, are met.

Specifically, Section 405 provides that the 66,000 limitation on H-2B admissions for fiscal year 2006 and thereafter will be administered as two half-year limitations of 33,000 each applicable to aliens subject to the overall 66,000 limitation, i.e, not including ``returning workers.'' It is the intention of the supporters of the amendment that this provision be administered so as to give employers seeking workers for the second half of the year an opportunity to obtain them at least equivalent to that available to first semester employers.

Finally, section 407, is intended to allow this law to be implemented expeditiously. The intent was to make sure that the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and other laws relating to regulatory processes and forms--especially, but not limited to, any requirement to promulgate new rules--to the extent any such provisions might apply, should not pose a barrier in any way to the expeditious implementation of the provisions of this Act intended to give urgent and necessary relief to summer and seasonal employers and to apply the new fee provision in section 403. We therefore, provide the authority to the relevant departments to waive any such requirement that may otherwise delay such implementation.

It is a quick and simple legislative remedy with strong bi-partisan support. It fixes the problem now and takes small steps to prevent this drastic shortage in the future. It is immediate and achievable because DHS will start implementation once it is signed by the President. And more importantly, it does not exacerbate our immigration problems.

Mr. President, it is important that we continue to support the brave men and women who put their lives on the line both at home and abroad. But today, as I support funding for our troops I also stand opposed to the part of the emergency supplemental known as REAL ID.

This controversial and overly-broad provision has no place in an emergency spending bill. The changes to our immigration laws and the policies on asylum proposed by this legislation are major modifications that are contentious on both sides of the aisle. As it is written, this bill undermines both due process and the principles of fundamental fairness on which our immigration laws are based.

This legislation, plain and simple, is a drastic and unknown change. It is the type of change that both the House and the Senate should have deliberated on and given in-depth consideration to. The Senate has not had the opportunity to do that.

Just look at what this legislation does:

First, it increases the burdens on those seeking asylum in the United States and limits judicial review of some decisions. These are people who are often persecuted in their own countries and cannot produce the level of documentation or corroboration of their abuse that this bill requires.

Next, it permits the Department of Homeland Security to waive ``all legal requirements'' that interfere with the construction of roads or barriers along our borders. That means that the Secretary of Homeland Security can waive any State or Federal environmental, health and safety, civil rights, labor, or criminal law. And there is very limited ability of anyone to challenge these decisions. That means the Secretary has a tremendous amount of discretion to override existing laws and step all over State's rights.

It also limits judicial review of removal cases and discretionary decisions of agencies--that means an agency, not a judge, will have the final say.

And most notably, it creates national standards for identification cards that States must enforce. That means that States now must not only verify the many forms of identification that are required, but they are also responsible for keeping track of a drivers license holder's immigration status. That creates a huge increase in expenses for States and it also means that State officials, who have no background in immigration law, will be forced to enforce these complicated provisions. That's an unfunded mandate on States that are already in fiscal crisis.

Plain and simple REAL ID drastically changes immigration laws, limits access to the courts and due process, and places significant new costs and duties on local and State governments. The Senate should have had the ability to review, debate, and amend this provision before it became a permanent part of our Federal immigration law.

Now, I am the first to agree that we need strong and comprehensive immigration reform. We need to look at all the problems with protecting our borders and ensuring our safety. We need to make sure that the programs that work are updated and continued. We

need to make sure that the programs that don't work are fixed so that we do not have porous borders. But we need to use regular order to do so.

The Senate must have the opportunity to consider comprehensive reform, not focus on piecemeal measures. And President Bush should lead the way in working with Congress and our allies for solutions that protect our borders. And for solutions that allow our rich history and tradition of immigration to continue. But these supposed solutions cannot come at the expense of our constitutional framework.

REAL ID is an unfunded mandate that is punitive. We do not know if any of the provisions will actually make us safer--we just know that they override States rights and undermine civil rights and civil liberties. I believe that it is our duty, as Members of the Senate, to balance national security interests with due process and constitutional rights, yet because we have not had hearings or been able to evaluate this change to our immigration law we do not know the extent of its impact.

REAL ID proposes several different and significant changes to our immigration laws, I believe that it is important for the Senate Judiciary Committee to have an opportunity to hold hearings and consider comprehensive legislation that looks at all areas of the law. Then the whole Senate should have the ability to fully debate the issue on the Senate floor.

I am disappointed that this controversial measure was added to this must pass legislation. We should be passing an emergency supplemental bill without the harmful REAL ID provision. And then we should turn our attention to real reform and the Senate should proceed to a thoughtful and comprehensive debate on immigration reform that protects our borders and our constitutional mandate.

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.