[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 147 (Tuesday, November 8, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12468-S12471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ARMED FORCES RADIO

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have heard some discussions, some 
debate by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, on his amendment No. 2438. 
I oppose this

[[Page S12469]]

amendment, and I have prepared and have filed a second-degree amendment 
that I will offer after all time by Senator Harkin has expired.
  I guess I would ask the question as to why should the Senate mandate 
what programming our troops can listen to or deny their opportunity to 
choose. Currently, under this system, our troops communicate with their 
local radio stations by offering feedback that shapes the local 
programming.
  Simply put, if the troops do not like what they are hearing, they 
call the radio station and ask that the programing be changed. It seems 
to be fair to me. It is called the market. If there is no market for 
it, why should we be doing it?
  Now, as Senator Harkin himself has stated, fair and balanced 
programming options are offered to all 33 radio stations worldwide. It 
is the individual radio stations that establish the programming based 
on its audience's preferences. The stations decide what programming is 
in the greatest demand.
  Worldwide, the second-largest audience request is to play all 3 hours 
of Rush Limbaugh. Only 1 hour is currently made available through the 
AFRTS. However, some stations choose not to carry his program at all, 
even for the 1 hour of availability. That is their choice to make based 
on the troop feedback.
  You might say at this point, if the troop feedback is that they want 
all 3 hours, and some stations do not play any, and the most that any 
stations play is 1 hour, then if any change should be made in terms of 
complying with the market, it should be that.
  Now, Senator Harkin and his charts would have you believe the only 
program on the radio is Rush Limbaugh. But what about the 24 hours of 
National Public Radio or DOD's commitment to begin airing liberal talk 
shows by Al Franken and Ed Schultz? Furthermore, Rush Limbaugh 
currently represents only 3 percent of the weekly scheduled 
programming. That is 3 percent. I don't know why they are so worried 
about 3 percent.
  Now, the liberal talk radio--this is important as to having a 
benchmark of 1 million listeners. It is important to know there is a 
reason why they choose programming. One is, they do not choose any at 
all unless it has 1 million listeners.

  Let's put that chart up. It is kind of hard to read, but I will 
explain it in a minute. Prior to this fall, no liberal talk shows had 
over 1 million listeners. Rush Limbaugh has approximately 15 million 
listeners weekly. AFRTS's policy is to ``provide a cross-section of 
popular programming.'' To this point, there have been no significant 
audience demands to rationalize adding progressive programming or 
liberal programming.
  For the record, Limbaugh was added to the programming menu after 
troop listener demand had been heavy and sustained for many years. At 
the time, Limbaugh's audience had grown so large that failure to 
include his show would have violated AFRTS's policy of providing a 
slice of domestic talk radio.
  There is no truth to the minority's assertion that liberal talk radio 
has been kept off of AFRTS for political purposes. That is a pure 
fabrication. The truth is, as this chart shows, the minimal market 
demand that exists for liberal talk shows did not meet the listenership 
requirement for programs to be played on AFRTS.
  The AFRTS standard is a ``national syndication and one million 
listeners per week.'' It has to be a nationally syndicated program, and 
it has to have a million listeners per week. That goes for all 
programming, as this chart clearly shows.
  Now, two liberal talk shows have achieved 1 million listeners in 
2005. If we look at this carefully, we will see that in 2004 there were 
no liberal talk shows on AFRTS because none of them had an audience of 
1 million listeners. There is a change between 2004 and 2005 and that 
is Ed Schultz and Al Franken both were able to get a million listeners. 
Therefore, we changed the programming. We are responding to the demand 
out there. If there are a million people who want to listen to them, we 
will give our troops a chance to do the same thing.
  As it turns out, right now, the AFRTS stations will have access to 
the two top conservative and the two top liberal shows. The 
conservative ones are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. And the liberal 
ones are Al Franken and Ed Schultz.
  Still, Senator Harkin is not satisfied. Senator Harkin claims 
conservatives are propagandizing AFRTS's programming. Well, I only ask, 
which sounds more like propaganda, programming which is freely chosen 
by listening troops or programming mandated by the Government? 
Furthermore, if there are significant numbers of letters from troops 
decrying the current AFRTS programs, I know my office has not received 
one.
  In my travels visiting troops, I have not heard of one. In fact, I 
know I have been, by count, to Iraq, into those areas where we have our 
troops stationed, more times than any other member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. When I am over there, I have yet to have one person 
come up to me or have one letter in our office saying they are 
dissatisfied with the programming and that they demand more liberal 
programs.
  All I see here are Senators trying to subsidize liberal talk radio 
because they do not have anyone to compete with popular conservative 
radio talk shows.
  Now, the amendment also calls for an ombudsman, as if the amendment 
is not bad enough in trying to dictate what our troops should listen to 
against their will. The Harkin amendment would establish an ombudsman 
of the American Forces Network who would be appointed by the Secretary 
of Defense.
  The amendment is based on the premise that the programming decisions 
of the American Forces Radio and Television Service have improperly 
excluded liberal political radio programming and would give the 
ombudsman the duty of identifying circumstances under which the AFN 
``has not adhered to the standards and practices of the Network in its 
programming, including circumstances in which the programming of the 
Network lacked integrity, fairness, or balance.'' I am quoting now from 
his legislation. The ombudsman would be required to submit an annual 
report.
  Now, what this ombudsman provision does is it allows Members of 
Congress the opportunity to obstruct an already fair and functioning 
process by getting in between the troops and what they choose to listen 
to. Listed as one of the ombudsman's duties in this amendment is to 
initiate and conduct, upon the request of Congress, reviews of the 
programming of the network, AFRTS.
  The creation of an ombudsman is another example of wasteful 
Government redundancy. But, moreover, the creation of this post would 
empower Members of the Senate to choose what entertainment our troops 
listen to. This is an attempt by the minority to impose unpopular 
message-driven content on AFRTS to a captive audience. The requirement 
for a report, et cetera, is to intimidate the 33 stations that 
are trying to serve our service men and women into serving special 
interests in Congress.

  We do not need a political officer to make sure our troops get the 
daily dose of a certain media personality. Today, these decisions are 
based on the input from the servicemember and their ratings by the 
American people. Our troops deserve the right to choose what they 
listen to on the radio. What they do not deserve is their Senators 
taking away the right. Who are we to do this? How arrogant it is we are 
putting ourselves in a position where we claim to know more than the 
troops as to what is in their best interests. I do not believe that 
should be the case.
  Finally, preserving the programming integrity of AFRTS must be 
paramount. There is another reason totally unrelated to what we talked 
about so far. AFRTS is a vital link between military command and troops 
and their families throughout the world. What we are saying is, if we 
have commanders in the field who are trying to communicate messages to 
our troops--they currently can do this. And they can do this under the 
Harkin amendment. However, there would be much fewer people listening 
in the market by adjusting the market, and these messages would not get 
out.
  Important messages are broadcast on this network, and if the 
programming becomes a political football and is no longer based on what 
the troops want

[[Page S12470]]

but what Congress wants, then listenership would certainly dwindle. 
Maintaining popular programming ensures that AFRTS remains a reliable 
communications link to our troops in the field. We cannot afford to 
play politics with such an important asset.
  Now, I have a second-degree amendment, and I will be offering this at 
the expiration of the time of the Senator from Iowa. The second-degree 
amendment to the Harkin amendment describes how programs are selected 
for the American Forces Network, including reliance on ratings and 
popularity, as demonstrated by the numbers of listeners, and notes that 
reliance is placed on 33 local programming managers at military 
communities around the globe.
  It would express 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 Services and their families around the world and 
     have contributed immeasurably to high morale and quality of 
     life in the Armed Forces.

  Finally, the language in my second-degree amendment provides that the 
Secretary of Defense may--may; it does not say he has to, that he must 
have an ombudsman but he may appoint an ombudsman at AFRTS to serve 
as--this is the way we have it in the second-degree amendment--``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.'' You will find that this 
conforms to the description used to define the ombudsman at Stars and 
Stripes, our military print media. It is very similar to Stars and 
Stripes.
  I find, when I am making my trips over there, they will tell me they 
have two ways of communicating with the outside world other than their 
communications with their family; one is through Stars and Stripes, and 
one is through the radio programming on these 33 stations.
  Now, I would want to, at the appropriate time, go ahead and offer 
this amendment. It is my understanding the Senator from Iowa will be 
returning momentarily. But for a minute, I might say to the 
distinguished chairman, let me give an observation.
  The other day I was in the elevator coming up to the floor to cast a 
vote. I was with two of our Democratic colleagues whom I respect very 
much, two very liberal Democratic Senators. They were complaining about 
the fact that all the talk shows are conservative and they don't have 
successful liberal talk shows. And they said--these were their words in 
the elevator--there ought to be a legislative fix to this. I said: What 
you guys don't understand is, this is market driven, and there is no 
market for your liberal trite. And for that reason, it is much more of 
the conservative talk shows. It is called the market, and that is what 
makes America work.
  I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to be supportive of this amendment 
of my colleague from Oklahoma. But at the same time, I do believe the 
amendment by Senator Harkin is deserving of consideration. I say to my 
colleague, my concern, is--and I wish to have the record reflect this--
is it your understanding, having carefully examined how this is done by 
the Armed Forces Network, that in no way are they directly or 
indirectly trying to impose any censorship?
  Mr. INHOFE. No.
  Mr. WARNER. That we simply cannot have.
  Mr. INHOFE. No, we cannot have--well, actually, the Harkin amendment 
would impose a censorship to a degree; that is, it would change the 
criteria that, No. 1, it has to be a syndicated network, and, No. 2, it 
has to have 1 million listeners.
  We have shown clearly that they have lived up to that. When the two 
liberal talk shows, Ed Schultz and Al Franken, reached a million, they 
started including them. They are including them just as they are the 
conservative talk shows. If you impose upon them that you are going to 
have somebody out there watching and making sure that Congress tells 
them what is best for them, yes, that does impose a restriction on what 
our troops in the field are able to hear.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to the distinguished Senator, let me read section 2 
of his proposed amendment: The American Forces Radio and Television 
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 in bases, embassies, and consulates in more than 179 
countries, as well as the Navy, Coast Guard, and Military Sealift 
Command ships at sea.
  So it reaches an entire family, and it is a very important function. 
This Senator wants to make sure that audience, irrespective of whether 
they are conservatives or liberals, whatever the case may be--I am not 
sure that is the right criteria we should be using--does get a touch of 
home, which is a very wonderful expression that you have included here, 
by providing the same type--reading on--and quality of radio and 
television programming, including news, information, sports, and 
entertainment, that would be available in the continental United 
States.
  To me, if you impose a certain market criteria, even though they may 
not hit a certain number of listeners, you are not getting the full 
spectrum that this amendment calls for. In other words, I would prefer 
to have just this amendment that you have here be the decision by the 
Senate and then leave it up to the 33 stations to ensure that is done. 
Maybe we shouldn't condone a marketing policy that just cuts off a 
whole lot of programs at the bottom because they don't have enough 
listeners.
  Mr. INHOFE. I respond to the distinguished chairman of the committee 
that I am prepared to have it market driven.
  Mr. WARNER. You would prefer what.
  Mr. INHOFE. To have it purely market driven so that these kids who 
are out there, our troops risking their lives, would be able to 
determine what they wanted to listen to rather than having something 
imposed upon them. Ideally that is what I would prefer in a second-
degree amendment. But in trying to accommodate a system that has worked 
pretty well, that criteria is acceptable to me. Let's don't talk about 
liberal and conservative. Let's talk about just programming. Forget 
about what is liberal and what is conservative. If a concept is popular 
enough that it has 1 million listeners, then that should qualify for 
consideration for our troops to listen to. That is my point.
  Mr. WARNER. Well, I don't see anything in the language you use here 
because you are very explicit. 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--that is what we should follow.
  Mr. INHOFE. I agree.
  Mr. WARNER. I don't know that we condone a marketing tool by which a 
certain category--and it so happens that category perhaps has the 
preponderance of things which people would consider liberal. I am not 
sure we can escape totally the use of that word. It is better that we 
let the 33 stations themselves decide what it is.
  If a program hasn't hit a million, well, there may be some audience 
within the family of people you discuss here, all of the various 
listeners and families and embassies and consulates, maybe they would 
like to hear something even though it hasn't hit the 1 million mark.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would respond to the Senator from Virginia that the 
only reason I used these two charts, the accusation was made that there 
somehow is a mechanism here that would exclude that more liberal 
philosophy in terms of programming. This demonstrates clearly that it 
doesn't because once they have reached that criteria, they are able to 
be heard.
  Mr. WARNER. It is that operative phrase of ``reach that criteria.'' 
It seems that reaching that criteria has the effect of excluding a lot 
of programming, albeit they don't have quite the audience that others 
do, but nevertheless, there may be some individuals

[[Page S12471]]

within this family that is set forth in the amendment that would like 
to hear it.
  Mr. INHOFE. I think that is right. I believe that is the case. The 33 
stations have program directors. Their goal is to maximize their 
audience. If they hear that something is in demand that might not be 
consistent with what is in demand throughout the United States, I can 
assure you, under the current system, they will have that program.
  Mr. WARNER. That assurance to me is important. So what you are saying 
is it would not be any indirect censorship of any particular 
philosophical category of programming under your proposal?
  Mr. INHOFE. That is exactly right.
  Mr. WARNER. So your proposal does not bind them to this market 
criteria.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I find that helpful. I think you have dispelled any 
thought that this amendment would impose any censorship.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. And the variety of news services--again, there are 
obviously certain news services that have a proclivity to go to a more 
conservative side and some to the liberal side, but again, are news 
services given an equal opportunity to be heard?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, they are.
  Mr. WARNER. For example, I happen to like NPR, and I like to hear FOX 
News. I like to have the juxtaposition of the different viewpoints.
  Mr. INHOFE. In my statement, I commented that it is a very 
disordinate amount that has been historically given to NPR in terms of 
listening audience because they have that on for 24 hours. So certainly 
that is already there, and that is more than the market would justify 
if we were going by the justification that the market dictates.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator one last 
question. He makes reference to the ombudsman. How does your coverage 
of the subject of an ombudsman differ from the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Iowa?
  Mr. INHOFE. It merely makes it optional. If the Secretary of Defense 
wants to pursue the ombudsman as a practice, then he may do it. It 
doesn't say he shall. It says he may. It is not mandated. It is just 
optional at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. So that clarifies the sole technical distinction, 
which is an important one, between your second degree and the 
underlying first degree. Therefore, it is up to the Secretary, but once 
an ombudsman is selected, assuming the Secretary opts to do so, in no 
way is that individual chartered or directed to do his work or her work 
different than what the Senator from Iowa desires?
  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct. The only difference is, it is optional.
  Mr. WARNER. I think that is important. So could that ombudsman be 
among the existing people in the Department of Defense, have it as an 
additional duty, or should that person be brought in from the outside 
and have the sole responsibility of ombudsman work?
  Mr. INHOFE. It is my understanding that under the underlying 
amendment by the Senator from Iowa, it is very prescribed as to how 
this person is going to be chosen. In my amendment, it leaves it up to 
the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. It could be someone who is 
already existing within that Department or another department.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think that is an important flexibility. 
I am certain that within the Department, there is an individual or an 
individual with objectivity and a background that could perform this 
work.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 9 minutes remaining in 
morning business.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business, and the 
minority has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.

                          ____________________