(a) Prohibition.--No part of any funds authorized to be appropriated in this or any other Act shall be used by the Department of Defense for propaganda purposes within the United States not otherwise specifically authorized by law.

(b) Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense and the Comptroller General of the United States shall each conduct a study of, and submit to the Congress a report on, the extent to which the Department of Defense

(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``propaganda'' means any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of the people of the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, first I want to thank the distinguished Chair of the committee, Mr. Skelton, as well as my cosponsors on this amendment, Congresswoman DeLauro and Congressman DeFazio.

Madam Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 5658 addresses an issue of utmost importance to our Constitution and to the integrity of our government.

And it will help restore the trust of the American people in their government.

In a free and democratic society, our government should never use the public airwaves to propagandize our citizens.

Recent media reports have alleged an organized effort by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Department of Defense officials to manipulate network news military analysts to promote administration spin on the war in Iraq, even though many of those analysts knew the information not to be accurate.

Internal Pentagon documents obtained by the New York Times refer to these military analysts as message force multipliers, surrogates who can be counted on to deliver administration themes and messages to millions of Americans in the form of their own opinions.

In fact, one analyst apparently referred to the efforts by the Pentagon as brainwashing. A report conducted by media watchdog Media Matters showed that from January 2002 these military analysts, many of whom have ties to the defense industry, appeared on network and cable news stations nearly 4,500 times. That's right, 4,500 instances. Imagine the millions of people who heard those impressions 4,500 times.

The American people were spun by Bush administration message multipliers. They were fed administration talking points believing they were getting independent military analysis.

Days after the news story appeared, the Pentagon suspended the program. The news outlets who hosted the programs and analysts have been remarkably silent. The Department of Defense Inspector General has already begun an internal review of the program, but given the possibility that the public, as well as decision-makers in this Congress, were misled about the war in Iraq, both in the run-up to the war and afterwards, I believe it is absolutely critical that a public investigation happen that is transparent to this body, as well as to the American people.

Congress cannot allow an administration to manipulate the public with false propaganda on matters of war and our national security.

My amendment will ensure that no money authorized in this act will be used for any domestic propaganda program within the United States aimed at U.S. citizens. It will require a report to Congress by both the Defense Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office on whether previous restrictions on propaganda have been violated and laws broken.

It's finally time for the American people to know the truth. If we allow our government to lie to the American people, we lose the democracy and liberty on which our country was founded, and we risk becoming what generations of brave Americans have fought so hard to defeat.

Let us today on this floor in this Congress say never again will we allow this to happen in our republic.

I urge passage of this amendment, and today, we will say with one voice that the American people will not tolerate domestic propaganda. We will find the truth. We will correct any abuses of power.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) for 5 minutes.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. What is propaganda? Of course, Americans engage in propaganda. It is a vital part of the mission of the United States to promote democracy and protect our country from harm. The United States spreads propaganda every day in spreading freedom and democracy across the world.

The military uses propaganda to recruit soldiers. TV commercials, air shows and other military events all use what is considered to be propaganda to bring out the patriotic spirit of the American youth and people. Slogans such as ``Be all you can be in the Army'' and ``The Few, the Proud, the Marines'' are all propaganda directed at the American people, and there is no deception or malice in their intent.

During war, propaganda can save American lives. It already has in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn't we rather shoot our enemy or talk him out of fighting? For Americans fighting overseas, it could be described as persuading our enemies to lay down their arms rather than to fight us.

It is better to defeat our enemies with words than with guns. However, we know that commanders have already been hesitant in many cases to use propaganda during this war because they don't want to be accused of propagandizing American contractors overseas. The misconception of what kinds of propaganda are allowed has already caused harm to our soldiers overseas.

This amendment raises significant concerns about our ability to defeat terrorists overseas and protect American lives. This amendment would prohibit funding for propaganda, which is defined as ``any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of the people of the United States.''

This definition raises serious questions when you apply it in this sense:

Could we produce the propaganda within the United States and use it overseas? Would this amendment restrict U.S. military operations, including propaganda aimed at our enemies that a U.S. contractor working overseas may see?

Would this restrict certain types of military recruitment within the United States?

What about propaganda that is aimed for overseas consumption, that because of the Internet, returns to the United States and influences U.S. citizens; would that violate the prohibition?

Is there any way that this could interfere with the military releasing information to the media in the United States?

Under this amendment, would providing facts and data on successes overseas to the American public be defined as propaganda?

What if the information went to Members of Congress and they were to share it; is that a violation?

Before we vote to tie the hands of our military, we should make absolutely sure that the Hodes-DeFazio-DeLauro amendment will not constrain recruitment or warfighting efforts by not allowing the types of propaganda that we need.

I would hope that as this bill moves to the conference that we can work to ensure that the language is not so broad that the military cannot do its job.

I recommend that people vote ``no'' on this amendment because I think it would be disastrous for our Nation because it is an overly broad amendment and would hamstring and shackle our military and our government.

Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, perhaps the gentleman, my colleague, does not understand that this amendment prohibits lying. ``Be all you can be'' is persuasion. A concerted program of government-directed lies is propaganda.

The amendment would simply codify language outlawing propaganda within

Propaganda is narrowly defined as communications designed to influence the people of the United States, and it is limited to domestic programs within the United States aimed at U.S. citizens.

With that, Madam Chairman, I yield to my distinguished cosponsor Mr. DeFazio for 2 minutes.

Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman is extraordinarily confused. Domestic propaganda? Propaganda to convince the elected officials of the people of the United States or the voters of the United States that some misbegotten objective will be good for the country? That's what you're talking about.

We're not talking about using intelligence or using our own auspices overseas, the Voice of America, whatever, to spread the voice of freedom and democracy around the world. But we are talking about deceiving the United States Congress and the voters of the United States of America in violation of the law, a law that was passed in reaction to the Soviet empire.

You are advocating the position of the Soviet Union in the 1950s, propaganda to deceive your own people. That is unbelievable to me on this floor.

Since the 1950s, since the height of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, we have prohibited propaganda directed at the people of the United States using taxpayer dollars by the Pentagon.

What happened here was a violation of that law, and that anybody would stand here on this floor and say that that law, which we have had in place for more than 50 years, should be repealed or undermined by one narrow-mined administration or Vice President Cheney or anybody else who wants to manipulate intelligence, the Congress and the American people into a war that should not have been initiated is unbelievable at this point in time.

An informed, free and fair press is critical to our system of government to have informed decision-makers here. Maybe you don't want to hear the truth, but I do, and to have informed voters who are voting based on the truth and choosing their elected representatives based on decisions that they fully understand and that they have been fully informed on and not propagandized.

It's extraordinary to me in the 21st century anybody would advocate the use of propaganda against the voters and the people of the United States.

Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on this side?

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Hampshire controls 3 1/2 minutes.

Mr. HODES. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. How much time do we have?

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California controls 6 remaining minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. I would yield myself such time as I might consume.

Madam Chairman and my colleagues, we have general officers, flag officers who go over to Iraq, Afghanistan just as they have gone to every war theater we've fought in. They talk to their colleagues. Their colleagues give them the facts as they see the facts. They come back. They repeat those facts, the ones that they concur in, and they draw conclusions.

Now, they do that on dozens and dozens of talk shows and other media outlets throughout the United States. Some of them are for the operation and some of them are against the operation.

The idea, and this sounds like something we might want to adopt for our campaigns because I've found myself falling prey to this now and again, thinking what my opponent said was propaganda, what I said was the absolute truth. But how about the General McCaffreys who come back, having talked to their friends in theater, and they come back and give their set of facts and they say, therefore, we don't think things are going well, as opposed to the general who goes over and talks to friends in the theater, some of them the very same people, and they come back and say our conclusion is that things are going well.

The idea that we take this great resource, and I understand this is directed at general officers who go over to the theater, come back, appear in the American media, and give their take on where they think this war is going. I think that's a great asset for this country, and I say that, even though I've appeared many times opposite general officers and flag officers who have the opposite opinion from mine. But it's a great resource to have people that have that background and are able to look at the situation and come back and give their opinion freely.

The idea that the people who agree with the operation over there are giving propaganda, but the generals who have come back and said that we think there is a problem with this operation, and there are quite a few of them, that somehow their point is right on and they are precisely accurate and they are serving the public, that's nonsense.

You've got to let your general officers go over, make an evaluation, come back, give that evaluation, and we get to cross-examine them in committee, as we often do. We'll have people on both sides who have seen the same wars and the same operations and come to different conclusions.

The idea that we are going to label the people we don't agree with propagandists and the ones that agree with us are philosophers and statesmen is kind of a zany idea.

Let's let all of our general officers, let's look at them as a great resource, whether they agree with us or not. I've always said that, even about the folks that come back and have a totally opposite view from mine. I've always said this is a great resource to have retired military people with a long background, who go over, have these insights, make an evaluation and come back and give us that evaluation.

Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, we've had it on both sides on the Afghanistan and the Iraq operations. We've seen guys like General Zinni come back and give a viewpoint totally opposite the administration. Yet I listen to that gentleman. I greatly respect him. I think he's got a lot of wisdom. I disagree with him in some cases.

But the idea that we call the people who disagree with us propagandists and the other ones great seers and statesmen and philosophers doesn't make any sense.