Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 44 (Thursday, April 14, 2005)

[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:

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.

____________________