Relating to the American Forces Network.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1042, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1042) to authorize appropriations for calendar
year 2006 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Nelson (FL) amendment No. 2424, to repeal the requirement
for the reduction of certain Survivor Benefit Plan annuities
by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation and to
modify the effective date for paid-up coverage under the
Survivor Benefit Plan.
Reed (for Levin/Reed) amendment No. 2427, to make
available, with an offset, an additional $50,000,000 for
Operation and Maintenance for Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Levin amendment No. 2430, to establish a national
commission on policies and practices on the treatment of
detainees since September 11, 2001.
Inhofe amendment No. 2432, relating to the partnership
security capacity of foreign military and security forces and
security and stabilization assistance.
Chambliss amendment No. 2433, to reduce the eligibility age
for receipt of non-regular military service retired pay for
members of the Ready Reserve in active federal status or on
active duty for significant periods.
Snowe amendment No. 2436, to require the Secretary of
Defense, subject to a national security exception, to offer
to transfer to local redevelopment authorities for no
consideration real property and personal property located at
military installations that are closed or realigned as part
of the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.
Harkin/Dorgan amendment No. 2438, relating to the American
Forces Network.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for advising
that the bill is now up and the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts will continue his framework remarks on behalf of Senator
Levin, whatever time the Senator desires.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for
his typical courtesies and consideration.

amendment no. 2430

Mr. President, we have created legal and literal black holes where
individuals have been placed without hope of receiving due process or
fair and humane treatment, and that is nothing short of a travesty.

[[Page S12473]]

The warnings are all there.
The military's judge advocate generals--people who have dedicated
their lives to the defense of the country--warned that undoing the
rules against abuse would undermine protections for our troops.
The FBI warned the abuses at Guantanamo may violate longstanding
American practices and policies.
The International Red Cross warned that our actions violate and
undermine international agreements that serve to protect our own troops
when they are captured.
But the Bush White House still is doing everything it can to avoid
accountability. Only yesterday, President Bush said that the United
States does not torture. Yet his own Vice President is lobbying
Congress to allow the CIA to use these abusive techniques.
There is little doubt that many of those detained are cold-blooded
killers intent on harming Americans. They should be charged for their
crimes and locked away. But we do not win the war on terror by stooping
to their level. We do not win by desecrating the very ideals that our
soldiers are fighting for. We win by setting an example, by doing unto
others as we would have them do unto us.
We know now that the prisoner abuse scandal is not merely the
responsibility of a few bad apples as the administration initially
claimed. We cannot simply blame a few low-ranking soldiers without
looking at the role of William Haynes, David Addington, Jay Bybee, John
Yoo, Timothy Flanigan, Alberto Gonzalez, and the Vice President in
crafting these policies that led to these abuses.
Mr. President, there have been 11 investigations into the treatment
of detainees, 11, but not one has fully examined the extent to which
officials at the top levels of the administration are responsible for
these abuses, and not one has looked beyond the Pentagon to the CIA,
the Justice Department, and the White House itself--not the Schlesinger
report, not the 10 military investigations that have taken place. We
can no longer let the White House off the hook.
By refusing to act like the truth is important, the administration is
only making the crisis worse, further embarrassing the Nation in the
eyes of the world, and casting greater doubt on its commitment to the
rule of law. We will not be able to move past the scandal as a nation
until there is a full independent investigation of all that has gone
wrong in our detention and interrogation policy and all the persons
found responsible for these policies are held accountable. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I thank again the chairman of the committee for his indulgence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to reply to my distinguished
colleague from Massachusetts. It is a very strong belief within the
Senate that simply this is not the time nor is there the need to
establish another 9/11 type commission. First, it would duplicate the
thorough investigation into the matter that has already taken place by
a number of committees of the Senate. And as stated by my distinguished
ranking member yesterday, he acknowledged that our committee has had a
very major role in the matters and has conducted a number of hearings.
The Department of Defense on its own initiative has conducted 12
probes of detainee operations in the last 18 months. I wish to draw the
attention of the Senate to one of those probes because it was conducted
by individuals who in my judgment--and I say this with no restriction
whatsoever--have just about as high a credibility that I know of any
public or former public servant; that is, James Schlesinger, former
Secretary of Defense; Harold Brown, former Secretary of Defense;
General Hoerner, four star general of the U.S. Air Force who conducted
the air operations during the first gulf war, a man whom I have known
very well; and our distinguished and much beloved late Member of the
Congress of the United States, Tillie Fowler. I would like to, for the
benefit of my colleagues, quote directly from their report. On page 5,
they find as follows:

There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by
senior officials or military authorities.

On page 66:

Despite the number of visits and intensity of interest in
actionable intelligence, however, the panel found no undue
pressure exerted by senior officials.

Mr. President, the McCain amendment, which has been adopted now twice
by this body, is the subject of a conference now with the
appropriations conferees. It is also on our bill, the first amendment
accepted. This was a bipartisan call to the best instincts of our
American character. I call on the Senate to use that powerful statement
of American values, not another commission, as our instrument of
change.
Mr. President, I would like to ask at this time the time remaining on
the Levin amendment----
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator respond to a question?
Mr. WARNER. Yes, I would be happy to do so.
Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, I thank the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee for pursuing this issue, and I am grateful for his
initiatives and those of Senator Levin.
We had the opportunity in the Judiciary Committee to also pursue this
issue during the nomination hearings of the Attorney General, Mr.
Gonzalez, who had been the White House Counsel when the initial torture
memorandum was prepared. There was no question that someone in the
Central Intelligence Agency spoke to Mr. Gonzalez and he asked the
Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department for advice about how
to define the parameters of torture--of torture. And they received back
a very detailed note from the Office of Legal Counsel. In that
particular memorandum, known as the Bybee memorandum, was the legal
guidance for the DOD. It effectively indicated that using any kinds of
techniques on any individuals were permitted, as long as the intention
was to get information and not to torture.
Mr. Gonzalez was asked extensively about that memo. We asked about
the author of that memo. And we then received--during the hearing--a
revision of that torture memo by the Defense Department. For 2 years,
the Bybee memo had been out there. That memorandum effectively absolved
any members of the armed services that were involved in torture because
they were doing the work of the Commander in Chief. Under that
particular memorandum, if you were working under the Commander in
Chief, you were effectively protected against any kind of prosecution
in the future.
That memorandum was withdrawn by the Justice Department and the
Department of Defense. But it was in effect for 2 years. We don't know
what the background was. We never found out in the Judiciary Committee
who in the Central Intelligence Agency asked for that memorandum. We
never found out what the contacts were between the agency and the
Office of Legal Counsel. We never found that out. We never have found
out whether it was repudiated by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Those questions are still unanswered, I say to the Senator from
Virginia. This enormous collection of studies that was done primarily
for the Armed Services Committee is virtually free of any discussion,
knowledge, or accountability of the Bybee memorandum, which is the
basis for the policy of torture within the Defense Department. That is
just one illustration of what took place. The American people are
permitted, I think, to understand who was making judgments and
decisions so that this memorandum was put in place, which basically
permitted torture to take place. We are talking about waterboarding,
and we are talking about being the target of military dogs. That was
all out there.
If the Senator can give me the authority for that kind of activity,
for that kind of guidance, we would be much more interested in
listening to the argument that we have had all of these studies, we
know everything that needs to be known, when I don't believe that is
the case.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will answer and charge my time to my
side. The time of the Senator from Massachusetts will be charged to the
Levin amendment on his side. That is my understanding; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

[[Page S12474]]

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I should like to reply. If I can get
clarification, I am not sure I understood one word that I think is
important. Did the Senator mean ``absolved'' or ``absorbed''?
Mr. KENNEDY. Absolved. This is the Bybee memorandum that was the
basis for much of the torture activity that took place. A substantial
part of it was included in the military working document which was
released to the members of the military in all parts of the world.
I haven't had a chance to mention this particular item, and there are
many different items in the whole torture issue, but if the Senator
wanted to respond later on, I would certainly welcome it. One of the
most troublesome aspects of the whole issue on torture is that we still
have no way of knowing who put this in, who guided this, who got in
touch with the Office of Legal Counsel, what were those phone calls,
who was asking for this, and why it was put into effect for 2 years.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, do I understand this document is in the
archives of the Judiciary Committee; is that correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, it is called the Bybee memorandum.
Mr. WARNER. Is it a matter that is subject to classification?
Mr. KENNEDY. No, it is in the record of the consideration of Mr.
Gonzales for Attorney General.
Mr. WARNER. So, Mr. President, the document speaks for itself?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. I simply say, I don't have firsthand knowledge of all of
the important oversight that was conducted by the Judiciary Committee.
The Senator does raise fundamental questions about this policy, but I
will only say, as recently as in the past few days, our President has
reassured our Nation that we do not tolerate or permit torture. I would
have to believe that is a consistency of the policy of the
administration. Not having examined this document, I would hope there
would be a continuity of that throughout the administration.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know time is running short, but the
point is, during this period of time, those same assurances were given.
And what was being done at that particular time was also described as
not meeting the criteria of torture. That was the troublesome aspect.
Although when asked during the course of the hearing about the
waterboarding and assault by dogs and other activities, I think the
response of the military officials who were asked about it was that
could fall within the definition of torture.

Given the history of how the word ``torture'' has been used and
looking at the Bybee memorandum which was the guidance for DOD, I think
there are some very legitimate questions which we are very hopeful that
an independent commission can resolve.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I hope my colleague will concur that the
McCain amendment, which has been adopted by this Chamber on two
occasions, would be dispositive of any confliction as to the
definitions as to the future; would I not be correct on that
assumption?
Mr. KENNEDY. Certainly it would, as far as I am concerned. I think
with this commission we are trying to avoid these circumstances in the
future, given the facts we have seen in the past.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague and distinguished
member of the Armed Services Committee, to avoid it in the future, that
is precisely the objective of the McCain amendment, to prevent any
recurrence. I am not suggesting I corroborate that there have been
deviations; I simply say that is a landmark piece of legislation with
regard to the future. And it would be, as I said in my remarks a few
minutes ago, the guidepost for the future to resolve this issue.
Our military has had a great history of correcting through its
lessons learned the procedures for the future. The Department of
Defense has already implemented substantial reforms in response to its
interactions with Congress on these investigations. The areas of
concern involving the intelligence community, ghost detainees, and
renditions are more appropriately addressed, of course, in the Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. President, I simply ask that all Senators be informed as to the
time remaining on the Levin amendment on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes in opposition and 3
minutes under Senator Levin's control.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I indicate to my colleagues that I would
be prepared to, at a future time, to yield back our time so we can move
to a vote on the Levin amendment as early as possible. So there is 3
minutes remaining, as I understand, under the control of the Senator
from Michigan?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of
Senator Inhofe to modify his proposed second-degree amendment. It is at
the desk and being filed in relation to Senator Harkin's amendment.
This is a technical change.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Consent is not required. The Senator's
amendment is not pending.
Mr. WARNER. I realize that, but can we at this time substitute a
revised document for the one that is being held at the desk? The
Parliamentarian brought it to the attention of Senator Inhofe, and it
is my understanding he followed the guidance of the Parliamentarian on
this technical modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The changes will be made.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentarian and
other staff who facilitated this.
Mr. President, we are anxious to continue to work on this bill. I
wonder if the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island can indicate what
hopefully will occur this afternoon from his side of the aisle? One of
his distinguished staff members handed us a sheet.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the intention this afternoon, awaiting
Senator Levin's return, is we will discuss further the Dorgan amendment
on a Truman Commission approach and then a Byrd amendment with respect
to a second Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management, I believe, and
then Senator Nelson and others in regard to the SPD offset amendment.
So we are prepared to return at 2:15 p.m. and continue to work on the
bill.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, also, the distinguished Senator from Rhode
Island has an amendment with regard to missile defense. Might I inquire
as to the remainder of time on each side on that issue?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 19 minutes.
The Senator from Virginia has 13 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. It is our intention that
the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, will utilize
largely the remainder of the time on this side, and then I hope we can
bring that important amendment to a vote.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I look forward to Senator Stevens' comments
and reserve time for myself and others to make additional comments and
then move to a vote.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I hope to be joined by my colleague from
Michigan this afternoon. We will do our very best to keep the Senate
moving without quorum calls to conclude the amendments, each side
having 12, and also the managers approving a number of reconciled
amendments on both sides. I anticipate a vigorous procedure this
afternoon on behalf of this bill, moving toward third reading at the
earliest possible date, which is the decision that the majority and
Democratic leaders will eventually make.
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 (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use 6 minutes
of the time that is allocated to Senator Harkin on the amendment that
is pending, if in fact the Harkin amendment is now pending. I believe
it is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. It is the pending
amendment. The Senator is recognized.

amendment no. 2438

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Harkin amendment is a very simple

[[Page S12475]]

amendment. Let me describe it. We have something called Armed Forces
Radio and Television Service, AFRTS, a worldwide radio and television
broadcast. It serves a million American service men and women and their
families stationed at bases and American diplomatic posts in 179
countries around the world.
Armed Forces Radio and Television is paid for with taxpayers'
dollars. It is a wonderful service to our troops and the families who
are stationed overseas and at diplomatic posts. One of the questions
that we raised recently was the question of programming on Armed Forces
Radio and Television, not that anyone would want to censor any
programming, far from it, but the question of whether there is balance
and diversity on the programming that is on these stations.
I visited with a woman named Allison Barber, who is apparently in
charge of some of this. She actually came to my office and we visited.
And we spoke on the phone earlier this year. I have since tried to
reach her again, unsuccessfully, with I think three or four telephone
calls. First, she was traveling in Europe. She is back but not
returning her telephone calls at this point.
I talked to Allison Barber because I felt they were doing the troops
a service by providing a certain kind of programming. They have
conservative talk shows on Armed Forces Radio and Television, Armed
Forces Radio specifically, which is fine. Some of them are enormously
successful, entertaining, have a wide listener audience, and that makes
a great deal of sense that they would offer that to the troops abroad.
The question I asked Allison Barber is, If you are going to offer
conservative talk shows, do you not think that you would want to offer
a counterbalance so that the troops abroad would have both sides of
issues?
The reason I asked that is when I began to look at what the 33 local
stations in Armed Forces Radio broadcast, it was this: Of the
programming that is essentially political programming or defined as
conservative programming, there was 100 percent on the conservative
side and nothing on the progressive side.
I said: Well, I would never suggest that conservative programming be
taken off. I think it is probably there because it is entertaining,
interesting, well done, and the troops want to hear it. Do you not
think, since our country is split very close to 50-50 in terms of
political preference, the other side might well be represented? In
fact, are not your rules such that they say--I am talking about the
directives now that the Department of Defense refers to--the political
programming shall be characterized by its fairness and balance? How
would one characterize this as fairness and balance? One cannot.
The amendment offered by Senator Harkin does not suggest anybody ever
be taken off the air. Continue to air all of these things but provide
both sides of political dialogue, which is not the case today. That is
what my colleague says should be done. I agree with him.
Our colleague from Oklahoma comes to the Senate floor and talks about
a second-degree amendment. He says, I kind of like what is going on
now. Boy, I would guess he would. He belongs to a political party that
is heavily supported by the programming on Armed Forces Radio. I can
well understand why he would enjoy that sort of decision.
I believe Allison Barber, the Department of Defense, and all of those
involved in selecting programming should do both things. They ought to
provide this kind of programming, conservative talk shows and the rest,
to the troops in the field and their families, and they ought to
provide what their directive requires, fairness and balance, so that
the other side has the same opportunity to be heard by those troops and
their families. That is not now the case. That case does not now exist.
My colleague from Iowa has offered an amendment that would begin to
remedy this.
I know this debate will be characterized by the talk shows on the far
right as trying to take them off the air. Nothing could be further from
the truth. I do not recommend that for a moment. I simply believe that
Allison Barber and the others involved in these decisions have a
responsibility. The responsibility is to provide balance in the
political programming on the Armed Forces Radio system that is paid for
by the American taxpayer, so that all of those who have access to that
radio signal have access to balanced programming, both sides being
heard.
The other thing is--I assume it is a joke. I assume it is a joke, but
I cannot be sure because I have heard it more than once. My colleague
from Oklahoma says: Well, Rush Limbaugh is balanced by National Public
Radio. How one could actually make that assertion without openly
laughing is hard for me to understand. That surely must be a joke.
National Public Radio does not counterbalance rightwing talk. National
Public Radio, if there is something in this country that is fair and
balanced--National Public Radio is not about political programming on
the right or the left.
We hear a lot of excuses. The question is, Will the Armed Forces
Radio system do what is required of them in their directive? The answer
apparently is no. So what my colleague from Iowa would do would be to
codify in law what the directive now requires them to do, but what they
now fail to do.
So that is the amendment. It is simple and fair. I do not see how
anyone could possibly oppose that amendment. I would hope that we will
have a successful vote on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question? Could he put the
chart back up?
Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia will suspend. The
Senator from North Dakota is out of time. Would the Senator from
Virginia like to be recognized on his time?
Mr. WARNER. I will be recognized and would hope that the reply of the
Senator could be brief.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 23 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. The zero on the chart, I want to make very clear my
position. I do not want any censorship imposed by the Department of
Defense in utilizing taxpayer dollars to promulgate this programming,
which is so important. The Inhofe second-degree amendment sets forth
the wide range of recipients. It is uniformed people. It is their
families. It is embassy people. It is their families. It is consulates.
Quite a spectrum is served by this important outlet.
If the Senator can point to where there is any censorship, I would
like to address it. I have engaged my distinguished colleague in this
colloquy as well. Does anyone make an assertion that there is
censorship taking place?
Mr. DORGAN. Well, if the Senator would allow me to respond, let me
propose an idea which I have proposed to Armed Forces Radio. I said,
What about putting someone on from this side with a progressive talk
show that would counterbalance this? The answer apparently is, no. So
would that not suggest that they are censoring this side of the aisle,
censoring this side of the political debate? Is that not censorship?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the Senator is endeavoring to
answer while it may not be direct and overt, indirectly there could be
factual situations that would constitute some sort of censorship. For
example, I happen to listen to a wide spectrum--I am sure each of us in
this body does. I enjoy programs from Rush Limbaugh to NPR, but NPR has
always been associated with, should we say, a bit of the left side.
I understand NPR is broadcast on AFR, and yet the zero percent would
indicate that program is not considered to be somewhat counterbalancing
of the others.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might respond.
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. That is an unbelievable assertion. I have great respect
for the Senator from Virginia, but it is unbelievable. I, too, drive
down the road, and on my radio, for example, would listen to Rush
Limbaugh, very entertaining, very smart. It is a program a lot of
people listen to. What he does is, he relentlessly kicks the living
daylights out of the opposite party. Is that found on NPR?
The implication and the suggestion on the Senate floor and elsewhere
that

[[Page S12476]]

NPR is some sort of leftwing political show is absolute rubbish. I am
sorry. It is absolute nonsense. I am so tired of hearing it.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I did not mean to engender the ire of my
good friend. I am simply stating factually, to me, NPR is a very
balanced--I have often been on it myself and they have this sort of a
format, the modulation of the voices is always quite subdued on NPR.
Now, Rush Limbaugh, indeed--occasionally, I listen to him and it is
certainly not a modulated voice. He is very forceful in getting his
points across, but it is not for the Senate to arbitrate the voice
intonation between the different programs. I am simply talking about
content, putting aside the means by which it is delivered.
It seems to me it is a question of content, and it seems to me NPR is
a very--I would use the words ``reasonably balanced'' but a little bit
on the left side of the equation more than on the right side of the
equation. I find it somewhat misleading that the Senator puts a zero up
there, which applies to the NPR.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I do not know if the Senator is willing to
lend me more time, I would just say this to the Senator: There is one
person in public service who tried to demonstrate what the Senator just
said, and that is that National Public Radio is inherently biased. He
just resigned last week. His name is Kenneth Tomlinson. Why did he
resign? Because the Inspector General took a look at what he did. He
hired some nut case from Indiana to do an evaluation of programming on
NPR. The guy was so unprofessional--by the way, he was sending his
reports from the fax of a Hallmark shop in Indiana, paid Federal money
for it, Federal funds for it, inappropriately, a guy who had no
experience and a guy who was a rightwinger who came up with the
concoction that somehow NPR was not balanced. It is unbelievable that
we keep hearing this nonsense.
Look, Rush Limbaugh has a fine radio program. A lot of people listen
to it. I admire his capabilities. I just believe that our troops ought
to be able to hear both sides of this debate on radio, and that is not
now the case. That is the only point I make. The Senator should not
suggest that National Public Radio somehow leans to the left or jumps
to the left, or because it has a modulated voice is leftwing. It is
not. It is the only fair and balanced radio program out there, in my
judgment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it seems to me that I have engendered a
spirited debate that I had no intention of doing. So I would drop the
issue. I do not intend to be an expert on the political content.
Clearly, Rush Limbaugh does have a strong preference for the more
conservative issues, but I cannot believe that there are not some
programs that have a strong bent for issues which are other than
conservative, call them what one wishes. It seems to me that zero
percent is something that is indefensible, and we will leave it at
that.

I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa on the floor.
It is his amendment. I yield the floor at this time.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 7 minutes 46 seconds
remaining.
Mr. HARKIN. I will yield 1 minute 46 seconds more to the Senator from
North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from Virginia,
I do not mean to be irritated about this at all. My only point is this.
I believe there are wonderful, talented people on the political right
who are on the radio. They are very successful. Good for them. I
believe there are talented people on the other side of the political
spectrum who are on the radio dial. Good for them. Both ought to have
an equal opportunity to be heard with respect to Armed Forces Radio
programming. That is the point of it.
They are not now. Those on the progressive side are prevented from
getting on that dial. We believe that is wrong with respect to a
taxpayer-funded radio network. We believe it is inappropriate for the
troops not to have access to both sides. The amendment of Senator
Harkin, the one I cosponsored, is very simple. It says keep all these
folks on, the conservative side, good for them; but put on the other
side as well, be fair to them, so the troops have a chance to hear both
sides. My friend from Virginia is a good friend, and I didn't mean at
all to be irritated, but the NPR allegation does sort of spark my
interest from time to time. We will talk about that at some point
later.
My hope is we can fill in this gap and have our soldiers have a
generous discussion on both sides of the political system with radio
programming from the right and the left. That does not now happen, and
I believe it should on a radio program that is funded by the American
taxpayer.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 6 minutes 18 seconds
remaining.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield myself a couple of minutes because I want to save
some time.
A little history is in order here. In 1993, then-Representative
Robert Dornan of California, along with 69 other Republican House
Members, sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Les Aspin demanding that
Limbaugh's radio show and his television show be broadcast to the
military.
The Pentagon at that time pointed to an internal survey they had done
of 50,000 military listeners. They found that only 4 percent requested
more talk shows. The overwhelming number of respondents requested
continuous music, as you might expect from our people in uniform.
However, the issue kept getting pressed.
On November 29, 1993, the American Armed Forces Radio issued this
statement. This is their statement.

The Rush Limbaugh show makes no pretense that his show is
balanced. If AFRTS scheduled a program of personal commentary
without balancing it with another viewpoint, we would be open
to broad criticism that we are supporting a particular point
of view.

They went ahead and put Rush Limbaugh on the air. But the point is,
that is all right, but they have done nothing to balance it in the
intervening time.
There is an amendment that I believe is going to be offered by
Senator Inhofe--at least he was talking about it earlier. We will talk
about more later if, indeed, he does offer it. But getting back to this
point on the National Public Radio, I don't think you will ever hear
NPR in its commentary say that the Abu Ghraib prison abuse was a
fraternity prank or the humiliation of the inmates there `` . . . was a
brilliant maneuver, no different than what happens at the Skull and
Bones initiation at Yale.'' I don't think you will ever hear NPR in its
commentary describe images of torture as ``pictures of homo-eroticism
that looks like standard, good old American pornography.'' This is all
that Rush Limbaugh said. You won't hear that on NPR.
Last, a group called Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting analyzed the
political affiliation of guests appearing last summer on NPR's most
popular news shows. Republicans outnumbered Democrats on NPR by 61
percent to 38 percent. So I rest my case that NPR is nothing like the
Rush Limbaugh show.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the parliamentary situation is--how much
time remains in opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 17 minutes that remain in opposition.
Mr. WARNER. And the Senator from Iowa?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 3 minutes 30
seconds.
Mr. WARNER. Senator Inhofe was on the floor earlier today. It was his
intention to offer a second-degree amendment. I wonder if I can make a
unanimous consent request that I now raise that second-degree
amendment, put it on your underlying amendment, and then 30 minutes is
now allocated, 15 to the distinguished Senator and 15 more to this
side. That would enable you to have more time within which to debate.
So you would not lose the minutes that you have.
I now make a unanimous consent request. I offer the Inhofe amendment
in the second degree at this time with the understanding the time
remaining on both sides would be added to the 30 minutes additional
time.

[[Page S12477]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, if I could say to my
friend from Virginia, for a point of clarification, there was some
discussion about this amendment and the fact that, since there are two
approaches here, one is a sense of the Senate and one is my approach,
perhaps it would be better if we could have side-by-side votes; that
Mr. Inhofe would go first and I would go second. Does the chairman
envision that?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to follow the regular parliamentary
procedure. The unanimous consent--we have a perfect right to put the
second-degree on, but I am trying to keep the continuity of the debate
going rather than you extinguishing your 3 minutes. I prefer we
continue with the amendment at this time, being the pending amendment,
with the understanding that the 3 minutes remaining on Senator Harkin's
time be added to his 15, giving him 18; our 17 be added to the 15 that
we have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 2439 to Amendment No. 2438

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for Mr. Inhofe,
proposes an amendment numbered 2439.

The amendment is as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:

SEC. __. AMERICAN FORCES NETWORK.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The mission of the American Forces Radio and Television
Service (AFRTS) and its American Forces Network (AFN), a
worldwide radio and television broadcast network, is to
deliver command information by providing United States
military commanders overseas and at sea with a broadcast
media that effectively communicates information to personnel
under their commands, including information from the
Department of Defense, information from the Armed Forces, and
information unique to the theater and localities in which
such personnel are stationed or deployed.
(2) The American Forces Radio and Television Service and
the American Forces Network provide a ``touch of home'' to
members of the Armed Forces, civilian employees of the
Department of Defense, and their families stationed at bases
and at embassies and consulates in more than 179 countries,
as well as Navy, Coast Guard, and Military Sealift Command
ships at sea, by providing the same type and quality of radio
and television programming (including news, information,
sports, and entertainment) that would be available in the
continental United States. Additionally, the American Forces
Network plays an important role in enabling military
commanders to disseminate official information to members of
the Armed Forces and their families, thus making popularity
and acceptance key factors in ensuring effective
communication.
(3) It is American Forces Radio and Television Service and
American Forces Network policy that, except for the Pentagon
Channel service, programming is acquired from distributors of
the most popular television program airing in the continental
United States. Much of the programming is provided at no cost
to the United States Government. The remainder of the
programming is provided at less-than-market rates to cover
distributors' costs and obligations. Depending on the
audience segment or demographic targeted, programs that
perform well are acquired and scheduled to maximize audiences
for internal and command information exposure.
(4) American Forces Radio and Television Service and
American Forces Network select programming that represents a
cross-section of popular American radio and television,
tailored toward the worldwide audience of the American Forces
Radio and Television Service and the American Forces Network.
Schedules emulate programming practices in the United States,
and programs are aired in accordance with network broadcast
standards. Specifically, policy on programming seeks--
(A) to provide balance and diversity;
(B) to deliver a cross-section of popular programming;
(C) to target appropriate demographics; and
(D) to maintain network broadcast standards.
(5) The ``Voice Channel'', or radio programming, of the
American Forces Radio and Television Service and American
Forces Network is chosen to address requirements specified by
the military broadcasting services and the detachment
commanders of their affiliate radio stations. American Forces
Network Radio makes a best faith effort to obtain the top-
rated program of its sort at the time of selection, at no
cost to the United States Government. American Forces Network
Radio usually retains a scheduled program until it is no
longer produced, too few American Forces Network affiliates
choose to schedule the program locally, or a similar program
so thoroughly dominates its audience in the United States
that the American Forces Radio and Television Service
switches to this program to offer the higher rated show to
the overseas audience.
(6) American Forces Network Radio personnel review the
major trade publications to monitor announcements of new
programs, follow the ratings of established programs, and
keep aware of programming trends. When a program addressing a
need identified by a Military Broadcasting Service or an
American Forces Network affiliate becomes available to the
American Forces Network, or a program seems especially worthy
of consideration, American Forces Network Radio informs the
affiliates and supplies samples to gauge affiliate interest.
If affiliates commit to broadcasting the new show, American
Forces Network Radio seeks to schedule it.
(7) The managers of the American Forces Radio and
Television Service continually update their programming
options and, in November 2005, decided to include additional
programs that meet the criteria that American Forces Radio
and Television Service managers apply to such decisions, and
that, consistent with American Forces Radio and Television
Service and American Forces Network procedures, local
programmers at 33 locations around the globe decide which
programs actually are broadcast. American Forces Radio and
Television Service have consistently sought to provide a
broad, high quality range of choices for local station
managers.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the men and women of the American Forces Radio and
Television Service and the Armed Forces Network should be
commended for providing a vital service to the military
community worldwide; and
(2) the programming mission, themes, and practices of the
Department of Defense with respect to its television and
radio programming have fairly and responsively fulfilled
their mission of providing a ``touch of home'' to members of
the Armed Forces and their families around the world and have
contributed immeasurably to high morale and quality of life
in the Armed Forces.
(c) Authority To Appoint Ombudsman as Intermediary.--The
Secretary of Defense may appoint an individual to serve as
ombudsman of the American Forces Network. Any ombudsman so
appointed shall act as an intermediary between the staff of
the American Forces Network and the Department of Defense,
military commanders, and listeners to the programming of the
American Forces Network.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might ask my distinguished colleague,
we debated the Inhofe amendment at some length this morning. Could the
Senator, for purposes of helping Senators who are following this
debate, describe exactly what the difference is? There is one rather
significant and technical difference, and that is the sense-of-the-
Senate amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma would allow the ombudsman
to be at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, as opposed to your
amendment, which would make it mandatory. Am I correct in that?
Mr. HARKIN. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Putting aside the procedure on which the ombudsman is put
in place, is there any distinction between what the duties of the
ombudsman would be under the Inhofe second-degree and the underlying
first-degree?
Mr. HARKIN. I think I have a copy of the Inhofe amendment in front of
me.
Mr. WARNER. Let's make certain the Senator does have a copy.
Mr. HARKIN. If I have the correct one?
Mr. WARNER. It was simply a technical correction to an earlier
amendment, I say to the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. I would say to my friend--if the chairman will yield so I
can respond?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. As I read the Inhofe amendment, all it says is that:

The Secretary of Defense may appoint an individual to serve
as ombudsman . . . to act as an intermediary between the
staff of the American Forces Network and the Department of
Defense, military commanders, and listeners to the
programming of the American Forces Network.

That is all it says. It doesn't say what his duties are.
My amendment specifically says that the ombudsman will do these
things:

Appointed by the Secretary of Defense for a term of 5
years; not engage in any prebroadcast censorship; conduct
regular reviews of the integrity, balance and fairness;
respond to program issues raised by the audience regarding
the network's programming; refer complaints to AFR
management; make suggestions regarding ways to correct
imbalances; and prepare an annual report both to the SECDEF
and Congress.

So my amendment spells out what the ombudsman should do. The Inhofe
amendment does not.

[[Page S12478]]

Mr. WARNER. Does your amendment permit the Secretary to select the
ombudsman within the current personnel structure of the Department of
Defense or must he go outside the Department to get that individual?
Mr. HARKIN. The way the amendment is written, the Secretary has full
discretion. He can go outside or stay inside.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. One last question. I am still
troubled by the chart you put up showing zero. My understanding is that
the Department of Defense has added the following three programs to the
body of programs that each of the 33 individual stations can select
from. I am not that familiar with the details of each. Perhaps the
Senator from Iowa can help me. The ``Ed Shultz Show,'' that is new this
month; the ``Al Franken Show,'' which is new this month; and the ``Sean
Hannity Show,'' which is new this month, where would they fall in the
context of the zero which is on this chart which you have shown to the
Senate?
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator would yield, I will respond. I am familiar
with the first two. Who is the third one?
Mr. WARNER. Sean Hannity.
Mr. HARKIN. I am told he's the second most popular conservative talk
show. I don't know where that falls in. The first two are Shultz and
Franken. They are more on the progressive side, no doubt about that.
The third one you mention is on the conservative side, I guess. I don't
know that so I cannot speak authoritatively on that. I don't know how
that balance works out after that. I don't know.
I know my information--and it is really secondhand; I can't say this
firsthand--is that the ``Ed Shultz Show'' was contacted to be on. Then
he was recontacted saying that he was not to be on. And it is sort of
in kind of a state of limbo now. I don't understand what that is all
about.
Mr. WARNER. In the interests of moving forward on the floor, Senator
Inhofe will be available following the recess we are going to take for
purposes of the respective caucuses. I wonder if we, given that there
is significant time remaining now on the Inhofe amendment, might go to
another matter in such a way that we could engage Senator Inhofe more
directly, on behalf of his amendment, with the distinguished Senator
from Iowa?
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman. The chairman is a leader and is
very fair himself. I have no objection to moving to something else.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. I see the distinguished Senator from
Alaska at this time.
I yield the floor.

amendment no. 2427

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Levin amendment,
which would eliminate all funding for long-lead items for the ground-
based interceptors Nos. 31 through 40, and funding for the silos for
those missiles.
Realigning funding from this program would have significant impact,
significant consequences for our national missile defense system.
In addition to breaking the production line for these interceptors,
it would add an additional $270 million to the cost of the program.
Further, it would delay emplacement of the additional interceptors by
at least 1 year. I do not believe we can afford that delay in our
national missile defense system.
Reducing interceptor quantities places second and third tier
industrial-based suppliers at a substantial risk of exiting the
manufacturing of components for the interceptors. They are currently
manufacturing these. If there is a delay, those small businesses would
have to leave that system. It will increase the probability of
component quality problems because new suppliers would have to be
found. We should not interrupt this system. This amendment would break
this production line and affect the subcontractors all along the line.
My great concern is that quality and process improvement efforts that
were initiated by the Missile Defense Agency would be significantly
impacted if this amendment were agreed to.
Replacing and recertifying component suppliers would further increase
interceptor costs by millions of dollars and take a minimum of 1 year
to accomplish. That would delay the fielding of the additional
capabilities for these warfighters.
This amendment realigns funding from missile defense to the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which is called CTR. That has
been fully funded at the administration's request and at the
administration's amount. There remains a large unobligated balance
within the CTR account and a very large undisbursed balance. It is
almost $1 billion. I cannot justify adding additional funding to the
program at the expense of the Missile Defense Program which has
essential requirements when there is already a surplus in that account.
The threat is real and imminent, as General Cartwright has testified.
General Cartwright is the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. The
CIA and the DIA assess that North Korea is ready to flight test an ICBM
that could reach the United States. That is of critical importance to
those who live in Alaska. We are closer than any other State to that
threat. Iran may have such capability by the middle of the next decade,
according to DIA.
Despite recent test failures, the technology is mature enough to
proceed with fielding even while we continue to test and improve
reliability. That is the genius of this system. We have fielded it and,
if necessary, we can use it. We are perfecting it as we go. The
failures were the result of quality control issues and they do not
undermine our confidence that the hit-to-kill technology works. It
should be in place.
An independent review team has recently concluded that the ground-
based midcourse system's design is sound and is capable of providing a
defense against long-range ballistic missiles such as the one I
described we think is being tested in North Korea.
In a hearing before our Senate Committee on Appropriations, General
Cartwright described the missile defense system as a ``thin line
system.'' Additional interceptors will help the warfighters better
defend against ballistic missile attack. According to the warfighters,
a primary system limitation is there are too few interceptors. This
amendment will delay the ones that should be in place during this
fiscal year.
I urge the Senate to defeat this amendment. We should not reduce
funding for the Missile Defense Program at this critical juncture. We
need to test the program, improve it, and continue testing. We should
not stop production by realigning funding from the missile defense
system, particularly putting it into account when there is almost $1
billion surplus already.
The Missile Defense Program, in my judgment, is vital to the security
of this country. We should not cause further delay. I strongly urge the
Senate to vote against this amendment and reject this reduction in
transfer to an account that does not need the money.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
2006 National Defense Authorization Act. Let me begin my comments by
paying tribute to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services and the able ranking minority Member. They have worked very
hard with all who are privileged to serve under their leadership to
craft this important bill.
In the interests of time, I will focus my remarks today on three
particular provisions. First, those providing $9.1 billion for an
essential shipbuilding priorities; second, the provisions offered by
Senator McCain, which I am proud to cosponsor, to provide standards for
the treatment of detainees; and third, the amendment I am pleased to
join my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, in offering having to
deal with conveyances of closed bases.
This bill authorized $9.1 billion for shipbuilding. It also includes
a provision to prohibit the use of funds by the Navy to conduct a one-
shipyard acquisition strategy to procure the next generation DD(X)
destroyers. Not only does this bill fully fund the President's budget
request for the DD(X) program, but it also provides, at my request, an
additional $50 million for advance procurement of the second ship in
the DD(X) class at Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. I am
understandably very proud of the skilled workers at Bath Iron Works and
their contribution to our Nation's defense.

[[Page S12479]]

This authorization for DD(X) funding aligns the Senate-passed
appropriations bill, and our bill parallels the appropriations bill
with this funding.
The high priority placed on shipbuilding in the Senate's version of
the Defense authorization legislation stands in stark contrast to the
House Defense authorization bill which actually rescinds $84 billion in
funds designated for Bath Iron Works, the detailed design work on the
DD(X) I secured as part of the Defense legislation signed into law
last year. The House version also slashes funding for the DD(X) program
contrary to what was proposed in the President's budget.

These misplaced priorities remain even when the former Chief of Naval
Operations, Admiral Clark, has testified repeatedly that the Navy's
requirements for the next generation destroyer are clear. I look
forward to working with the other Members of the Senate Committee on
Armed Services to resolve this important issue in our conference.
I now turn to the issue of the treatment of detainees. The vast
majority of our troops carry out their dangerous and difficult missions
with fairness, compassion, and courage. To them, the actions of those
who have been accused of torture against detainees are demoralizing and
make the difficult task they have been assigned immeasurably more
difficult. Critics of abuse at detention facilities operated by the
U.S. military have attributed this abuse not only to the criminal
actions of individual military personnel--and, again, that is not the
vast majority of our troops--but also to the lack of clear guidance
across the U.S. Government for the treatment of detainees. Senator
McCain's amendment provides that clear guidance. I am proud to be a
cosponsor.
Finally, let me comment very briefly on the amendment offered by my
colleague from Maine. It only adds insult to injury to require a
community to have to pay for the property involved in a base closure.
Surely we can work with our communities in a more cooperative way to
enable them to pursue the economic development that is necessary to
make a closed military installation a productive part of the community
once again. It is the least we owe these communities struggling with
base closures throughout the United States. I hope we can work out
something on that amendment.
The bill before the Senate is a good one. I salute the chairman and
the ranking member for their hard work.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague and
member of the committee, the Senator from Maine. The Senator has fought
hard on behalf of her interests in that State. Indeed, the BRAC
process, in some respects due to your efforts, was modified in the end
to the interests of the State.
While I am not going to be able to support the Snowe-Collins
amendment, nevertheless, in other areas the Senator made some progress.
I thank the Senator for her work on the committee given her work on the
Government Operations Committee. Nevertheless, the Senator finds time
to attend our meetings and be an active participant. I thank my
colleague.
I ask unanimous consent at the hour of 2:45 the Senate proceed to a
vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No. 2439, followed by a vote
in relation to the Harkin amendment numbered 2438. I further ask that
the Inhofe amendment be modified so it is a first-degree amendment, and
that no second-degree amendments to the amendments be in order prior to
the votes; provided further that the time from 2:15 to 2:45 be equally
divided between Senators Inhofe and Harkin. I further ask on an
unrelated matter that Senator Stevens be recognized for up to 10
minutes of morning business following the two votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________