[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 44 (Thursday, April 14, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3616-S3645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1268, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 
     to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State 
     driver's license and identification document security 
     standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws 
     of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for 
     inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious 
     construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Mikulski Amendment No. 387, to revise certain requirements 
     for H-2B employers and require submission of information 
     regarding H-2B nonimmigrants.
       Feinstein Amendment No. 395, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the text of the REAL ID Act of 2005 should not be 
     included in the conference report.
       Bayh Amendment No. 406, to protect the financial condition 
     of members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who 
     are ordered to long-term active duty in support of a 
     contingency operation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I was about to call up amendment No. 366, 
which I am going to pull back from at this point. We are working with a 
number of subcommittees to get exact language, but I would like to go 
ahead and frame the debate. Senator Brownback will be joining me.
  This is actually the Darfur Accountability Act which we had 
introduced on the floor at an earlier point. We have 30 cosponsors of 
the amendment. We will continue to work with the appropriate 
subcommittees and others to refine the language before we bring it 
back.
  This amendment we will be offering is one that parallels the 
importance which is now being placed on moving this supplemental, which 
is absolutely essential to support our men and women in uniform. They 
deserve our support. We all know that. It is most certain that I will 
be voting positively with regard to making sure that our deeds and 
words match in our support of the troops and that we allocate our 
resources accordingly. That is what the debate on the supplemental is 
about. I look forward to working on that.
  But so, too, there are those the Congress and the administration have 
already acknowledged are being subjected to acts of genocide, the Black 
Muslim villagers of Darfur, Sudan. This genocide is being committed by 
their own countrymen with the support of their Government. It is time 
for action. Here, too, we need to put our words and deeds into a match. 
They need to be congruent. This amendment is intended to deal with the 
emergency, the urgently needed response to this ongoing genocide taking 
place in Darfur as I stand here, a place where there have been killings 
of up to 10,000 people every month, 300 to 350 human beings almost 
every day.
  Never have we been so aware of mankind's horrible history, and yet so 
reluctant to act on its lessons as it applies to this situation in 
Darfur. This month we are commemorating the 11th anniversary of the 
Rwandan genocide. ``Hotel Rwanda,'' the movie, is showing on thousands 
of screens in homes across the country, and we continue to recall our 
shameful failure to prevent the slaughter of 800,000 people. Do we need 
to have a play 5 years from now or 10 years from now called ``Hotel 
Darfur''?
  April 17 marks the 30th anniversary of the Khmer Rouge takeover in 
Cambodia, the beginning of a genocide that killed between 1 and 2 
million people. Do we need to revisit the killing fields? In January, 
the liberation of Auschwitz was commemorated by the Congress and by a 
special session of the United Nations General Assembly. Throughout all 
of these commemorations and remembrances, we hear the same words: Never 
again. Never again will we accept the slaughter of our fellow human 
beings. Never again will we stand by and let this happen.
  As Vice President Cheney said eloquently at the Holocaust 
commemorations in Poland:

       [We] look to the future with hope--that He may grant us the 
     wisdom to recognize evil in all its forms . . . and give us 
     courage to prevent it from ever rising again.

  There is perhaps no more powerful moral voice over the last half 
century than author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. Last year he 
spoke to the Darfur issue.
  He said:

       How can a citizen of a free country not pay attention? How 
     can anyone, anywhere not feel outraged? How can a person, 
     whether religious or secular, not be moved by compassion? And 
     above all, how can anyone who remembers remain silent? That 
     is what the issue in Darfur, Sudan, is about. That is why 
     this Darfur Accountability Act--this amendment that we are 
     speaking to today--is so important.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full remarks by Mr. Wiesel on Darfur 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 [Remarks delivered at the Darfur Emergency Summit, New York, July 14, 
                                 2004]

                       On the Atrocities in Sudan

                            (By Elie Wiesel)

       Sudan has become today's world, capital of human pain, 
     suffering and agony. There, one part of the population has 
     been--and still is--subjected by another part, the dominating 
     part, to humiliation, hunger and death. For a while, the so-
     called civilized world knew about it and preferred to look 
     away. Now people know. And so they have no excuse for their 
     passivity bordering on indifference. Those who, like you my 
     friends, try to break the walls of their apathy deserve 
     everyone's support and everyone's solidarity.
       This gathering was organized by several important bodies. 
     The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's Committee on Conscience 
     (Jerry Fowler), the Graduate Center of the City University of 
     New York, the American Jewish World Service (Ruth Messinger) 
     and several other humanitarian organizations.
       As for myself, I have been involved in the efforts to help 
     Sudanese victims for some years. It was a direct or indirect 
     consequence of a millennium lecture I had given in the White 
     House on the subject, ``The Perils of Indifference''. After I 
     concluded, a woman in the audience rose and said: ``I am from 
     Rwanda.'' She asked me how I could explain the international 
     community's indifference to the Rwandan massacres. I turned 
     to the President who sat at my right and said: ``Mr. 
     President, you better answer this question. You know as well 
     as we do that the Rwanda tragedy, which cost from 600,000 to 
     800,000 victims, innocent men, women and children, could have 
     been averted. Why wasn't it?'' His answer was honest and 
     sincere: ``It is true, that tragedy could have been averted. 
     That's why I went there to apologize in my personal name and 
     in the name of the American people. But I promise you: it 
     will not happen again.''
       The next day I received a delegation from Sudan and friends 
     of Sudan, headed by a Sudanese refugee bishop. They informed 
     me that two million Sudanese had already died. They said, 
     ``You are now the custodian of the President's pledge. Let 
     him keep it by helping stop the genocide in Sudan.''
       That brutal tragedy is still continuing, now in Sudan's 
     Darfur region. Now its horrors are shown on television 
     screens and on front pages of influential publications. 
     Congressional delegations, special envoys and humanitarian 
     agencies send back or bring back horror-filled reports from 
     the scene. A million human beings, young and old, have been 
     uprooted, deported. Scores of women are being raped every 
     day, children are dying of disease hunger and violence.
       How can a citizen of a free country not pay attention? How 
     can anyone, anywhere not feel outraged? How can a person, 
     whether religious or secular, not be moved by compassion? And 
     above all, how can anyone who remembers remain silent?
       As a Jew who does not compare any event to the Holocaust, I 
     feel concerned and challenged by the Sudanese tragedy. We 
     must be involved. How can we reproach the indifference of 
     non-Jews to Jewish suffering if we remain indifferent to 
     another people's plight?
       It happened in Cambodia, then in former Yugoslavia, and in 
     Rwanda, now in Sudan. Asia, Europe, Africa: Three continents 
     have become prisons, killing fields and cemeteries for 
     countless innocent, defenseless populations. Will the plague 
     be allowed to spread?
       ``Lo taamod al dam reakha'' is a Biblical commandment. 
     ``Thou shall not stand idly by the shedding of the blood of 
     thy fellow man.'' The word is not ``akhikha,'' thy Jewish 
     brother, but ``reakha,'' thy fellow human being, be he or she 
     Jewish or not. All are entitled to live with dignity and 
     hope. All are entitled to live without fear and pain.
       Not to assist Sudan's victims today would for me be 
     unworthy of what I have learned from my teachers, my 
     ancestors and my friends, namely that God alone is alone: His 
     creatures must not be.
       What pains and hurts me most now is the simultaneity of 
     events. While we sit here and discuss how to behave morally, 
     both individually and collectively, over there, in Darfur and 
     elsewhere in Sudan, human beings kill and die.

[[Page S3617]]

       Should the Sudanese victims feel abandoned and neglected, 
     it would be our fault--and perhaps our guilt.
       That's why we must intervene.
       If we do, they and their children will be grateful for us. 
     As will be, through them, our own.

  Mr. CORZINE. Tragically, since that speech by Mr. Wiesel, we have 
seen precious little actionable courage in preventing the genocide that 
rages in Darfur. Last July, the Congress recognized that genocide is 
taking place and voted on it here on the floor of the Senate. In 
September, the Bush administration did the same. Yet, since then, the 
situation has only deteriorated.
  Estimates of the death toll in Darfur now range from between 250,000 
to over 300,000 human beings. Killings, torture, destruction of 
villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence all continue. More 
than 1.8 million persons have been forced from their homes, and unless 
the attacks subside and access by humanitarian organizations improves, 
as many as 3 million Sudanese people could be displaced by the end of 
the year.
  Let me say that these displaced individuals are going into camps 
strategically. We need to understand that this is not breeding a 
community of good will to the rest of the world. These are people who 
are disenfranchised, dislocated, and will pose a strategic threat, 
potentially, as a breeding ground of terrorism for the future.
  This tragedy is that the Government of Sudan remains deeply complicit 
in this genocide, supporting jingaweit militias and participating in 
attacks on civilians. Helicopter gunships strafe villages, spraying 
nail-like flachettes unsuitable for anything other than killing.
  International monitors of all kinds have been attacked, including 
members of the African Union force deployed to Darfur to try to bring 
about a monitoring of the peace agreements that have been set forth. 
Government-backed militias have threatened foreigners and U.N. convoys.
  In recent weeks, an American aid official was shot and wounded, and 
the U.N. was forced to withdraw its international staff in west Darfur 
to the provincial capital. Other NGOs are uneasy about their people and 
are talking about withdrawal.
  Even today, we get reports of a new rampage--an attack on a village 
in Darfur by 350 armed militia. The report by the UN and the AU called 
it a ``senseless and premeditated savage attack.'' The militia 
``rampaged through the village, killing, burning and destroying 
everything in their paths and leaving in their wake total destruction, 
with only the mosque and the school spared.''
  I have a U.N. report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From UN News Service, Apr. 8, 2005]

UN, African Union Condemn ``Savage Attack'' on Darfur Village by Armed 
                                Militia

       United Nations and African Union representatives today 
     condemned a ``senseless and pre-meditated savage attack'' 
     Thursday on a town in the western Darfur area of Sudan by 
     more than 350 armed militia while the Government dragged its 
     heels in designating land for the AU monitoring force meant 
     to deter such incidents.
       Having learnt ``with utter shock and disbelief'' of the 
     relentless daylong attack on Khor Abeche by armed militia of 
     the Miseriyya tribe of Niteaga, ``we condemn this senseless, 
     and pre-meditated savage attack,'' Jan Pronk, the Special 
     Representative of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and AU 
     Ambassador Baba Gana Kingibe said in a joint statement.
       Nasir Al Tijani Adel Kaadir was identified as having 
     commanded the initial force of over 200 on horses and camels 
     and they were later reinforced by a further 150, also from 
     Niteaga, they said in a statement.
       His name and those of his collaborators would be sent to 
     the UN Security Council sanctions committee to be brought to 
     justice and they expected the Sudanese Government to take 
     appropriate action, the two said.
       The attackers ``rampaged through the village, killing, 
     burning and destroying everything in their paths and leaving 
     in their wake total destruction with only the mosque and the 
     school spared,'' their statement said.
       ``This attack, the savagery of which has not been seen 
     since the sacking of Hamada in January 2005, was apparently 
     in retaliation for the alleged theft of 150 cattle whose 
     tracks were supposedly traced to Khor Abeche village,'' Mr. 
     Pronk and Mr. Kingibe said.
       They noted that since 3 April the AU had prepared to deploy 
     troops in Niteaga and Khor Abeche to deter precisely this 
     kind of attack, ``but was prevented from acting by what can 
     only be inferred as deliberate official procrastination over 
     the allocation of land for the troops' accommodation.''

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, how has the international community 
responded to these issues? In recent weeks, the U.N. Security Council 
passed three resolutions. To be sure, to give them credit, there has 
been some progress. One resolution referred the situation in Darfur to 
the International Criminal Court. Another established a U.N. committee 
to recommend targeted sanctions against those responsible for human 
rights abuses.
  But much has not been done. There have been no efforts to impose, or 
even seriously threaten, sanctions against the Government of Sudan. In 
fact, the Security Council promised significant assistance as a reward 
for the welcomed implementation of the January peace agreement, the 
north-sought agreement between Khartoum and the south, without any 
conditions related to Darfur. Our amendment, which Senator Brownback 
and I will be proposing, supports the peace agreement and allows 
assistance to implement that agreement. But we should not be rewarding 
the Government of Khartoum while thousands upon thousands of civilians 
in Darfur are dying.
  This amendment will call for military no-fly zones over Darfur. 
Neither the Bush administration nor our NATO allies have addressed this 
critical issue. We need to act so that the kinds of tragedies we see in 
this picture to my right are no longer permitted.
  This amendment calls for accelerated assistance to the African Union. 
A retired Marine colonel, Brian Steidle, who worked alongside the AU, 
has described the AU's effectiveness where it has been deployed. But 
there are currently only 2,200 African Union troops on the ground. Over 
3,400 are authorized, and we hope it can grow to over 6,000 in the next 
year. We need to increase their numbers and provide whatever assistance 
they need. Therefore, I am offering a second amendment later in the 
debate on this underlying supplemental with Senators DeWine, Brownback, 
and others. It is a money appropriation or allocation for the AU to 
accelerate the deployment of boots on the ground.
  But money alone will not bring security to Darfur. The Darfur 
Accountability Act calls for an expansion of the AU's mandate to 
include the protection of civilians. Ultimately, we will have to be 
realistic about what it takes to police an area the size of Texas. It 
will take many thousands of troops, more than the AU will be able to 
field. The 10,000 new U.N. troops authorized by the Security Council 
are therefore a welcome development. But, again, their role in Darfur 
is virtually undefined, certainly vague and uncertain as to whether 
they can be involved in this.
  Mr. President, the people of Darfur will not be saved unless stopping 
genocide becomes a priority. Words and deeds need to match. This 
amendment will call on the administration to raise Darfur in all 
relevant bilateral and multilateral meetings. I hope we can get it 
raised.
  I am pleased that Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick is going to 
Sudan this week. But unless we mobilize an international effort, this 
engagement will be insufficient. We have already seen a lot of lost 
opportunities. I will leave that for the record where President Bush, 
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and the Secretary of State have been in 
international areas where we can mobilize that kind of support. We 
simply cannot just keep calling it genocide and labeling it and talking 
about it; we need to do something about it. Stopping this evil is an 
urgent and highly moral issue for all of us to take on. That is why 
there is so much bipartisan focus on this issue.
  We want to evoke the culture of life. We ought to be protecting those 
10,000 people a month who are dying. How can we claim to be learning 
the lessons of history when we fail to act? How can we do that? We 
cannot continue to talk about moral responsibilities and then not act 
on them.
  In his remarks in the piece that I put in the Record, Elie Wiesel put 
this clearly:

       What pains and hurts most now is the simultaneity of 
     events. While we sit here and

[[Page S3618]]

     discuss how to behave morally, both individually and 
     collectively, over there, in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan, 
     human beings kill and die.

  Mr. President, we must act. The United States must lead a coalition 
of conscience to stop the genocide. That is what this amendment calls 
for. I urge my colleagues to support it. We will be back with the exact 
details. I am very appreciative of the leadership of Senator Brownback, 
Senator DeWine, and a number of individuals on both sides of the aisle. 
We need to make that coalition of conscience real. It is time to act. I 
believe this is an appropriate amendment on the supplemental.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague 
from New Jersey on this amendment. I think by definition a supplemental 
is about emergency needs and emergency spending. I don't know of a 
bigger one taking place right now in the world than in Darfur. So it is 
my hope that within this supplemental we will be able to deal with this 
issue of Darfur, both in funding and in some language to be able to 
stop this. This is a completely manmade genocide; it is a completely 
manmade disaster. It is one that can be stopped with a reasonable 
number of troops on the ground, with a reasonable engagement strategy.
  This can stop. Instead of the 300,000 deaths going on up, this can 
and will stop. They need food aid, and they need allocation of funds 
for African Union forces. We will have Assistant Secretary Zoellick on 
the ground in Khartoum. He is going to go to the south, and then to the 
western part of Sudan after that, to look and to press the situation. 
The administration is engaged and is pushing. We need to do this in the 
supplemental. It is important for it to take place.
  Lest people think this was last year's disaster that we are just 
putting forward more now and saying wasn't that terrible then, we 
should have acted, I want to show you pictures from this year. Senator 
Corzine showed pictures earlier. This is of a village; it was taken by 
African Union monitors. It is completely burned out, razed. You can 
still see the smoke smoldering. This was taken by monitors, and they 
got there just after the village was burned.
  I have some very graphic pictures I am going to be showing. If people 
don't want to see them, please turn away. It is the face of genocide. 
Genocide, by definition, involves the killing of one group of people by 
another. That is taking place and is taking place now. This is a young 
child who was shot in the upper right portion of the torso, and it 
exits here. You can see the gash here. We don't know if this child 
lived or died. He probably died given the state of health care there. 
This happened after a raid that took place. This is a child shot in a 
raid because he was an African child.
  This is a gentleman who was killed and burned.
  This is a village that is on fire. Someone in a helicopter took this 
picture, supported by the African Union.
  These are all current pictures.
  This one I believe my colleague showed as well. It is of a gentleman 
who was tied up, killed, and probably brutalized in Darfur.
  These are the faces, and this is the picture of genocide. It is 
continuing to occur, and it is occurring now. I encourage my colleagues 
to vote for the passage of the amendment Senator Corzine and I and 
others are putting forward. It is an amended version of the Darfur 
Accountability Act. It has the wide bipartisan support of 30 members. 
The amendment calls for several steps to be taken, which my colleague 
outlined: a new U.N. Security Council resolution with sanctions against 
the Government of Sudan; an extension of the current arms embargo to 
cover the Government of Sudan; military no-fly zone over Darfur; 
expansion of the U.N. mission in the Sudan; and a mandate to protect 
civilians in all of Sudan, which includes Darfur. It calls on the 
United States to appoint a Presidential envoy to Sudan and to raise 
this issue at the highest diplomatic levels in bilateral relations with 
Sudan, the Chinese, and other governments that can be of assistance. 
This calls for accelerated assistance to the African Union mission in 
Darfur and an expansion of the size and mandate of the mission 
necessary to protect civilians.
  In addition, I hope the administration will push for a coalition of 
conscience. My colleagues mentioned a coalition of willing nations to 
join the efforts and demand an end to the genocide by making a 
declaration of conscience and backing it by actions if the U.N. 
Security Council fails to do so.
  Last week was the 11th-year anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda, 
when we declared and the world declared ``never again.'' We are now 
seeing it take place yet again. Can we learn from that? This is 
stoppable, and it is not by a huge commitment. We are not asking for 
100,000 U.S. troops to go there. We are not asking for any U.S. troops. 
We are asking for financial support for the African Union and food aid 
to be able to maintain the villagers who have been run out of their 
village. With that, we believe firmly that this can and will stop and 
that people will be able to return to their villages.
  Time is of the essence. Every day in this harsh climate in this 
region is a day that more people die. There simply are not the 
resources in the area to be able to support the individuals who are 
involved.
  My colleague covered most of the points. I plead with my colleagues 
to pass this amendment in the supplemental. It is an emergency need. It 
is an emergency that is taking place. With this, we will be able to 
save lives. Keep it in the conference report so it gets to the 
President, it gets implemented and the help does come, so when 
Secretary Zoellick returns from the region, he will have this level of 
resources to work with, he will have this commitment from the Congress 
to work with, and we will be able to move forward.
  If the U.N. fails to act--and I am terribly disappointed in what the 
U.N. is doing in this situation; they are not doing anything at all--
the United States must press forward with those willing to act so the 
genocide can stop, so the killing will stop, so we can move forward 
with peace and people can go back to their lives.
  I hope people can start to feel and see some of that pain in front of 
our very eyes that we can stop. We can stop this. I plead with my 
colleagues to please stop it and support this amendment.
  I do believe we will get this passed. We need to pass it. I hope it 
is kept in the bill through the entire process.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I add one postscript on this Darfur 
Accountability Act. The House has language dealing with Darfur. We did 
not have as much of it in here. It is two parts: food and military 
assistance. We are working closely with the committee to try to get 
this worked through. It will not go over the amount that is in it. It 
will be offset in other places within the budget. I want to make sure 
that is clear to my colleagues who are interested in this. They are 
supportive, but they do not want to bust the supplemental caps. This 
will be taken from other places we are working on right now.
  Senator McConnell, Senator Cochran, and other of our colleagues are 
working diligently with us. It is in two places as far as food aid and 
its assistance to peacekeepers. These will be African Union 
peacekeepers. So I want to get the practicalities of it out.
  I also admonish my colleagues that where we sit as the most powerful 
Nation on the face of the Earth, we are called on to remember those who 
are in bondage as if we were in bondage ourselves. That may seem a 
strange concept, but when others are free, we are free. If others are 
in bondage, we are going to feel those chains and it will constantly 
rub against our souls. This is something that is important and it is 
also historic for us.
  When we fought against slavery in this country, the issue was that 
the bondage of others was our bondage and people felt it, they fought 
against it. It is in the great heritage of this country to fight for 
freedom for other people, so

[[Page S3619]]

that when they are in bondage we feel that, but when we can help break 
that, we will also break bondages on ourselves and make us use the 
greatness of America for the goodness of the world. It is that goodness 
that keeps us moving toward greatness.
  This is not a large sum of money we are talking about, but it is 
critically important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have requests to make on behalf of the 
managers of the bill with respect to amendments that have been cleared 
on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 422

  Mr. COCHRAN. I send an amendment to the desk, on behalf of Mr. Leahy 
and Mr. Obama, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Leahy 
     and Mr. Obama, proposes an amendment numbered 422.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 194, line 14, delete ``should'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``shall''.
       On page 194, line 16, delete ``Avian flu'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``avian influenza virus, to be administered by 
     the United States Agency for International Development''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 422) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 370, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 370, as modified, 
on behalf of Mr. Salazar, concerning democracy assistance for Lebanon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 370, as modified.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide assistance to promote democracy in Lebanon)

       On page 175, on line 24, strike ``$1,631,300,000'' and 
     insert ``$1,636,300,000''. On page 176, line 12 after the 
     colon insert the following: ``Provided further, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, not less than 
     $5,000,000 shall be made available for programs and 
     activities to promote democracy, including political party 
     development, in Lebanon and such amount shall be managed by 
     the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of the 
     Department of State:''.
       On page 179, line 24, strike ``$30,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$25,500,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 370), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 423

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk, on 
behalf of Mr. Leahy, providing reprogramming authority for certain 
State Department accounts. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 423.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide reprogramming authority for certain accounts in 
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related 
                   Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005)

       On page 183, after line 23, insert the following new 
     general provision:
       Sec. --. The amounts set forth in the eighth proviso in the 
     Diplomatic and Consular Programs appropriation in the FY 2005 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447, Div. B) 
     may be subject to reprogramming pursuant to section 605 of 
     that Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 423) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to and move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S3620]]

                           Amendment No. 361

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk, on 
behalf of Mr. Reid and Mr. Levin, regarding retired pay and veterans 
disability compensation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Reid, 
     for himself, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     361.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that veterans with a 
       service-connected disability rated as total by virtue of 
   unemployability should be treated as covered by the repeal of the 
 phase-in of concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans disability 
                  compensation for military retirees)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


sense of senate on treatment of certain veterans under repeal of phase-
    in of concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans disability 
                              compensation

       Sec. 1122. It is the sense of the Senate that any veteran 
     with a service-connected disability rated as total by virtue 
     of having been deemed unemployable who otherwise qualifies 
     for treatment as a qualified retiree for purposes of section 
     1414 of title 10, United States Code, should be entitled to 
     treatment as qualified retiree receiving veterans disability 
     compensation for a disability rated as 100 percent for 
     purposes of the final clause of subsection (a)(1) of such 
     section, as amended by section 642 of the Ronald W. Reagan 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
     (Public Law 108-375; 118 Stat. 1957), and thus entitled to 
     payment of both retired pay and veterans' disability 
     compensation under such section 1414 commencing as of January 
     1, 2005.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue of 
concurrent receipt and the Bush administration's unfair attempt to 
continue to restrict some of our Nation's veterans from receiving the 
full pay and benefits they have earned.
  We have debated the ban on concurrent receipt for many years. It is 
an unfair and outdated policy that I and many others in this Chamber 
have worked hard to end.
  Over the years, we have made some progress.
  In 2003, the Congress passed my legislation which allowed disabled 
retired veterans with at least a 50-percent disability rating to become 
eligible for full Concurrent Receipt benefits over a 10-year period. 
This was a significant victory, and as a result of the legislation, 
hundreds of thousands of veterans today are on the road to receiving 
both their retirement and disability benefits.
  And we made further progress last year, with the help of Senator 
Levin and others, when we were able to eliminate the 10-year phase-in 
period for the most severely disabled veterans--those who were 100 
percent disabled. A 10-year waiting period was particularly harsh for 
these veterans, some of whom would not live to see their full benefits 
restored over the 10-year period, and others who could not work a 
second job and were in fact considered ``unemployable.'' So we passed 
legislation to end the waiting period and provide some relief to these 
deserving, totally disabled veterans.
  Unfortunately, the administration's implementation of this 
legislation has created a new inequity by discriminating between two 
categories of totally disabled retirees.
  There are those veterans who have been awarded a 100 percent 
disability rating by the VA and those whom the VA has rated ``totally 
disabled''. The veterans considered totally disabled are paid at the 
100 percent disabled rate. This is because the VA has certified that 
their service-connected disabilities have left them unemployable.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter sent 
by the Defense Department to the Office of Management and Budget on 
this issue last December.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. REID. The letter indicates clearly the Defense Department General 
Counsel's opinion that both of these groups should be paid their full 
retired pay and disability compensation under the law Congress passed 
last year, and it requested permission from OMB to execute the payments 
to unemployables.
  That permission apparently was not forthcoming, since the Pentagon is 
still withholding payments for the ``unemployable'' group after all 
these months--contrary to its own General Counsel's legal review.
  For all other purposes, both the VA and the Defense Department treat 
unemployables exactly the same as those with 100 percent disability 
ratings.
  In fact, these unemployables must meet a criterion that not even the 
100 percent-rated disability retirees have to meet. They are certified 
as unable to work because of their service-connected disability. The 
administration pays equal combat-related special compensation to both 
categories. Yet the administration is discriminating unemployables and 
100 percent disabled retirees with noncombat disabilities in flagrant 
disregard for the letter of the law as interpreted by its own legal 
counsel.
  The time to act is now.
  As we stated last year, these veterans do not have 10 years to wait 
for the full phase-in of their benefits. The administration needs to 
act quickly.
  Hopefully, the expression of the Senate contained in this bill will 
clarify the intent of the Congress so those most severely disabled 
veterans will begin to reap the benefits of last year's legislation.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                     Office of the


                                   Under Secretary of Defense,

                                    Washington, DC, Dec. 21, 2004.
     Dr. Kathleen Peroff,
     Deputy Associate Director for National Security, Office of 
         Management and Budget, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Peroff: This letter is to advise your office of 
     how the Department intends to compensate members for full 
     concurrent payment of military retired pay in addition to 
     their Veterans' Affairs (VA) disability compensation under 
     the provisions of section 1414 of title 10, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 642 of the Ronald Reagan National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 
     108-375). Section 642 eliminated the phase-in period for 
     those retirees/veterans determined by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to have a disability or combination of 
     disabilities rated as 100 percent disabled.
       An issue has arisen as to whether this change in the law 
     includes those who are rated as less than 100 percent 
     disabled, but for whom a rating of 100 percent (total) 
     disability is assigned by the VA because the individual is 
     deemed unemployable. Based on a legal review of the relevant 
     statutory authority and legislative intent language (10 
     U.S.C. 1414; H. Rept. 108-767), we intend to consider these 
     unemployable retirees/veterans covered by the exemption to 
     the phase-in period and grant them full concurrent payments 
     beginning January 1, 2005.
       The determination to include these unemployable retirees/
     veterans will result in an added cost of about $1.3 billion 
     in Military Retirement Fund (MRF) outlays over the course of 
     the phase-in period. It will not affect costs after the 
     phase-in period or carry any added increase in accrual costs. 
     Further, all the added cost of full concurrent receipt is 
     passed directly to the Treasury for payments to the MRF. 
     While verbal communication with relevant congressional 
     committee staff suggests that Congress may not have intended 
     to exempt from the phase-in period those unemployable 
     retirees/veterans compensated for 100 percent disability, 
     neither the amended stature nor legislative intent language 
     support this position.
       We plan to issue guidance to the Defense Finance and 
     Accounting System and the Services on the matter as quickly 
     as possible. Please advise us if the Administration has any 
     differing views.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Charles S. Abell.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 361) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 424

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk, on 
my own behalf, to make a technical correction to the bill. I ask it be 
reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 424.

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

[[Page S3621]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 219 of the bill, line 16, strike ``or'' and insert 
     ``and'';
       On page 219 of the bill, line 17, after ``and'' insert 
     ``seismic-related''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment
  The amendment (No. 424) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 387

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I notice we have been in a quorum call and 
realize I am not taking time from others. I thought this might be a 
good time to note that I am a cosponsor of the Mikulski amendment.
  We all know, from the discussion we had yesterday with the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland and others, that the amendment 
makes additional visas available for aliens who wish to perform 
seasonal work in the United States. We are well aware of that in my 
State of Vermont. We are also aware of the fact that for the second 
year in a row the statutory cap on so-called H-2B visas was met before 
businesses that needed additional summer employees were even eligible 
to apply for visas.
  This is kind of a catch-22. They are told they have to wait for a 
period of time to be eligible to apply for the visas, and then when the 
time comes, the visas are already used. It has hurt businesses across 
the country. This amendment would provide needed relief.
  In Vermont, many hotels and inns and resorts that have a busy summer 
season use these visas. I have heard from dozens of these businesses in 
Vermont over the past year. They have struggled mightily to manage 
without temporary foreign labor. I know the Lake Champlain Chamber of 
Commerce, the Vermont Lodging & Restaurant Association, and many small 
businesses in Vermont are vitally concerned, and I expect similar 
associations and businesses in the other States are as well.
  It is interesting, one of the places I have heard from is a summer 
business where I worked when I was working my way through college. I 
know even then, in our little State, to keep it open, to go forward, 
they needed those foreign workers.
  You have a wide range of industries that use these visas. This is not 
a parochial issue. It is not just Vermont. I suspect the same argument, 
one way or the other, could be made in virtually every State. I would 
be surprised if there is any Senator who has not heard from a 
constituent who has been harmed by the sudden shortage of H-2B visas. 
Many of them fear they are going to go out of business altogether if 
Congress does not make these visas available.
  Now, the amendment would not raise the cap on the program but would 
allow those who had entered the United States in previous years through 
the H-2B program to return. It seems to be a very fair, very reasonable 
compromise. After all, these are people, by definition, who came to the 
United States legally. Then, after coming to the United States legally, 
they returned to their own countries legally, as they are required to 
do. The amendment also addresses those concerns some Members have 
expressed about fraud.
  I have been working to solve this crisis for more than a year. I 
joined, last year, with a very substantial coalition of both Republican 
and Democratic Senators in introducing S. 2252, the Save Summer Act of 
2004. This was going to increase the cap on the H-2B program. 
Unfortunately, there was a small number of Republican Senators who 
opposed it, so they put a hold on it. It was never allowed to have a 
vote. Our constituents suffered the consequences.
  This year, I have urged the Mikulski-Gregg bill, on which this 
amendment is based, S. 352, be considered by the Judiciary Committee 
without delay. It is a bipartisan bill. It deserves to win a broad 
majority in this body. But this is not one of these things we can talk 
about and delay and delay and delay on throughout the spring and 
summer. Many of these businesses, if they are even going to open their 
doors, if they are going to stay in business this year, need the relief 
today.
  Most of them are small businesses. An awful lot of them--I know the 
owners in my State; I suspect Senator Gregg from New Hampshire knows 
them in his State--are people who work very hard, with 80- and 90-hour 
weeks. They are sort of mom-and-pop operations. They own their 
businesses, and they need this seasonal help or they go out of 
business. If they go out of business, the other people they hire year-
round are out of a job, and the local community has lost a significant 
place.
  We should move forward. These are people relying on us. I do not know 
the politics of any of these people. I do not care. They are relying on 
us to help keep their businesses afloat.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 427

  Mr. DURBIN. 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

[[Page S3622]]

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.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for 
a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I am happy to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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?
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. KENNEDY. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Is there objection to setting 
aside the pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 427.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

        (Purpose: To require reports on Iraqi security services)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


                    reports on iraqi security forces

       Sec. 1122. Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the 
     President shall submit an unclassified report to Congress, 
     which may include a classified annex, that includes a 
     description of the following:
       (1) The extent to which funding appropriated by this Act 
     will be used to train and equip capable and effectively led 
     Iraqi security services and promote stability and security in 
     Iraq.
       (2) The estimated strength of the Iraqi insurgency and the 
     extent to which it is composed of non-Iraqi fighters, and any 
     changes over the previous 90-day period.
       (3) A description of all militias operating in Iraq, 
     including their number, size, strength, military 
     effectiveness, leadership, sources of external support, 
     sources of internal support, estimated types and numbers of 
     equipment and armaments in their possession, legal status, 
     and the status of efforts to disarm, demobilize, and 
     reintegrate each militia.
       (4) The extent to which recruiting, training, and equipping 
     goals and standards for Iraqi security forces are being met, 
     including the number of Iraqis recruited and trained for the 
     army, air force, navy, and other Ministry of Defense forces, 
     police, and highway patrol of Iraq, and all other Ministry of 
     Interior forces, and the extent to which personal

[[Page S3623]]

     and unit equipment requirements have been met.
       (5) A description of the criteria for assessing the 
     capabilities and readiness of Iraqi security forces.
       (6) An evaluation of the operational readiness status of 
     Iraqi military forces and special police, including the type, 
     number, size, unit designation and organizational structure 
     of Iraqi battalions that are--
       (A) capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations 
     independently;
       (B) capable of conducting counterinsurgency operations with 
     United States or Coalition mentors and enablers; or
       (C) not ready to conduct counterinsurgency operations.
       (7) The extent to which funding appropriated by this Act 
     will be used to train capable, well-equipped, and effectively 
     led Iraqi police forces, and an evaluation of Iraqi police 
     forces, including--
       (A) the number of police recruits that have received 
     classroom instruction and the duration of such instruction;
       (B) the number of veteran police officers who have received 
     classroom instruction and the duration of such instruction;
       (C) the number of Iraqi police forces who have received 
     field training by international police trainers and the 
     duration of such instruction;
       (D) a description of the field training program, including 
     the number, the planned number, and nationality of 
     international field trainers;
       (E) the number of police present for duty;
       (F) data related to attrition rates; and
       (G) a description of the training that Iraqi police have 
     received regarding human rights and the rule of law.
       (8) The estimated total number of Iraqi battalions needed 
     for the Iraqi security forces to perform duties now being 
     undertaken by the Coalition Forces, including defending 
     Iraq's borders, defeating the insurgency, and providing law 
     and order.
       (9) The extent to which funding appropriated by this Act 
     will be used to train Iraqi security forces in 
     counterinsurgency operations and the estimated total number 
     of Iraqi security force personnel expected to be trained, 
     equipped, and capable of participating in counterinsurgency 
     operations by the end of 2005 and of 2006.
       (10) The estimated total number of adequately trained, 
     equipped, and led Iraqi battalions expected to be capable of 
     conducting counterinsurgency operations independently and the 
     estimated total number expected to be capable of conducting 
     counterinsurgency operations with United States or Coalition 
     mentors and enablers by the end of 2005 and of 2006.
       (11) An assessment of the effectiveness of the chain of 
     command of the Iraqi military.
       (12) The number and nationality of Coalition mentors and 
     advisers working with Iraqi security forces as of the date of 
     the report, plans for decreasing or increasing the number of 
     such mentors and advisers, and a description of their 
     activities.
       (13) A list of countries of the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organisation (``NATO'') participating in the NATO mission for 
     training of Iraqi security forces and the number of troops 
     from each country dedicated to the mission.
       (14) A list of countries participating in training Iraqi 
     security forces outside the NATO training mission and the 
     number of troops from each country dedicated to the mission.
       (15) For any country, which made an offer to provide forces 
     for training that has not been accepted, an explanation of 
     the reasons why the offer was not accepted.
       (16) A list of foreign countries that have withdrawn troops 
     from the Multinational Security Coalition in Iraq during the 
     previous 90 days and the number of troops withdrawn.
       (17) A list of foreign countries that have added troops to 
     the Coalition in Iraq during the previous 90 days and the 
     number of troops added.
       (18) For offers to provide forces for training that have 
     been accepted by the Iraqi government, a report on the status 
     of such training efforts, including the number of troops 
     involved by country and the number of Iraqi security forces 
     trained.
       (19) An assessment of the progress of the National Assembly 
     of Iraq in drafting and ratifying the permanent constitution 
     of Iraq, and the performance of the new Iraqi Government in 
     its protection of the rights of minorities and individual 
     human rights, and its adherence to common democratic 
     practices.
       (20) The estimated number of United States military forces 
     who will be needed in Iraq 6, 12, and 18 months from the date 
     of the report.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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

[[Page S3624]]

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

[[Page S3625]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment Senator 
Kennedy has addressed, which was introduced by Senator Durbin. It 
represents an effort to obtain information that is critically important 
to the American people in reaching a judgment, critically important to 
the Congress in reaching a judgment, critically important, I believe, 
to our military leaders, first and foremost, in reaching a judgment as 
to how quickly we can remove forces from Iraq.
  It is in everybody's interest that we succeed in Iraq. Some of us who 
were highly critical of the way we went into Iraq--more unilaterally 
than we should have, without the support of any Muslim nations, making 
our presence a Western occupation of a Muslim nation, with all of the 
problems that unleashes, and many of us who have been critical of the 
way in which the Iraqi army was disbanded unilaterally, without much 
thought, and the way in which we did not have a plan for a violent 
aftermath when we went in, the way in which we didn't listen to our 
military leaders in terms of the need to prepare for the possibility of 
the violent aftermath. All of us, those of us who were critics and 
those of us who were supporters, now have a common interest in Iraq and 
have had, once the decision was made to go into Iraq, and that is that 
we succeed in Iraq.
  Success in Iraq requires that the Iraqis take over their own defense 
and their own security. This amendment will help give us a roadmap 
toward understanding how long it will take, what is necessary, what the 
cost will be for the Iraqis to take over their own security, the key to 
our exit, first reductions in our American forces, and then to our 
ultimate departure from Iraq, and the key to it is how quickly we can 
turn over to Iraq their own security.
  This amendment sets forth a number of reporting requirements, which 
will help us to make a judgment as to how quickly that can be done, 
which will help the American people to understand there is a strategy 
here, there are markers along the road we are on which will tell us 
whether we are achieving that essential security and, more importantly, 
whether the Iraqis are achieving that essential security for 
themselves.
  Two things are going to be necessary here for success to be achieved. 
One is to secure the area and the other is a political accommodation 
between the people in Iraq--people who have different religious 
beliefs, different ethnic backgrounds, people who are now going to have 
to put themselves together to form a nation.
  In terms of the training of Iraqi troops, we have very different 
estimates over the months, and it is very difficult for us in Congress 
and for the American people to make a judgment as to how quickly we are 
going to be able to reduce our presence in Iraq--a presence which has 
fueled the insurgency against us, which is used as a propaganda tool 
against us, because we are characterized as Western occupiers in a 
Muslim nation. The longer we stay there, the more troops we have there, 
the more we play into the hands of those who want to destroy us and 
destroy the hopes of Iraqis for a nation.
  I want to give a few examples of the discrepancies in the 
characterization of the ability of the Iraqis to protect and defend 
themselves. Back in September of last year, President Bush said the 
following:

       Nearly 100,000 fully trained--

  I emphasize fully trained.

     --and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers, and other 
     security personnel are working today.

  But then George Casey, our commander of the multinational force in 
Iraq, in January said the following:

       When Prime Minister Allawi took office in June of 2004, he 
     had one deployable battalion. Today, he has 40. When you 
     multiply 40 battalions that are deployable with the number of 
     people in each battalion, it comes out to approximately 
     30,000 personnel.

  So when General Casey spoke in January, months after President Bush 
told us there were 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, 
there were still but 30,000 personnel in Iraq who were deployable.
  This is what General Myers said in February: That there are about 
40,000 Iraqis in the police and military battalions, 40,000 that can 
``go anywhere in the country and take on almost any threat.''
  That is a very different impression than is given by the weekly 
status reports we get from the administration. This is the State 
Department's most recent weekly status report as to what they call 
trained-and-equipped Iraqi forces--152,000 this week.
  There are not 152,000 Iraqi forces capable of taking on insurgents. 
If we are lucky, the number is about one-third of that. But we have to 
know two numbers, not just one, not just the weekly State Department 
number as to how many people are trained and equipped, but how many of 
those people are sufficiently trained and equipped so they can take on 
the insurgency. That is the critical number--how many are capable 
militarily of taking on insurgents.
  I will give one other example of the discrepancy of the 
characterization of the capability of Iraqi forces.
  When this supplemental in front of us was provided to us in February, 
this is what the supplemental represented to us: That 89 of the 90 
battalions of Iraqi security forces that have been fielded--89 of 90--
are ``lightly equipped and armed and have very limited mobility and 
sustainment capabilities.'' That is about 95 percent plus of the Iraqi 
security forces today, according to the supplemental request; 95 
percent are lightly equipped and armed and have limited mobility and 
sustainment. How different that is from the most recent weekly report 
we just received of 152,000 troops.
  It is essential, it is critically important, no matter what one's 
views of the war are--the wisdom of going in, how well run it has been 
since we went in--no matter how pessimistic or optimistic one is, no 
matter how critical or positive one is, in terms of the operations and 
the way they were planned or not planned and the decision to go in as 
we did, we must have numbers, we must have estimates, which this 
amendment would require in regular reports, as to what the capabilities 
are of the Iraqi forces.
  We need two numbers. We need that total number, 152,000, but we need 
the number of Iraqi forces that are capable of taking on the 
insurgents: How many are deployable? how many have real mobility and 
sustainment capabilities? How many are well trained and equipped so 
they can take on the insurgents?
  That number is critical to Iraq. It is critical to Americans. 
Americans have the right to know the information this amendment 
requires be provided in regular reports.
  I have one other comment before I yield the floor. In addition to the 
security requirements that must be met so

[[Page S3626]]

we can say that our involvement in Iraq has been a success, there must 
be a political accommodation. That political accommodation, in many 
ways, is more complicated than the military situation. We need people 
who now distrust each other, people who have attacked each other over 
the decades, to now come together politically and to work out a new 
constitution which will protect the rights of minorities in Iraq.
  We have a major group in Iraq, the Shi'a, who feel, and properly so, 
that a small minority of Sunni Baathists, particularly in the 
leadership of the Baathist political movement, attacked the Shi'as with 
gas and with other means. These are Iraqis who were destroyed by 
Iraqis, by Saddam Hussein and the henchmen who were around Saddam 
Hussein. So the Shi'a community needs to accommodate themselves to a 
significant protection for a Sunni minority, and that Sunni minority 
must get used to the fact, the reality, the Shi'as are the majority of 
Iraqis, and they have elected a majority of members who are going to be 
present in the Iraqi Assembly. Of course, there is the yearning of the 
Kurds for significant autonomy. All that needs to be put together.
  It is a very complicated equation for that to happen. As we hopefully 
achieve some success on the security side, we must keep a very wary eye 
open as to what is happening or not happening on the political side of 
the challenge in Iraq.
  The constitution will be written by a commission which will be 
selected by an assembly which is now in place. That assembly will have 
its Prime Minister within the next few days and will then be able to 
select a constitutional commission which will write a constitution. 
That commission needs to reflect the Iraqi people, not the makeup of 
the assembly which has much too small a percentage of Sunnis, given the 
fact they did not vote. But the Shi'a majority needs to be wise enough, 
in selecting the commission that will write the constitution, to have a 
broadly representative commission that will write a constitution that 
is protective of the minorities in Iraq, that will guarantee majority 
rights, of course, but that in any decent nation will protect the 
minority as well.

  That is the challenge they face. They are supposed to meet that 
challenge by August. They will not do that, obviously. They have a 6-
month extension beyond that where they must write a constitution. 
Getting that constitution written is a major challenge, and anything we 
can do to facilitate that, it seems to me, would be very wise, indeed.
  We have two challenges, one of which is addressed in the amendment 
before us relative to Iraqi security and the progress they are 
hopefully making, to give us the information that is important for a 
judgment to which the American people, the Congress, and our uniformed 
military are entitled from this administration. I hope this has broad 
support and the Senate adopts the Durbin amendment.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 387

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of an 
amendment that my good friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, and I 
and a number of other Senators have offered and which does have 
bipartisan support. It has to do with the H-2B visa program.
  Small businesses all over our Nation count on the H-2B visa program 
to keep their businesses operating. Many use this program year after 
year because it is the only way they can legally hire temporary or 
seasonal positions when no American workers are available. These 
companies hire all the American workers they can find, and they do look 
for American workers. But if they cannot find them, they need to get 
additional seasonal help, they need to find workers to meet the demands 
of their businesses and, indeed, to stay in business. These businesses 
are in construction, seafood, yard services, tourism and other season 
enterprises.

  Congress has capped the H-2B visa program at 66,000 visas per year. 
That has not been adjusted since this visa category was initially 
capped in 1990. So since 1990 the visa cap has been 66,000. However, 
during those years, and here we are 15 years later, there are a variety 
of factors that have hampered U.S. employers from having the ability to 
find and hire more willing American workers for short-term positions. 
The shortages occur for a variety of reasons. It is actually getting 
much worse because Americans are unwilling to engage in low-skilled, 
semi-skilled short-term employment. In most instances, Americans are 
unwilling to relocate to a new location for several months out of a 
year, a move that many of these short-term jobs require. That is 
logical. People aren't going to want to move for 3 or 4 months and then 
move back to another place.
  According to the Department of Homeland Security, the H-2B cap of 
66,000 was reached a few months into the fiscal year. This is the 
second year in a row the cap has been reached this early. You may 
wonder why we are reaching the cap at such an early stage. What is the 
problem? Under current law employers cannot file an H-2B application 
until 120 days before they need the employee. Therefore, the H-2B 
program puts businesses whose peaks are in the summer and in the autumn 
at a disadvantage because the Citizenship and Immigration Services 
cannot process their applications until at least January or February, 
since these jobs generally start around Memorial Day. Therefore, if the 
cap is reached in January and February, as it was in the last several 
years, these employers who rely on seasonal workers are clearly put at 
a disadvantage.
  I have heard from these employers. One of our most important jobs 
that I have as a Senator is to listen to people out there in the real 
world, to see what are the effects of certain laws and see if there are 
ways to allow those in the free enterprise system, particularly small 
businesses, to continue to operate. I do listen to my constituents. My 
constituents have clearly voiced their concerns about the H-2B program 
and have asked for help. I think it is important that we respond.
  I will give some examples of what is going on. There is a company 
called WEMOW. WEMOW is a landscaping design and lawn maintenance 
company in Blacksburg, VA. This company relies heavily on the H-2B 
program, and sadly they have had to cut back on services they can 
provide because of the lack of a workforce to meet that demand. 
Christopher Via, who is the president of WEMOW, wrote me. I will quote 
from his letter. He said:

       While my company spends considerable time and money to 
     recruit U.S. workers, the positions we need to fill are hot, 
     labor intensive, physically exhausting low- and semiskilled 
     jobs that many Americans do not want to fill. Therefore, our 
     ability to meet seasonal demand and stay in business relies 
     on finding temporary workers. H-2B workers have proven 
     critical in filling this need.

  Of course, they are late in the season, so therefore they do not get 
the workers they could to meet those needs.
  Another letter I received is from a company in Yorktown. Yorktown is 
a very famous tourism area. Stephen C. Barrs, the president of C.A. 
Barrs Contractor, Inc., wrote:

       While our company recruits U.S. workers, our company and 
     our industry as a whole have been unable to find American 
     workers. We have presented evidence to the Department of 
     Labor that there are no U.S. workers available to fill our 
     vacant positions. Our company employs approximately 100 
     people, and we specialize in road construction. The H-2B 
     program provides foreign employees who have proven tremendous 
     employees. We have relied on the H-2B program for 6 years and 
     find this program invaluable. Once our season ends, our H-
     2B workers return home. This is more a small business 
     issue than an immigration issue. We fear this program is 
     in jeopardy, and if it is cut in any way, our small 
     businesses will sustain a very damaging loss.

  These are two of hundreds of letters I have received from small 
businesses all across Virginia, asking for our immediate help. Our 
amendment does that. It provides an immediate legislative remedy that 
helps these businesses get part-time seasonal workers.
  Before I get into the details of what this amendment does, I want to 
clearly outline what this amendment does not do. I first want to stress 
that this amendment in no way changes the existing requirements for 
applying for an H-2B visa. U.S. employers must demonstrate to State and 
Federal departments of labor that there are no available U.S. workers 
to fill vacant seasonal positions. Subsequently, they

[[Page S3627]]

must obtain an approved labor certification from the U.S. Department of 
Labor, file a visa petition application with the Citizenship and 
Immigration Service for H-2B workers, and obtain approved H-2B visas 
for workers in their home countries.
  With that understanding, I would like to outline what this amendment 
does effectuate. Specifically, our amendment would exempt temporary 
seasonal workers who have participated in the H-2B visa program, and 
have completely followed the law during the past 3 fiscal years from 
counting toward the statutory cap of 66,000.
  Second, this amendment has a number of new antifraud provisions. One 
such provision requires employers to pay an additional fee of $150 on 
each H-2B petition, and those fees are placed into the fraud and 
prevention detection account of the U.S. Treasury.
  Third, this amendment creates new sanctions for those who 
misrepresent facts on a petition of an H-2B visa. This provision is 
designed to further strengthen the Department of Homeland Security's 
enforcement power to sanction those who violate our Nation's 
immigration laws. If an employer violates this section, the Department 
of Homeland Security will have the power to fine the individual 
employer and/or not approve, of course, their H-2B petitions.
  Fourth, moreover, the amendment divides the cap more equitably, 
giving half of the visas to fall and winter businesses and half to 
spring and summer businesses. So you do not get into this whole gaming 
situation of when do the applications get in, and end up with a 
frustrating disruption at the end of the year.
  Finally, this amendment adds some simple, commonsense reporting 
requirements that will allow Congress to get more information on the H-
2B program users as we in Congress move toward a more comprehensive, 
long-term solution to this problem.
  Our amendment provides the needed temporary addressing and the fix 
that is needed to a problem that, if left unresolved, will ultimately 
harm our economy. Jobs will be lost, whether they are in landscaping, 
whether they are in seafood, whether they are in contracting, whether 
they are in tourism. These are all small businesses. They are good, 
law-abiding citizens. They are trying to use and will use this program 
lawfully, but we need to bring some common sense into this program.
  We need to act as soon as possible. Many of these businesses are 
family businesses, and they need to stay in operation. They provide 
services which their customers and the people in their communities 
desire.
  I strongly and respectfully urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this amendment. It is not solely an immigration issue. As my friend and 
constituent from Yorktown said, this is a small business issue as well.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 351

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 351.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the earned income tax 
    credit provides critical support to many military and civilian 
                               families)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. _. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) In an effort to provide support to military families, 
     this Act includes an important increase in the maximum 
     payable benefit under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance 
     from $150,000 to $400,000.
       (2) In an effort to provide support to military families, 
     this Act includes an important increase in the death gratuity 
     from $12,000 to $100,000.
       (3) In an effort to provide support to military families, 
     this Act includes an important increase in the maximum 
     Reserve Affiliation bonus to $10,000.
       (4) The Federal earned income tax credit (EITC) under 
     section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 provides 
     critical tax relief and support to military as well as 
     civilian families. In 2003, approximately 21,000,000 families 
     benefitted from the EITC.
       (5) Nearly 160,000 active duty members of the armed forces, 
     11 percent of all active duty members, currently are eligible 
     for the EITC, based on analyses of data from the Department 
     of Defense and the Government Accountability Office.
       (6) Congress acted in 2001 and 2004 to expand EITC 
     eligibility to more military personnel, recognizing that 
     military families and their finances are intensely affected 
     by war.
       (7) With over 300,000 National Guard and reservists called 
     to active duty since September 11, 2001, the need for tax 
     assistance is greater than ever.
       (8) Census data shows that the EITC lifted 4,900,000 people 
     out of poverty in 2002, including 2,700,000 children. The 
     EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other single 
     program or category of programs.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) Congress should take steps necessary to support our 
     troops and their families;
       (2) it is not in the interests of our troops and their 
     families to reduce the earned income tax credit under section 
     32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (3) the conference committee for H. Con. Res. 96, the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, 
     should not assume any reduction in the earned income tax 
     credit in the budget process this year, as provided in such 
     resolution as passed by the House of Representatives.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, before commenting on this amendment, I 
wish to take a minute to thank the chairman and ranking member, 
Senators Cochran and Byrd, for all their hard work on this important 
bill. I am especially appreciative of the help and support they have 
offered this Senator on two amendments.

  They and their staffs have been helpful as we try to ensure that the 
brave Lebanese people who stood up to their Syrian occupiers know we 
are here to support them. Earlier today we made a down payment on a 
commitment to help ensure they have the free and fair elections and 
strong and vibrant democracy they have earned. I want especially to 
thank the staffs of Senators McConnell and Leahy for the help on the 
Lebanon amendment.
  I am also hopeful that we will be able to fix something that I have 
considered an injustice since I came to the Senate earlier this year. 
The assistance we provide to military families in the event of a loss 
of their family member is referred to as the ``death gratuity.'' That 
is a misnomer, and I am hopeful that we will be able to correct that by 
renaming this assistance as something more fitting, namely, ``Fallen 
Hero Compensation.''
  Regarding the amendment I have just sent to the desk, it is quite 
simple. It clearly states our support for the earned income tax credit, 
especially because this program benefits working families and a large 
amount of our active duty military personnel.
  Given that we are considering a bill that provides critical support 
to our troops and their families and that later this week many millions 
of Americans will be filing their taxes, I believe this amendment 
needed to be heard on this bill this week.
  The EITC was first enacted in 1975 to aid the working poor. According 
to an analysis released just this week by a highly respected, non-
partisan institute in Denver, the Bell Policy Center, in the past year, 
more than 150,000 active military personnel nationwide qualified for 
the EITC. In my State of Colorado alone, over 3,000 members of the 
military qualified for the EITC.
  The EITC has long enjoyed bipartisan support because the credit is 
extended only to families that have work income. Most recently, under 
the leadership of Senator Mark Pryor, this body overwhelmingly approved 
the expansion of the EITC to more military families.
  That is as it should be . . . given all that these families give for 
our country, it is the least the country can do for them.
  Now, however, it appears that this effective program that has lifted 
over 2.7 million children above the poverty level is coming under 
attack.
  Recently the House of Representatives indicated that it is 
considering cutting the EITC in its budget reconciliation. Such cuts, 
if enacted by

[[Page S3628]]

the full Congress, could lead to higher taxes for many of our military 
families.
  This is not fair and this is not right.
  At a time when many of our military personnel are overseas and when 
our national guard reserves have been called up at historic rates, we 
should be providing for our men and women in uniform. We should not be 
taking away from them and placing them at a greater financial 
disadvantage.
  I hope the Senate will be heard loudly and clearly that this is not 
the right thing to do. Our troops and their families deserve no less.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to reject any cuts to the EITC.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. In 
fact, I rise to discuss an individual who the Senator from Colorado and 
I met when we were part of a bipartisan delegation led by the 
Democratic leader, Harry Reid, a couple of weeks ago. On that trip, we 
visited a number of countries--Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, France, Georgia, 
Ukraine, and the Palestinian territory. We saw a number of emerging 
democracies. It made me think of what our own country might have been 
like more than 200 years ago. We visited with two men who were named 
Prime Minister and Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament a week later. In 
Georgia, we saw the young government. Many of them were educated here 
in the United States as students. When we went to Ukraine, we met Mr. 
Yuschenko and some of the students who had been part of this 
revolution. What we saw was very impressive, as were those people we 
were introduced to.
  But from my way of thinking, there was no one more impressive than 
the Finance Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, who 
instituted a number of reforms to fight corruption and bring 
transparency to the finances of that Authority.
  This remarkable individual was born Palestinian, and his family fled 
the West Bank for Jordan in 1968. He studied at the American University 
in Beirut. He later received a Ph.D. in economics from the University 
of Texas at Austin. He worked for the Federal Reserve in St. Louis and 
the International Monetary Fund in Washington, DC. He became the IMF 
representative to the Palestinian Authority and moved to Jerusalem in 
1995. Then, in 2002, he was named Finance Minister of the Palestinian 
Authority.
  What is remarkable is that all of us either know or suspect that when 
Arafat was in power, there was gross corruption with the moneys that 
came into Palestine. Mr. Fayyad has done the following things: He 
centralized control of the Palestinian Authority's finances. 
Previously, agencies had collected the money and kept it. That meant, 
for example, that education was poorly funded since it collected little 
money. Mr. Fayyad forced all the incoming funds to be put into the 
general treasury and disbursed by the Finance Minister.
  The next thing he did was direct deposits for Palestinian security 
forces. Previously, money was given in plastic bags to commanders for 
them to distribute. Obviously, this led to what might generously be 
called a lot of mismanagement of those funds. Now soldiers are much 
happier because they get their pay on time, and the government is sure 
the money is going where it should. The soldiers and the government 
both know the money is not going to somebody who didn't earn it.
  Public budgeting: He issued the first publicly detailed budget for 
the Authority, which totaled about $1.28 billion. The Ministry now 
issues public monthly reports of the government's financial status.
  Eliminating graft: Due to his efforts, revenue of the Palestinian 
Authority is up from $45 million to $75 million, largely because money 
that was skimmed off the top in the past is going into the treasury 
where it belongs. I am not just saying this today because I want to 
give a pat on the back to Mr. Fayyad, who, in taking these steps, has 
shown a great deal of courage. I am sure there are a good number of 
people in the Palestinian territory who were skimming money off the top 
before who are not going to be happy with him now. I am bringing this 
up today because it has to do with a vote we are about to take here in 
the Senate.
  The bill before us, the supplemental appropriations bill, provides 
$200 million of the President's request for aid to the Palestinian 
territories. There is another $150 million in the normal budgeting 
process. Unlike the House version of this supplemental appropriations 
bill, our version--the Senate version as it is coming to us--preserves 
the President's waiver authority that would allow him to designate a 
portion of those funds as he sees fit by the use of the Palestinian 
Authority. I believe that policy--the Senate policy--is the right 
policy. In other words, our policy would permit our President, 
President Bush, to decide that Mr. Fayyad and the government of the 
Palestinian Authority could properly spend this money. Some people are 
saying they stole money over there before. Yes they did. Yasser Arafat 
is dead and buried. It is time to make a new start.

  The Finance Minister has made great strides to ensure that funds are 
publicly accountable. We will be able to keep track of where our 
taxpayer money goes. The Palestinian Authority needs some money. There 
is no poorer part of the world than the Gaza Strip. Someone has to 
provide security in the Gaza Strip. We look to the Palestinian 
Authority to do that if the Israelis pull out. Someone has to provide a 
social services safety net for these poor people so they are not 
tempted to join with the terrorists. We look to the Palestinian 
Authority to do that.
  Why in the world would we keep our President from making the decision 
that would give the money to the Palestinian Authority, which is the 
group we are counting on to provide security and to provide the social 
safety net?
  Nongovernment agriculture organizations can provide valuable help in 
support of what the Palestinian Authority is doing. If we are going to 
do business with the Palestinian Authority, and are going to expect 
them to be accountable for keeping things safe and providing a basic 
level of social services so people are able to eat, we should deal 
directly with them. At the very least we should give the President of 
the United States the authority, as the Senate bill does, to deal 
directly with the Palestinian Authority.
  I am happy with what our Committee on Appropriations has done. I 
disagree with what the House of Representatives has done, and I suppose 
the matter will go to conference. I hope in the conference the Senators 
will insist on the Senate provision, and I hope our House Members will 
see the wisdom of giving our President the discretion to give the money 
to the Government that we are going to hold accountable.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, my colleague from South Carolina, 
Senator Lindsey Graham, and I come to the floor this afternoon to speak 
about the necessity of expanding TRICARE for National Guard members and 
reservists. I especially thank Senator Graham for his hard work and 
advocacy on behalf of this legislation.
  Almost 2 years ago exactly, in the spring of 2003, Senator Graham and 
I joined at the Reserve Officers Association building to announce the 
first version of this legislation. In the intervening years, we have 
made a great deal of progress in expanding access to TRICARE, the 
military health program. But we agree there is still a long way to go.
  We recently discovered our proposed legislation to ensure that 
National Guard and Reserve members have access to the military health 
program known as TRICARE does not have a cost this year, so it was not 
appropriate for us to attempt to attach this to the supplemental 
appropriations bill that is currently on the floor. But we are 
extremely hopeful we will be able to include legislation in this year's 
Department of Defense authorization bill.
  Because Senator Graham and I serve on the Armed Services Committee, 
we have heard firsthand, as have many of my colleagues, about the 
extraordinary

[[Page S3629]]

strain being placed on our Guard and Reserve Forces. We are well aware 
that a major part of our military success in Iraq and Afghanistan has 
been because of the role played by reservists and Guard members who 
heeded the call to serve their country--for some, not once, not twice, 
but three times in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
  Since September 11, our reservists and National Guard members have 
been called upon with increasing frequency. From homeland security 
missions where they were absolutely essential in New York after 9/11, 
National Guard men and women patrolled and guarded our subways, the 
Amtrak lines in Penn Station, other places of importance. We have seen 
in so many other instances where they were called to duty here in our 
own homeland. We also know they have paid the ultimate sacrifice, 
losing their lives in serving the missions they were called to fulfill 
in Iraq and Afghanistan or being grievously wounded and returning home, 
having given their all to our country.
  In New York we have over 30,000 members of the Guard and Reserves, 
and over 4,000 are currently deployed in support of Operation Iraqi 
Freedom. When I have visited with our activated reservists and National 
Guard in New York, I have been greatly impressed by their willingness 
and even eagerness, in some cases, to serve. But I have also heard 
about the strains they face, that their families have borne, that their 
businesses have endured. It is abundantly clear we are having some 
difficulty in recruitment and retention of the Guard and Reserve 
because of the extraordinary stresses being placed on these very 
dedicated individuals. Now more than ever, we need to address the needs 
of our Guard and Reserve members. The general of the Army Reserves, 
General Helmly, has expressed concern about whether we are going to be 
able to meet our needs for the Reserve component.
  The legislation Senator Graham and I have been working on for 2 years 
is bipartisan. It is not a party issue. It is a core American issue. 
Our TRICARE legislation allows Guard and Reserve members the option of 
enrolling full time in TRICARE, getting the family health insurance 
coverage that is offered to active-duty military personnel. The change 
would offer health care stability to families who lose coverage under 
their employers' plans when a family member is called to active duty. 
In fact, one of the most shocking statistics was that about 25 percent 
of our active-duty Guard and Reserve had some medical problems, but the 
numbers were particularly high for the Guard and Reserve because so 
many of these--primarily but not exclusively--young people either had 
jobs which didn't offer health insurance or worked for themselves and 
could not afford health insurance. So when they were activated and 
reported, they were not medically ready to be deployed. This is not 
simply the right thing to do; this is part of our military readiness 
necessity.

  The legislation addresses these critical issues. I am very grateful 
for Senator Graham's leadership and the support of so many in this 
body. He and I will be working with Chairman Warner and Ranking Member 
Levin and the rest of the Armed Services Committee to get our TRICARE 
legislation authorized in this year's Department of Defense 
authorization bill.
  Finally, I know there are questions of cost that obviously have to be 
addressed. I don't think you can put a price on the military service 
these men and women have given our country. When I was in Iraq a couple 
of weeks ago, I was struck by how many men I saw with white hair. I 
think I was surprised there were so many people in their fifties, late 
fifties, who had been called back to active duty, members of the 
Individual Readiness Reserve. The men I spoke with had flown combat 
missions in Vietnam. There they were again, having left their families, 
left their employment, their homes, and doing their duty in Baghdad or 
Fallujah or Kirkuk and so many other places of danger.
  We have an all-volunteer military. That all-volunteer military has to 
be given not only the respect it so deserves but the support and the 
resources it has earned.
  I am hopeful we will have unanimous support in the Armed Services 
Committee to add this legislation, that we will have support from the 
administration and, in an overwhelming vote in both Houses of Congress, 
not give lipservice and rhetorical pats on the back to our Guard and 
Reserve members but show them in a tangible way that we appreciate and 
respect their service and we understand the strains they are living 
under and often their families are suffering under. One small way to 
show our appreciation as a nation is to make sure once and for all they 
and their families have access to health care.
  It is a great pleasure to be working with Senator Graham, and I look 
forward to successfully ensuring that this legislation is once and for 
all enacted, first in the Armed Services Committee and then on the 
floor of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will take up where my colleague left 
off. Before she leaves the floor, I acknowledge what a pleasure it has 
been to work with her and other members of the Democratic Party and the 
Republican Party to do something for our Guard and Reserve Forces. She 
has outlined very well what we are trying to do. It shows what can 
happen when the body will come together on an issue that should never 
divide us. Whether you are Republican or Democrat or independent, this 
war affects us all. No one asked the young men and women fighting the 
war their party identification or affiliation or their political 
background when they went off to serve our Nation.
  The least we can do as a body is stand behind them and their families 
to provide a benefit they need.
  We had a hearing yesterday, to build upon what Senator Clinton said. 
We had the chief of the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserve 
components, and the Naval Reserve, and we talked about the stress on 
the force in terms of the Reserve community. We have 175,000 people 
today who have experienced duty in this war from the Guard and Reserve. 
Forty percent of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan are guardsmen and 
reservists. We could not fight without them.
  This is the biggest utilization of the Guard and Reserve since World 
War II. The skill set they bring to the fight is indispensable. There 
are civil affairs people helping Afghan and Iraqi officials set up a 
democracy. We have medical personnel and many others who are 
indispensable. The military police are predominantly guardsmen and 
reservists, and they are indispensable in Iraq and Afghanistan. They 
have done a terrific job.
  The reason we are involved in this legislation and we have so much 
bipartisan support for what we are trying to do is the Guard and 
Reserve is the only group of part-time Federal employees--and as a 
guardsman or reservist, you work for the Federal Government. You also 
work for the State government, but you have a dual status. Reservists 
are part of the Federal military, the DOD. They are the only group in 
the whole Federal Government that is not eligible for some form of 
health care from the Federal Government.
  A temporary employee in your office or my office, somebody working in 
a temporary capacity, is able to sign up for Federal health care 
benefits that we enjoy. They have to pay a premium. A part-time worker 
is able to sign up for Federal health care benefits. The only group 
that works part time and doesn't get any benefits is the Guard and 
Reserve. The one thing we found from the hearing is that is a mistake. 
At least 10 percent of the people being called to active duty from the 
Guard and Reserve are unable to be deployed because of health care 
problems. About 30 percent of the people in the Guard and Reserve have 
no private health care insurance. So from a ratings point of view, 
about 10 percent of the force is taken out of the fight without a shot 
being fired. That makes no readiness sense. The health care network for 
the Guard and Reserve today is not doing the job in terms of making the 
force fit and ready to serve.
  When a person is deployed from the Guard and Reserve, they leave 
behind a family more times than not. Half of the people going into the 
fight from the Guard and Reserve suffer a pay reduction, having no 
continuity of health care or predictability of what the benefits will 
be in a continuous fashion.

[[Page S3630]]

How long you will be gone and when you are coming home matters in terms 
of recruiting and retention. Sixty-eight percent of the Army Reserve's 
goal is being met in recruiting. The Guard and Active Forces are 
suffering in recruiting because this war has taken a toll. The more 
attractive the benefit package is, the more we can appreciate the 
service, the more likely we are to get the good people and recruit 
patriotic Americans.
  What this legislation is designed to do is fill in that gap and solve 
the problem that faces the Guard and Reserve families, and that is lack 
of health care. Every Reserve component chief says that when they talk 
to the troops, the one thing that means the most to them, on top of 
every other request, is continuity of health care. So we are proposing 
a benefit for the Guard and Reserve that they will have to pay for, but 
we will allow, for the first time, Guard and Reserve members to sign up 
for TRICARE, the military health care system, like their Active-Duty 
counterparts have, with one major difference: they will have to pay a 
premium, unless they are called to active duty, similar to what we pay 
as Federal employees.
  I believe that is a fair compromise. It will allow uninsured 
guardsmen and reservists to have health care at an affordable price. It 
will allow people who have uneven health care in the private sector to 
get constant health care. We will have a system where people, when they 
are called to active duty, will have the same set of doctors and 
hospitals that service the family as when they are in the Guard and 
Reserve status. We think it desperately will help recruiting and 
retention and readiness, and it will make people ready for the fight.
  We have worked on the costs. We are looking at cutting the cost of 
the program in half by requiring a slightly higher premium from the 
force and offering TRICARE standard versus TRICARE prime. I believe it 
fiscally makes sense but still achieves the goal of the original 
legislation of providing continuity of health care.
  The reason we are not offering the amendment on the supplemental is 
that because of the cost saving we have achieved in redesigning the 
program, there is no cost to be incurred in 2005. We are working in a 
bipartisan manner with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to 
go ahead and offer a full-time military health care benefit 
to guardsmen and reservists that they can sign up for, to give them 
continuity of care at a fair premium. It is a good deal for all 
concerned. The reason we are doing this is obvious: We are utilizing 
the Guard and Reserve in a historic fashion. If we don't change the 
benefit structure, we are going to drive the men and women away from 
wanting to serve. After a while, it gets to be too onerous. I hope we 
will be able to produce a product in committee in the authorization 
bill that will allow this program to be offered to the entire force.

  Here is what we did last year. I will end on this note. The body 
reached a compromise last year. Last year, we came up with a program 
that for every person in the Guard and Reserve who was mobilized for 90 
days or more, from September 11, 2001, forward to today, for every 90 
days they served on active duty, they would get a year of TRICARE for 
themselves and their families. That program goes into effect April 26 
of this year, a few days from now. I have the brochure called TRICARE 
Reserve Select. About a third of the force would be eligible. It will 
cover the Selective Reserve, drilling reservists. That is one change we 
made.
  I am still in the Reserves, but I am in an inactive status. I do my 
duty over at Bolling Air Force Base. I am not subject to deployment, so 
I will not be included. The bill we are designing covers people subject 
to being deployed and being sent to the site. The compromise of last 
year will allow a year of TRICARE for every 90 days you are being 
called to active duty.
  There are thousands of reservists who will be eligible for this 
program, and this brochure called TRICARE Reserve Select will be 
available to your unit, and you need to inquire as to whether you and 
your family would be eligible to join TRICARE because of your 90-day-
plus deployment. The goal this year is to build upon what we did last 
year by offering the program to the entire drilling force.
  The other two-thirds of the Select Reserves who are subject to being 
deployed, who drill and prepare for combat-related duties so that when 
they get called, if they do, they will be ready to go to the fight, it 
will be a benefit for their families that I think most Americans would 
be glad to provide.
  So we have a program in place for those who have been called to 
active duty for 90 days or more since September 11, 2001. It goes into 
effect in a week. It will make you and your family eligible for TRICARE 
a year for every 90 days you serve. So if you serve a year in Iraq, you 
get 4 years. The goal this year is expanded to total drilling Selected 
Reserve force. We cut the program in half by increasing the benefit 
payment required of the Guard and Reserve member and reshaping the 
benefit package. I think it is more affordable than ever, but the cost 
of having 10 percent of the force unable to go to the fight is 
financially and militarily very large. The cost of lack of continuity 
of health care for Guard and Reserve families is emotionally 
devastating.
  With about two-tenths of 1 percent of the military budget, we can fix 
this problem and reward Americans who are doing a great job for their 
country. The likelihood of the Guard and Reserve being involved in a 
deep and serious way in the war on terror is probably unlimited.
  The last fact I will leave with you is this: We talked to the Reserve 
commander yesterday about the utilization of the Air Reserves. Fifty 
percent of the people flying airplanes in terms of transport into the 
theater of operation and servicing the theater of operation with a C-
130 are Reserve or Guard crews. I have been to Iraq 3 times now, and I 
have flown about 16 or 17 flights on a C-130 from Kuwait into Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Every crew except one has been a Reserve or Guard crew.
  There is a rule in the military that a Guard or Reserve member cannot 
be deployed involuntarily for more than 24 months. That rule has served 
the force well because it takes stress off the force, it keeps people 
gainfully employed because if you are gone all the time, it is hard to 
keep a civilian job. So we put a cap of 24 months of involuntary 
service into the theater of operations, into the war zone.
  What astonished me was that two-thirds of the pilots and the aircrews 
in the Guard and Reserve have already reached that mark. Two-thirds of 
those who serve in the Guard and Reserve have already met their 2-year 
involuntary commitment.
  One fact that keeps this war afloat is that they are volunteering to 
go back. Legally we cannot make them go back, but they are volunteering 
to keep flying. And God bless them because two-thirds of 50 percent 
statutorily do not have to go to this fight. They choose to go to this 
fight. This benefit package is a recognition of that commitment.
  I am very optimistic--to all those Guard and Reserve families who may 
be listening today--that help is on the way, that this body is going to 
rise to the occasion, and we are going to improve your health care 
benefits because you earned it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 430

  Mr. BYRD. 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

[[Page S3631]]

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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BYRD. 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

[[Page S3632]]

     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.''

[[Page S3633]]

       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

[[Page S3634]]

     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.

[[Page S3635]]

       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.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
laid aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] for himself, Mrs. 
     Clinton, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Dorgan, 
     Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 
     430.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds by any Federal agency to produce 
   a prepackaged news story without including in such story a clear 
notification for the audience that the story was prepared or funded by 
                           a Federal agency)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. 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. KENNEDY. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I am intrigued by the amendment of the 
Senator from West Virginia. I do not believe taxpayers should be 
funding propaganda. I think it is totally inappropriate, other than in 
an attempt to promote American policy overseas, for example, where we 
should be funding communication with other people around the Earth, as 
we do through Radio Free America, Radio Liberty, and other radio 
stations that have been developed over the years for the purposes of 
presenting the American position in regions of the world where our 
access is limited.
  But here in the United States, clearly, if the Government wishes to 
make a point, that should be disclosed. If taxpayers' dollars are being 
used to make a point, that should be disclosed. I agree with the basic 
concept of the theme of the Senator's amendment. So I expect that this 
amendment must apply to National Public Radio. National Public Radio, 
of course, receives a large amount of tax subsidy. It presents views 
which one could argue are propaganda, in many instances. If I read this 
amendment correctly, I believe, and I would hope the record would 
reflect, this amendment will apply to National Public Radio so that 
when they put out a newscast it will have to be announced that this 
newscast is put out at the expense of the American taxpayer and that 
the American taxpayer has paid for this report.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Maryland is also 
seeking the floor. We both have important meetings at 3 o'clock. I 
wondered how long the Senator from Maryland will take?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Less than a minute.
  Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect 
to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is now pending.


                             Cloture Motion

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Mikulski 
     amendment No. 387 to H.R. 1268.
         B.A. Mikulski, J. Lieberman, J. Corzine, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Byron Dorgan, Ron Wyden, Ken Salazar, Hillary Clinton, 
           Mark Pryor, Dick Durbin, Bill Nelson, Chuck Schumer, 
           Barack Obama, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Chris Dodd.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I understand that negotiations are 
ongoing on all of the immigration provisions. I am sorry I have to do 
this, and I will be very glad to withdraw this cloture motion if we are 
able to come to an understanding.


                           Amendment No. 430

  I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of 
the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments raised by the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  As chairman of the new Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, 
Treasury, Judiciary, and HUD, I understand this measure would fall 
within the general government provisions of this bill. While I think 
all of us share concerns that have been expressed by the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. We appreciate what the Senator is trying to do, but I don't 
believe his amendment provides the appropriate remedy to the problems 
he has described.
  Using Federal funds for the purpose of propaganda is already unlawful 
under section 1913 of title 18 of the United States Code, and the 
governmentwide general provisions title of the Transportation, Treasury 
Appropriations Act includes further restrictions from using 
appropriated funds for propaganda.
  Section 624 of the 2005 Transportation, Treasury Appropriations Act 
states:

       No part of any appropriations contained in this or any 
     other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes 
     within the United States not heretofore authorized by the 
     Congress.

  The distinction between educating the public about an issue and 
advocating a policy is not always obvious.

[[Page S3636]]

If the Senator's amendment better defined appropriate communications by 
Federal agencies from publicity or propaganda, I would join with the 
Senator in support. The Senator's amendment, however, does not add any 
clarity to the murky waters of advocacy and does not make the line 
between education and advocacy any brighter, and in fact may have some 
untoward consequences that I feel are sufficient to kill the amendment.

  The uniform practice of the Federal Government is and has been to 
provide full disclosure that video news releases or other matters are 
prepared or funded by a Federal agency. The sponsoring Government 
agency identifies itself at the beginning of a video news release.
  Just as newspaper reporters and editors parse through their press 
releases issued by Federal agencies, television news rooms make 
editorial and content decisions about how to use video news releases. 
It is, in fact, an editorial decision of the broadcast station to air 
or not to air the agency identification.
  The Senator's amendment, however, would begin the practice of 
allowing the Federal Government to make editorial decisions and 
dictating broadcast content of news reports.
  Alternatively, it would require that any use of material supplied by 
the Federal Government must be disclosed in a manner that I believe 
would have a chilling impact on the freedom of speech and on the 
freedom of press. Such mandate on the broadcast media may in fact be 
unconstitutional.
  If this amendment were adopted, it may have the unintended 
consequence of reducing the use of this important tool, thereby 
undermining the ability of the Federal Government to meet its 
obligation to inform the public of important information.
  I believe the impact would be felt in rural areas, especially as 
broadcasters in small and medium markets rely on video news releases 
more than their big-city colleagues.
  If we go back and look at the history, we see that video news 
releases have been used by Government agencies since the beginning of 
video. The USDA produced some of the first footage of the Wright 
brothers' early flight tests in the early 1919s, as well as the highly 
acclaimed Dust Bowl documentary, ``The Plow That Broke the Plains,'' 
1935.
  In the 1980s, to respond to a changing broadcast environment, USDA 
established a weekly satellite feed of material for news and farm 
broadcasters. This included ready-to-air feature stories, sometimes 
called video news releases. The information includes where there are 
signups for commodity or disaster programs; promoting producer 
participation in county committee elections; new farming practices or 
technologies; or important crop reports and surveys.
  From the Department of Health and Human Services, there has been a 
long list of video news releases such as the Surgeon General's 
Osteoporosis and Bone Health Report; educating the public health 
officials on how to recognize anthrax; CDC in post 9/11, educating the 
public on CDC's capabilities; healthy baby news releases, which I have 
been very interested in. The Health Resource Services Administration 
put out a video news release educating parents and parents-to-be on the 
health care of their newborns.
  There have been efforts to educate women of childbearing age about 
the absolute necessity of including 400 micrograms of the appropriate 
vitamins in their diets to prevent tooth defects.
  The CDC has educated public and health communities about the proper 
use of antibiotics and the potential problems of overuse of 
antibiotics.

  The IRS has produced VNRs on two topics: how to file electronically, 
and the earned income tax credit. The goal was to generate coverage of 
the e-filing to help Americans understand qualifications for claiming 
the EITC.
  These news releases were produced by an advertising agency, and 
pitched in the media outlets by our IRS media specialists who provided 
full disclosure to the media outlets if they were from the IRS.
  This amendment goes further, however, and says the entity using this 
information must include a clear notice that it was prepared or funded 
by a Federal agency. That is a requirement on not only broadcasters but 
on newspapers, which I think steps over the line.
  As the distinguished Senator from West Virginia pointed out, the FCC 
yesterday unanimously clarified the rules applying to broadcasters, 
saying they must disclose to the viewer the origin of video news 
releases, though the agency does not specify what form that disclosure 
must take.
  Commissioner Adelstein, a Democrat, said:

       We have a responsibility to tell broadcasters that they 
     have to let people know where the material is coming from. 
     Viewers would think it was a real news story when it might be 
     from government or a big corporation trying to influence how 
     they think. This would be put them in a better position to 
     decide for themselves what to make of it.

  The FCC has already acted in this area.
  I am very much concerned that the amendment proposed by the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia would go even further in 
attempting to dictate by congressional action what should be reported, 
not only in video or electronic news stories but in print media stories 
as well. That is objectionable. That would cause many problems for 
media of all types.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I rise in support of the Byrd amendment. This amendment 
is important. It is offered at an important time, and it is offered 
during a period when we have seen so many examples of fake news, or 
propaganda, to use another word.
  I don't think this is partisan. I think it would apply to a 
Republican or Democratic administration.
  The question is, Should the Federal Government be involved in 
propaganda? Should we be observant of fake news and do nothing about 
it?
  The Senator from West Virginia offers an amendment that is filled 
with common sense. Let me describe a fake news program. A report 
narrated by a woman who speaks in glowing terms about an 
administration's plan and concludes by saying: ``In Washington, this is 
Karen Ryan reporting.''
  The Department of Health and Human Services spent $44,000 in taxpayer 
dollars on this type of propaganda. Is this what we want to pass for 
news?
  I have talked often in the Senate on a subject very important to me, 
the concentration of broadcasting in this country. Fewer and fewer 
people owning more and more broadcast properties, controlling what 
people see, hear, and think by what is presented to them. As more and 
more companies are bought, they hollow out the newsrooms, get rid of 
the newsroom staff, and just have a shell left. Then they are 
interested in filling that shell with cheap media feeds.
  If you read the discussion about what has prompted these television 
stations to run these prepackaged fake news items, they are looking for 
fillers for a news script because they got rid of their news people. So 
this, now, passes as news when, in fact, it is fake news.
  In my judgment, it ought to be labeled exactly what it is. That is 
what the Senator is offering with respect to this amendment. This is 
not an amendment that is in any way radical. It is an amendment that is 
filled with common sense.
  A few minutes ago my colleague who talked about Public Broadcasting 
or National Public Radio was clever and funny--and good for him--but 
this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Winning debates that we 
are not having is hardly a blue ribbon activity in this Chamber. This 
debate is not about National Public Radio or anything of the sort. It 
is about the specific subject that my colleague from West Virginia 
brings to the Senate.
  The subject, incidentally, has more tentacles attached to it. We 
learned in January a syndicated columnist, Armstrong Williams, had been 
paid a quarter of a million dollars, actually $240,000, to promote the 
No Child Left Behind Program on his television show and to urge other 
African-American journalists to do the same. That contract was not 
disclosed to the public. It was taxpayers' dollars offered to a 
journalist, commentator, television personality, and we only learned 
about it because USA Today obtained the

[[Page S3637]]

document through a Freedom of Information request.
  That, incidentally, was part of a $1 million deal with the Ketchum 
public relations firm which was contracted to produce video news 
releases designed to appear like real news reports.
  So there is more to do on this issue than just the Byrd amendment. 
That is why I say this amendment is modest in itself. It is not, as 
some would suggest, a big deal. It is a modest amendment that addresses 
a problem in a very specific way. We really do have more to do dealing 
with some of the other tentacles--the hiring of public relations firms 
to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
  We found out in late January the Department of Health and Human 
Services paid $21,500 to another syndicated columnist to advocate a 
$300 million Presidential proposal encouraging marriage. That contract 
was not disclosed either.
  The list goes on. Fake news. We discovered a while back the White 
House had allowed a fake journalist, using a fake name, to get a daily 
clearance to come into the Presidential news conference and daily news 
briefings and to ask questions. Another part of fake news, I guess, a 
different tentacle and a different description.

  The Byrd amendment is simple on its face. The question is, Do we want 
fake news being produced with taxpayers' dollars with no disclosure at 
all; that it is, in fact, propaganda, not news?
  I support the Byrd amendment. I hope we will address other parts of 
this issue at some future time. This amendment is modest enough, and my 
hope is to engage a majority of the Senate to be supportive of it.
  While I have the floor, I might indicate a second time that I intend 
to offer an amendment that would cease or discontinue funding for the 
independent counsel who is still active, an independent counsel who was 
impaneled to investigate the payment of money to a mistress by a former 
Cabinet official, Mr. Cisneros. That independent counsel has spent now 
$21 million over 10 years. The particular Cabinet official admitted the 
indiscretion. He pled guilty in Federal court and he since left office 
and has since been pardoned by a President in 2001. Yet the independent 
counsel investigating this is still investigating it, still spending 
money.
  The most recent report showed this independent counsel spent $1.26 
million in Federal funds over the previous 6 months, which brings it to 
$21 million by an independent counsel's office that was launched nearly 
10 years ago to investigate a Cabinet official who left the Government 
very soon thereafter, who then pled guilty, who then was pardoned. In 
1995, the independent counsel was named. That was 10 years ago. In 
1999, the Cabinet official pled guilty. In 2001, 4 years ago, the 
Cabinet official was given a Presidential pardon. Yet we have an 
independent counsel's office that is still spending money.
  We ought to shut off that money. I will offer an amendment to do 
that, telling that independent counsel the money dries up on June 1. 
Finish your report and leave town--at least if your home is elsewhere--
but finish up the report and get off the public payroll after 10 years, 
4 years after the subject in question received a Presidential pardon, 6 
years after the subject in question pled guilty in court.
  Some things need addressing on an urgent basis. This one does. I 
understand it, too, will not be, perhaps, germane to this bill, but it 
is one that I hope every Senator would understand we ought to shut 
down.
  With that, I appreciate the amendment offered by Senator Byrd. I am 
pleased to come over in support of that amendment this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I notice that the distinguished Senator 
from New Jersey is on the floor. He is a cosponsor of this amendment. I 
assume he is here to talk on the amendment. I was going to try to bring 
the discussion to a close so we could vote on the amendment or vote in 
relation to the amendment, but I am happy to withhold because I do not 
want to cut off anyone who wants to talk on this subject.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am not sure I heard precisely what 
the manager was asking. I would help bring this to a close by giving my 
remarks very quickly. I appreciate the opportunity and thank the 
Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I salute my colleague and friend, the 
Senator from West Virginia. Senator Byrd is someone I greatly respect 
and admire. I have now been here a long time, even though, according to 
the rules, I am a freshman or just above a freshman, maybe a 
sophomore--I don't think so--but whenever Senator Robert C. Byrd 
speaks, it is always worth listening. And I find more often than not it 
is very much worth following the idea that the Senator from West 
Virginia puts forward.
  So I am pleased to support the Byrd amendment on propaganda. It is an 
issue that has disturbed me over time and something I have worked on. 
The Byrd amendment is an important step toward preventing the 
Government from delivering messages that are, if I can call them, kind 
of incognito. They are hidden from identifying as to what they really 
are. It is a step toward accomplishing a goal that is not clearly 
defined as being presented as a neutral observer. So we want to stop 
the spread of covert Government propaganda.

  By the way, I want it to be understood that this is not brand new. 
This is not something that has only happened since this administration 
took over; it happened in years past.
  I was asked the question at a hearing this morning: Well, then why 
didn't we talk about it in years past? Because there has been a 
proliferation of these things. As a consequence, I think for all 
parties but particularly for the American people, it is a good idea to 
use this opportunity to clear up the situation.
  As a result of a request I made with Senator Kennedy, the Government 
Accountability Office ruled that fake television news stories, produced 
by the administration, or produced, period, were illegal propaganda. 
The fake news accounts that were produced, known as ``prepackaged news 
stories,'' featured a report by Karen Ryan. The news story extolled the 
benefits of the new Medicare law and ended with a statement:

       This is Karen Ryan, reporting from Washington.

  But Karen Ryan is not a reporter. She is a public relations 
consultant working for a firm hired by the Government. So it is 
designed to fool people into believing that this news reporter had come 
on to something really great and wanted to add her view of the efficacy 
of the program.
  Now, that fake news story made its way onto local news shows on 40 
television stations across the country. Once again, people thought they 
were watching news. Americans watched Karen Ryan's report and thought 
they were hearing the real deal, but what they were watching was 
Government-produced propaganda.
  Think about that for a second. Our Government is sending out news 
reports to television stations across the country by satellite. Many of 
these news stations had no way of knowing that the reports were 
Government propaganda. News stations across the country have run 
Government news stories without realizing what they had. This is not 
aimed at the broadcasters; it is aimed at clarifying the

[[Page S3638]]

fact that we do not think the Government should be doing this. The 
stations that had this story and did not realize it was not fresh news 
included a station in Memphis, TN, WHBQ; KGTV in San Diego; WDRB in 
Louisville, KY. The list goes on and on about producers who were fooled 
by the fact that they were getting a propaganda piece and did not 
recognize that it was not news.
  If the news stations did not know the story was produced by the 
Government, how would the viewer ever know that? How would a family, 
let's say, in Covington, TN, watching WHBQ, know that Karen Ryan, the 
person in this case, is not a reporter? How would they know the news 
story they just watched was concocted to sell something, actually 
Government propaganda? The reality is, they would not know.
  We had a situation of similar character with a reporter named 
Armstrong Williams. Mr. Williams had a program, a news program, and he 
was paid a couple hundred thousand dollars, as I remember the number, 
to take this story and talk about it as news when, in fact, it was a 
paid-for story designed to deceive, very frankly. So we have seen it.
  The GAO said that this practice is not only wrong but illegal. The 
GAO said the fake news stories were illegal because they did not 
disclose the fact that the Government was behind it. GAO is right. We 
cannot allow covert propaganda to be done by our Government, continued 
by a practice that has been condemned by GAO.
  The Byrd amendment will give Federal agencies clear direction on this 
issue. It is a simple proposition: The Government needs to disclose its 
role. I do not think that is a lot to ask; otherwise, every ad that 
goes on the air has a disclosure on it. It identifies the product, uses 
a trademark, all kinds of things. But they make sure people know it is 
being done for a mission.
  For whatever reason, the administration has refused to go along with 
the GAO ruling. They have said so: Yes, we know it. But so what? The 
Office of Management and Budget recently sent out a memo saying that 
agencies could continue to produce fake news stories and hide the 
Government's role.
  That is their opinion, but I don't agree with it. Certainly, the Byrd 
amendment challenges that view. We need to be straight with the 
American people. When we are running ads, it has to say, ad run by the 
United States Government. We need to reject covert government 
propaganda. We can do it today with this amendment. The Byrd amendment 
will make the rules on this matter crystal clear. I hope we can get the 
support to do this, to say to the American people, when you see a piece 
of news, don't let it be biased by Government ads that pay for it. Why 
would the Government pay for it? Once again, when an ad is run, it is 
to sell someone a bill of goods. That doesn't mean it is a bad piece of 
goods, but it is designed to sell something. We ought not let that be 
the product of the United States Government when talking to the people 
across the country.
  I hope we will be able to pass this. I commend the Senator from West 
Virginia for offering it. I hope our colleagues will support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey for his comments and support. I thank him profusely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
pending Mikulski amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object--I, of course, will not 
object--it is my hope that we can continue to deal with the Byrd 
amendment and dispose of the Byrd amendment. Then the Senator can talk 
about the Mikulski amendment or any other amendment he wants to talk 
about.
  I do not have an objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 387

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk 
about the amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland. As a 
cosponsor of that amendment, I rise in support of this amendment to the 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  The Save Our Small and Seasonal Business Act, on which this amendment 
is based, is very important to my State of Vermont. This amendment will 
ensure the seasonal businesses in our country have the workers they 
need to support their company, our local economics, and to help the 
U.S. economy flourish. Action on this critical issue is long overdue.
  In March of last year, the United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services announced they had received enough petitions to meet the cap 
on the H-2B visas. As a result, they stopped accepting petitions for 
these temporary work visas halfway through the Federal fiscal year. 
This announcement was a shock to many businesses throughout the country 
that depend on foreign workers to fill their temporary and seasonal 
positions.
  Tourism is the largest sector of Vermont's economy and, as a result, 
many Vermont businesses hire seasonal staff during their summer, 
winter, or fall seasons. Last year, I heard from many Vermont 
businesses that were unable to employ foreign workers for their summer 
and fall seasons because the cap had been reached. Not only was this 
unexpected, but many of the individuals were people who had been 
returning to the same employer year after year. These employers lost 
essential staff and, in many cases, well-trained, experienced 
employees.
  While I am proud to say that Vermont businesses have risen to this 
challenge with hard work and creativity in the past, the need for these 
workers has not, and will not, diminish. Congress must act and must act 
now. The companies I have heard from are proud of the work their staffs 
have done under these circumstances. Yet they believe their businesses 
and their personnel will suffer if they are not able to employ seasonal 
foreign workers again this year. Many foresee a devastating effect on 
their businesses if they are not able to bring in foreign workers soon.

  I have also heard from Vermont businesses that they had to lay off or 
not hire American workers because they could not find enough employees 
to round out their crews. Without having the sufficient number of 
workers to complete projects, they could not hire or maintain their 
year-round staff. They also could not bid on projects and many had to 
scale back their operations. In these instances, the lack of seasonal 
workers had a detrimental effect on our economy and on the employment 
of American workers.
  As many may know, I strongly believe American workers must be given 
the opportunity to fill jobs and that this Nation's strength is in its 
own workforce. However, the companies that have contacted me did their 
utmost to find Americans for positions available. Efforts to find 
American workers included working closely with the State of Vermont's 
Employment and Training Office, increasing wages and benefits, and 
implementing aggressive, year-round recruiting.
  We are lucky in Vermont to count tourism among our chief industries, 
and we have our beautiful rural landscape to thank for the visitors who 
flock to our small State each year. While many Vermont businesses were 
able to survive last year, thanks to that old Yankee ingenuity, I am 
not optimistic about this year. It is imperative we immediately address 
this problem in order to prevent further harm to this Nation's small 
businesses and the economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment by Senator Mikulski.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 430

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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.

[[Page S3639]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from 
West Virginia offering the amendment and bringing this issue to the 
attention of the Senate and making the suggestion that is included in 
this amendment, which would ``prohibit the use of funds by any Federal 
agency to produce a prepackaged news story without including in such a 
story notification for the audience that the story was prepared or 
funded by a Federal agency.''
  That is what the amendment says the purpose is, and that looks 
totally OK to me--harmless, no reason we should not support it. Then if 
you read down in the body of the amendment itself as to what it 
actually would provide in law, 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.

  This creates a new obligation--not one that is enforced now by the 
FCC, not one that is embraced by Members of Congress or Senators when 
they send news releases out to news organizations about their 
activities or their views on a subject, it includes an obligation on 
anyone sending such a news story or statement or video release to 
communicate to the audience--the person looking at the television show 
or listening to the radio or reading the newspaper--that it is prepared 
by a Federal agency, or it uses funds to prepare it that are given to a 
Federal agency. It creates a new requirement, one that is almost 
impossible to meet.
  Think about it. When we send a news release to a newspaper back home, 
we don't send it to all of the readers or subscribers of that 
newspaper. We send it to the newspaper, the address, the name of the 
newspaper in the town where it does business. So that is the defect in 
the amendment. That is why Senator Bond, speaking as chairman of the 
subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the funding and the laws under 
the jurisdiction of the subcommittee that would be involved and 
affected by

[[Page S3640]]

this, spoke against the amendment. That is why the Senate should not 
adopt the amendment.
  We all agree you need to include a disclaimer. We have to do that and 
we do that. Federal agencies do that. We cannot make the news editor or 
the producer of the news show include the disclaimer in the broadcast 
though. Nor should we be held responsible personally or criticized if 
that news agency didn't disclaim or print or announce where they got 
the news story. That is an entirely different obligation and one that 
the FCC will enforce now and that we all support.
  So what I am suggesting is that these are great speeches. This is a 
good political issue--to accuse the administration of trying to fool 
the American people by creating the impression that some of their news 
stories that are produced for the news media are produced by them and 
not the radio station or the television station or the newspaper that 
published it or broadcasted it. That is nothing new. But it is not up 
to the agency or the person who writes the story to communicate it to 
the audience.
  That is the problem. We cannot support it. So it would be my 
intention to move to table the amendment because of that--not because 
it is not motivated by the right reasons or doesn't carry with it the 
sentiment that is appropriate. Of course, it does. But the wording of 
the amendment itself--not just the purpose of the amendment--is 
defective in that it imposes an obligation that should not be imposed 
on Federal agencies, the Government, or individual Members of Congress.
  I am hopeful that--and I am sure the Senator from West Virginia will, 
if he can--the Senator will modify his amendment so it can be accepted. 
But if that cannot be done, I am prepared to move to table the 
amendment. I will not do that and cut off the right of any other person 
to talk about the subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask my colleague, the 
chairman of the committee, my understanding is the pending amendment is 
the Byrd amendment. But I heard my colleague Senator Byrd indicate he 
was trying to see whether there was some language that could be changed 
so this amendment would be acceptable. I have an amendment I had 
previously announced I would like to offer. It is an amendment dealing 
with the independent counsel expenditure of $21 million. I twice before 
mentioned this.
  I ask the Senator from Mississippi whether it would be appropriate at 
this point to offer an amendment. My understanding is we would have to 
set aside the Byrd amendment to do so. I ask the chairman and also 
Senator Byrd whether that is possible at this moment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  Mr. BYRD. 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. DORGAN. I will be mercifully brief. This is not an amendment that 
will take a long time to explain, and I do not intend to delay the 
proceedings of the Senate at all.


                           Amendment No. 399

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, with that in mind and with the cooperation 
of the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the committee, and my 
colleague Senator Byrd, as well, I offer an amendment on behalf of 
myself and Senator Durbin has asked to be a cosponsor as well. I send 
the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 399.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To prohibit the continuation of the independent counsel 
   investigation of Henry Cisneros past June 1, 2005 and request an 
                     accounting of costs from GAO)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds appropriated or made 
     available in this Act or any other Act may be used to fund 
     the independent counsel investigation of Henry Cisneros after 
     June 1, 2005.
       (b) Not later than July 1, 2005, the Government 
     Accountability Office shall provide the Committee on 
     Appropriations of each House with a detailed accounting of 
     the costs associated with the independent counsel 
     investigation of Henry Cisneros.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this matter deals with something I was 
quite surprised to read about, frankly, in the newspaper, and I have 
since done some research about it. It was a rather lengthy newspaper 
article disclosing that an independent counsel who had been appointed 
10 years ago in 1995, a Mr. David Barrett, was still in business and 
was involved in an investigation that has now cost the American 
taxpayers $21 million.
  That was an investigation dealing with a Cabinet Secretary who was 
alleged to have lied, I believe, to the FBI, to authorities, about a 
payment he gave to a mistress. So an independent counsel was impaneled 
and began investigating that charge.
  That independent counsel has been working for some 10 years, in fact. 
But the Cabinet officer who was the subject of the investigation pled 
guilty in 1999. That was 6 years ago. That Cabinet officer was also 
subsequently pardoned in the year 2001.
  In the most recent 6-month report, the independent counsel who was 
appointed for investigating this transgression is still in business, 
and had spent $1.26 million in just that period. And the costs are 
trending upward, 10 years after he started, 6 years after the subject 
pled guilty, and 4 years after the subject was pardoned. It is 
unbelievable.
  I do not know anything about the case. I do not really know the 
Cabinet official in question. I guess I met him some years ago. But 
this is not about that official any longer. He has pled guilty, been 
pardoned, and here we are years later with an independent counsel's 
office still spending money.
  I quote Judge Stanley Sporkin, the presiding judge over Mr. Cisneros' 
trial:

       The problem with this case is that it took too long to 
     develop and much too long to bring to judgment day . . . [the 
     matter] should have been resolved a long time ago, perhaps 
     even years ago.

  That was a quote from 1999. It is now 2005. The independent counsel 
is still spending money.
  David Barrett, the independent counsel, said in 1999:

       We are just glad to have this over and done with. That was 
     following the plea agreement of Mr. Cisneros. Here it is 6 
     years later and the independent counsel is still in business.

  Mr. Barrett said in July 2001:

       I want to conclude this investigation as soon as possible.

  It is now 4 years later, with the counsel spending $1.26 million in 
the last 6 months.
  The three-judge panel that is providing oversight to the independent 
counsel said:

       Whether a cost-benefit analysis at this point would support 
     Mr. Barrett's effort is a question to which I have no answer.

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

       Mr. Barrett can go on forever. A great deal of time has 
     elapsed and a lot of money spent in pursuing charges that on 
     their face do not seem of overwhelming complexity.

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

[[Page S3641]]

1999, the individual pled guilty. In the year 2001, the individual was 
pardoned. And the independent counsel is still in business spending 
money. What on Earth is going on?
  A former Federal prosecutor following the plea agreement, Lawrence 
Barcella, said this:

       This is a classic example of why this independent counsel 
     statute was a problem. You give this person all the resources 
     to go after one person, and the first thing that is lost is 
     perspective.

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

       If this does not prove [the independent counsel's] 
     worthlessness as a governmental entity, I don't know what 
     does.

  I do not come here as a partisan, a member of a political party. I 
come here as someone outraged to wake up in the morning and read a 
report about an independent counsel impaneled 10 years ago to 
investigate a subject who pled guilty 6 years ago and was pardoned 4 
years ago, and the independent counsel is still spending the taxpayers' 
money, $1.26 million over the last 6 months.
  My amendment is painfully simple. I propose we stop the spending on 
June 1 and tell this independent counsel: Finish your report, finish 
up, move on, and give the taxpayers a break.
  That is what the amendment is. It is very simple. I hope it might be 
considered and supported by my colleagues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Amendment No. 430, as Modified

  Mr. BYRD. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 430, as modified:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Unless otherwise authorized by existing law, 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 within 
     the text or audio of the prepackaged news that the 
     prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that Federal 
     agency.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the 
amendment at this time?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  Mr. BYRD. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have no objection to the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been so modified. The 
question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inhofe
     Sarbanes
       
  The amendment (No. 430), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wishes to clarify for the record 
that Senator Murray did not sign the cloture motion on amendment No. 
387, and Senator Leahy did sign that motion.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 399 by 
Senator Dorgan. There are other amendments which are, however, the 
regular order with respect to that amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Dorgan amendment is the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, for the information of Senators, I have been asked and 
others have been asking the leadership about the intention of the 
Senate to proceed to votes on other amendments tonight. That is 
certainly up to the Senate. We are here open for business. We have an 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill pending before the Senate, 
and we need to move with dispatch to complete action on this bill to 
get the money to the Departments of Defense and State for accounts that 
have been depleted and that we need in the war on terror, that we need 
for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I hope we can proceed to 
further consideration of amendments that are pending. There are 
amendments pending. I hope Senators can cooperate with the managers and 
the leadership in moving this bill ahead.
  I thank all Senators. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask that the quorum call be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 390

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 390 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendments? Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Obama], for himself, Mr. 
     Graham, Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 390.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide meal and telephone benefits for members of the 
Armed Forces who are recuperating from injuries incurred on active duty 
       in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   RECUPERATING FROM INJURIES INCURRED IN 
                   OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM OR OPERATION ENDURING 
                   FREEDOM.

       (a) Prohibition on Charges for Meals.--
       (1) Prohibition.--A member of the Armed Forces entitled to 
     a basic allowance for subsistence under section 402 of title 
     37, United

[[Page S3642]]

     States Code, who is undergoing medical recuperation or 
     therapy, or is otherwise in the status of ``medical hold'', 
     in a military treatment facility for an injury, illness, or 
     disease incurred or aggravated while on active duty in the 
     Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring 
     Freedom shall not, during any month in which so entitled, be 
     required to pay any charge for meals provided such member by 
     the military treatment facility.
       (2) Effective date.--The limitation in paragraph (1) shall 
     take effect on January 1, 2005, and shall apply with respect 
     to meals provided members of the Armed Forces as described in 
     that paragraph on or after that date.
       (b) Telephone Benefits.--
       (1) Provision of access to telephone service.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall provide each member of the Armed 
     Forces who is undergoing in any month medical recuperation or 
     therapy, or is otherwise in the status of ``medical hold'', 
     in a military treatment facility for an injury, illness, or 
     disease incurred or aggravated while on active duty in the 
     Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring 
     Freedom access to telephone service at or through such 
     military treatment facility in an amount for such month 
     equivalent to the amount specified in paragraph (2).
       (2) Monthly amount of access.--The amount of access to 
     telephone service provided a member of the Armed Forces under 
     paragraph (1) in a month shall be the number of calling 
     minutes having a value equivalent to $40.
       (3) Eligibility at any time during month.--A member of the 
     Armed Forces who is eligible for the provision of telephone 
     service under this subsection at any time during a month 
     shall be provided access to such service during such month in 
     accordance with that paragraph, regardless of the date of the 
     month on which the member first becomes eligible for the 
     provision of telephone service under this subsection.
       (4) Use of existing resources.--In carrying out this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall maximize the use of existing 
     Department of Defense telecommunications programs and 
     capabilities, private organizations, or other private 
     entities offering free or reduced-cost telecommunications 
     services.
       (5) Commencement.--
       (A) In general.--This subsection shall take effect on the 
     first day of the first month beginning on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Expedited provision of access.--The Secretary shall 
     commence the provision of access to telephone service under 
     this subsection as soon as practicable after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (6) Termination.--The Secretary shall cease the provision 
     of access to telephone service under this subsection on the 
     date this is 60 days after the later of--
       (A) the date, as determined by the Secretary, on which 
     Operation Enduring Freedom terminates; or
       (B) the date, as so determined, on which Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom terminates.

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to the 
fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental which I am pleased to announce 
is being cosponsored by Senators Corzine, Bingaman, and Graham. This 
amendment would meet certain needs of our injured service members in 
recognition of the tremendous sacrifice they have made in defense of 
our country.
  The other day I had the opportunity to visit some of our wounded 
heroes at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I know many of you have made 
the same trip. I heard about their visits, but there is nothing that 
can fully prepare you for what you see when you take that first step 
into the physical therapy room.
  These are kids in there, our kids, the ones we watched grow up, the 
ones we hoped would live lives that were happy, healthy, and safe. 
These kids left their homes and families for a dangerous place halfway 
around the world. After years of being protected by their parents, 
these kids risk their lives to protect us. Now some of them have come 
home from that war with scars that may change their lives forever, 
scars that may never heal. Yet they sit there in the hospital so full 
of hope and still so proud of their country. They are the best that 
America has to offer, and they deserve our highest respect, and they 
deserve our help.
  Recently, I learned that some of our most severely wounded soldiers 
are being forced to pay for their own meals and their own phone calls 
while being treated in medical hospitals. Up until last year, there was 
a law on the books that prohibited soldiers from receiving both their 
basic subsistence allowance and free meals from the military. 
Basically, this law allowed the Government to charge our wounded heroes 
for food while they were recovering from their war injuries. 
Thankfully, this body acted to change this law in 2003 so that wounded 
soldiers would not have to pay for their meals. But we are dealing with 
a bureaucracy here and, as we know, nothing is ever simple in a 
bureaucracy. So now, because the Department of Defense does not 
consider getting physical rehabilitation or therapy services in a 
medical hospital as being hospitalized, there are wounded veterans who 
still do not qualify for the free meals other veterans receive. After 
90 days, even those classified as hospitalized on an outpatient status 
lose their free meals as well.
  Also, while our soldiers in the field qualify for free phone service, 
injured service men and women who may be hospitalized hundreds or 
thousands of miles from home do not receive this same benefit. For 
soldiers whose family members are not able to take off work and travel 
to a military hospital, hearing the familiar voice of mom or dad or 
husband or wife on the other side of the phone can make all the 
difference in the world. Yet right now our Government will not help pay 
for these calls, and it will not help pay for these meals.
  Now, think about the sacrifices these young people have made for 
their country, many of them literally sacrificing life and in some 
cases limb. Now, at $8.30 a meal, they could end up with a $250 bill 
from the Government that sent them to war, and they could get that bill 
every single month. This is wrong, and we have a moral obligation to 
fix it. The amendment I am offering today will do this.
  The amendment will expand the group of hospitalized soldiers who 
cannot be charged for their meals to include those service members 
undergoing medical recuperation, therapy, or otherwise on ``medical 
hold.'' The number of people affected by this amendment will be small. 
Only about 4,000 service members are estimated to fall under the 
category of non-hospitalized. The amendment is retroactive to January 
1, 2005, in an effort to provide those injured service members who may 
have already received bills for their meals with some relief from these 
costs.
  The amendment will also extend free phone service to those injured 
service members who are hospitalized or otherwise undergoing medical 
recuperation or therapy. I am very proud this amendment is supported by 
the American Legion, and I hope my colleagues will join them in that 
support. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment. It should be something that is very simple for us to do. 
These are our children and they risked their lives for us. When they 
come home with injuries, we should be expected to provide them the best 
possible service and the best possible support. This is a small price 
to pay for those who have sacrificed so much for their country.
  I want to mention and extend my thanks to the senior Senator from 
Alaska and my colleague from Mississippi for working with me on this 
issue. I am hoping that we can reach an agreement on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the explanation 
of his amendment. There is one thing, in looking at the amendment, that 
I am not sure of, and I am wondering if he could advise the Senate. 
Does the Senator have an estimate from anyone at the Department of 
Defense or in the Hospital Services Agency of the Department of Defense 
as to what the costs of the amendment would be during the balance of 
this fiscal year?
  Mr. OBAMA. Yes, I do. DOD currently charges soldiers $8.30 per day 
for meals at the nondiscounted rate. So if all the eligible soldiers 
ate all of their meals at military facilities through the end of this 
fiscal year, the amendment would cost about $10.2 million. Now, that is 
probably a high estimate because my expectation would be these wounded 
soldiers would not be eating all of their meals at the hospital. So it 
would probably end up being lower, but the upper threshold would be 
$10.2 million.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator. I think the Senator certainly hits 
upon a subject that we are very sensitive about at this time. We are 
following very closely the situation of the servicemen who are 
participating in the war against terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
elsewhere. We are proud of

[[Page S3643]]

them. We are sorry that any of them have to be in the hospital or have 
to have access to services that are provided under the terms of this 
amendment. I would be happy to take the suggestion that is embodied in 
this amendment to the conference committee and try to work out an 
acceptable provision to be included in the final conference report and 
bring it back to the Senate.
  So I recommend the Senate accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Mississippi, for 
that offer, and I believe all of us feel the same way. These are the 
soldiers that are most severely wounded. We want to take the very best 
care of them, and I very much appreciate the consideration of the 
Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 390) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator and thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have requests to make, on behalf of the 
managers of the bill, with respect to amendments that have been cleared 
on both sides of the aisle.


                           Amendment No. 352

  I now call up amendment No. 352, on behalf of Mr. Salazar, regarding 
the renaming of the death gratuity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Salazar, for himself and Mr. Allard, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 352.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To rename the death gratuity payable for deaths of members of 
 the Armed Forces as fallen hero compensation, and for other purposes)

       On page 162, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 1113. RENAMING OF DEATH GRATUITY PAYABLE FOR DEATHS OF 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AS FALLEN HERO 
                   COMPENSATION.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended as follows:
       (1) In section 1475(a), by striking ``have a death gratuity 
     paid'' and inserting ``have fallen hero compensation paid''.
       (2) In section 1476(a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a death gratuity'' and 
     inserting ``fallen hero compensation''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``A death gratuity'' and 
     inserting ``Fallen hero compensation''.
       (3) In section 1477(a), by striking ``A death gratuity'' 
     and inserting ``Fallen hero compensation''.
       (4) In section 1478(a), by striking ``The death gratuity'' 
     and inserting ``The amount of fallen hero compensation''.
       (5) In section 1479(1), by striking ``the death gratuity'' 
     and inserting ``fallen hero compensation''.
       (6) In section 1489--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``a gratuity'' in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1) and inserting ``fallen hero 
     compensation''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``or other 
     assistance'' after ``lesser death gratuity''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) Such subchapter is further 
     amended by striking ``Death gratuity:'' each place it appears 
     in the heading of sections 1475 through 1480 and 1489 and 
     inserting ``Fallen hero compensation:''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such 
     subchapter is amended by striking ``Death gratuity:'' in the 
     items relating to sections 1474 through 1480 and 1489 and 
     inserting ``Fallen hero compensation:''.
       (c) General References.--Any reference to a death gratuity 
     payable under subchapter II of chapter 75 of title 10, United 
     States Code, in any law, regulation, document, paper, or 
     other record of the United States shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to fallen hero compensation payable under such 
     subchapter, as amended by this section.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 352) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 438

  Mr. COCHRAN. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Mr. Specter 
that is technical in nature and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Specter, proposes an amendment numbered 438.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To make a technical correction to cite the proper section 
    intended to repeal the Department of Labor's transfer authority)

       On page 220, line 12, strike ``Section 101'' and insert 
     ``Section 102'' in lieu thereof.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 438) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 354

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 354 on behalf of 
Mr. Graham regarding functions of the general counsel and judge 
advocate general of the Air Force.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Graham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 354.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the implementation of certain orders and guidance 
 on the functions and duties of the General Counsel and Judge Advocate 
                       General of the Air Force)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


    prohibition on implementation of certain orders and guidance on 
 functions and duties of general counsel and judge advocate general of 
                             the air force

       Sec. 1122. No funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act, or any other Act, may be obligated or 
     expended to implement or enforce either of the following:
       (1) The order of the Secretary of the Air Force dated May 
     15, 2003, and entitled ``Functions and Duties of the General 
     Counsel and the Judge Advocate General''.
       (2) Any internal operating instruction or memorandum issued 
     by the General Counsel of the Air Force in reliance upon the 
     order referred to in paragraph (1).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 354) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 393

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 393, on 
behalf of Mr. Kennedy, regarding the Veterans Health Administration 
facilities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 393.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3644]]

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To clarify the limitation on the implementation of mission 
    changes for specified Veterans Health Administration Facilities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMPLEMENTATION OF MISSION CHANGES AT SPECIFIC 
                   VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 414 of the Veterans Health 
     Programs Improvement Act of 2004, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(h) Definition.--In this section, the term `medical 
     center' includes any outpatient clinic.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in the Veterans Health 
     Programs Improvement Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-422).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 393) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 394

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 394, on 
behalf of Mr. Warner, regarding a reporting requirement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Warner, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 394.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require a report on the re-use and redevelopment of 
military installations closed or realigned as part of the 2005 round of 
                     base closure and realignment)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


 Re-use and redevelopment of closed or realigned military installations

       Sec. 1122 (a) In order to assist communities with 
     preparations for the results of the 2005 round of defense 
     base closure and realignment, and consistent with assistance 
     provided to communities by the Department of Defense in 
     previous rounds of base closure and realignment, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall, not later than July 15, 2005, 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report on 
     the processes and policies of the Federal Government for 
     disposal of property at military installations proposed to be 
     closed or realigned as part of the 2005 round of base closure 
     and realignment, and the assistance available to affected 
     local communities for re-use and redevelopment decisions.
       (b) The report under subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) a description of the processes of the Federal 
     Government for disposal of property at military installations 
     proposed to be closed or realigned;
       (2) a description of Federal Government policies for 
     providing re-use and redevelopment assistance;
       (3) a catalogue of community assistance programs that are 
     provided by the Federal Government related to the re-use and 
     redevelopment of closed or realigned military installations;
       (4) a description of the services, policies, and resources 
     of the Department of Defense that are available to assist 
     communities affected by the closing or realignment of 
     military installations as a result of the 2005 round of base 
     closure and realignment;
       (5) guidance to local communities on the establishment of 
     local redevelopment authorities and the implementation of a 
     base redevelopment plan; and
       (6) a description of the policies and responsibilities of 
     the Department of Defense related to environmental clean-up 
     and restoration of property disposed by the Federal 
     Government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 394) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Is there a pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are amendments pending.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set aside 
and I be allowed to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 445

  Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 445.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To achieve an acceleration and expansion of efforts to 
  reconstruct and rehabilitate Iraq and to reduce the future risks to 
United States Armed Forces personnel and future costs to United States 
taxpayers, by ensuring that the people of Iraq and other nations to do 
              their fair share to secure and rebuild Iraq)

       On page 183, after line 23, add the following new section:


            INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS FOR RECONSTRUCTION IN IRAQ

       Sec. 2105. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States Armed Forces have borne the largest 
     share of the burden for securing and stabilizing Iraq. Since 
     the war's start, more than 500,000 United States military 
     personnel have served in Iraq and, as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, more than 130,000 such personnel are 
     stationed in Iraq. Though the Department of Defense has kept 
     statistics related to international troop contributions 
     classified, it is estimated that all of the coalition 
     partners combined have maintained a total force level in Iraq 
     of only 25,000 troops since early 2003.
       (2) United States taxpayers have borne the vast majority of 
     the financial costs of securing and reconstructing Iraq. 
     Prior to the date of the enactment of this Act, the United 
     States appropriated more than $175,000,000,000 for military 
     and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and, including the funds 
     appropriated in this Act, the amount appropriated for such 
     purposes increases to a total of more than $250,000,000,000.
       (3) Of such total, Congress appropriated $2,475,000,000 in 
     the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 
     (Public Law 108-11; 117 Stat. 559) (referred to in this 
     section as ``Public Law 108-11'') and $18,439,000,000 in the 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for 
     the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 
     108-106; 117 Stat. 1209) (referred to in this section as 
     ``Public Law 108-106'') under the heading ``Iraq relief and 
     reconstruction fund'' for humanitarian assistance and to 
     carry out reconstruction and rehabilitation in Iraq.
       (4) The Sixth Quarterly Report required by section 2207 of 
     Public Law 108-106 (22 U.S.C. 2151 note), submitted by the 
     Secretary of State in April 2005, stated that $12,038,000,000 
     of the $18,439,000,000 appropriated by Public Law 108-106 
     under the heading ``Iraq relief and reconstruction fund'' had 
     been obligated and that only $4,209,000,000, less than 25 
     percent of the total amount appropriated, had actually been 
     spent.
       (5) According to such report, the international community 
     pledged more than $13,500,000,000 in foreign assistance to 
     Iraq in the form of grants, loans, credits, and other 
     assistance. While the report did not specify how much of the 
     assistance is intended to be provided as loans, it is 
     estimated that loans constitute as much as 80 percent of 
     contributions pledged by other nations. The report further 
     notes that, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     international community has contributed only $2,700,000,000 
     out of the total pledged amount, falling far short of its 
     commitments.
       (6) Iraq has the second largest endowment of oil in the 
     world and experts believe Iraq has the capacity to generate 
     $30,000,000,000 to $40,000,000,000 per year in revenues from 
     its oil industry. Prior to the launch of United States 
     operations in Iraq, members of the Administration stated that 
     profits from Iraq's oil industry would provide a substantial 
     portion of the funds needed for the reconstruction and relief 
     of Iraq and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483 
     (2003) permitted the coalition to use oil reserves to finance 
     long-term reconstruction projects in Iraq.
       (7) Securing and rebuilding Iraq benefits the people of 
     Iraq, the United States, and the world and all nations should 
     do their fair share to achieve that outcome.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not more 
     than 50 percent of the previously appropriated Iraqi 
     reconstruction funds that have not been obligated or expended 
     prior to the date of the enactment of this Act may be 
     obligated or expended, as the case may be, for Iraq 
     reconstruction programs unless--

[[Page S3645]]

       (1) the President certifies to Congress that all countries 
     that pledged financial assistance at the Madrid International 
     Conference on Reconstruction in Iraq or in other fora since 
     March 2003, for the relief and reconstruction of Iraq, 
     including grant aid, credits, and in-kind contributions, have 
     fulfilled their commitments; or
       (2) the President--
       (A) certifies to Congress that the President or his 
     representatives have made credible and good faith efforts to 
     persuade other countries that made pledges of financial 
     assistance at the Madrid International Conference on 
     Reconstruction in Iraq or in other fora to fulfill their 
     commitments;
       (B) determines that, notwithstanding the efforts by United 
     States troops and taxpayers on behalf of the people of Iraq 
     and the failure of other countries to fulfill their 
     commitments, revenues generated from the sale of Iraqi oil or 
     other sources of revenue under the control of the Government 
     of Iraq may not be used to reimburse the Government of the 
     United States for the obligation and expenditure of a 
     significant portion of the remaining previously appropriated 
     Iraqi reconstruction funds;
       (C) determines that, notwithstanding the failure of other 
     countries to fulfill their commitments as described in 
     subparagraph (A) and that revenues generated from the sale of 
     Iraqi oil or other sources of revenue under the control of 
     the government of Iraq shall not be used to reimburse the 
     United States government as described in subparagraph (B), 
     the obligation and expenditure of remaining previously 
     appropriated Iraqi reconstruction funds is in the national 
     security interests of the United States; and
       (D) submits to Congress a written notification of the 
     determinations made under this paragraph, including a 
     detailed justification for such determinations, and a 
     description of the actions undertaken by the President or 
     other official of the United States to convince other 
     countries to fulfill their commitments described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       (c) This section may not be superseded, modified, or 
     repealed except pursuant to a provision of law that makes 
     specific reference to this section.
       (d) In this section:
       (1) The term ``previously appropriated Iraqi reconstruction 
     funds'' means the aggregate amount appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in chapter 2 of title II of Public Law 108-106 
     under the heading ``Iraq relief and reconstruction fund'' or 
     under title I of Public Law 108-11 under the heading ``Iraq 
     relief and reconstruction fund''.
       (2)(A) The term ``Iraq reconstruction programs'' means 
     programs to address the infrastructure needs of Iraq, 
     including infrastructure relating to electricity, oil 
     production, public works, water resources, transportation and 
     telecommunications, housing and construction, health care, 
     and private sector development.
       (B) The term does not include programs to fund military 
     activities (including the establishment of national security 
     forces or the Commanders' Emergency Response Programs), 
     public safety (including border enforcement, police, fire, 
     and customs), and justice and civil society development.


                           Amendment No. 395

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment 395. There 
are many Members on both sides of the aisle with strong objections to 
the REAL ID Act. Those of us who value our Nation's historic commitment 
to asylum do not want to see severe restrictions placed on the ability 
of asylum seekers to obtain refuge here. Those of us who value states 
rights side with the National Governors Association, the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, and the Council of State Governments 
in opposing the imposition of unworkable Federal mandates on State 
drivers license policies. Those of us who value the environment and the 
rule of law object to requiring the DHS Secretary to waive all laws, 
environmental or otherwise, that may get in the way of the construction 
of border fences, and forbidding judicial review of the Secretary's 
actions.
  To include the REAL ID Act in the conference report for this 
supplemental would also deprive the Judiciary Committee and the Senate 
as a whole of the opportunity to consider and review these wide-ranging 
provisions.
  The majority leader has indicated in recent days that the Senate will 
be considering immigration reform this year. The provisions in the REAL 
ID Act should be considered at that time and in conjunction with a 
broader debate about immigration. They should not be forced upon the 
Senate by the leadership of the other body.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution, which I am 
proud to cosponsor with Senators Feinstein, Brownback, Alexander, and 
many others.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________