[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12448-12452]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me take a minute to thank the two 
managers for their hard work on this Defense bill. As I stated before, 
this is the 11th day of consideration of this bill.
  Although I think we have made real demonstrable progress today, I am 
concerned that we are not quite certain when we will be able to finish 
the bill and how many amendments may still be offered.
  I have had discussions with the chairman and the Democratic 
leadership, and I am prepared to file a cloture motion this evening.
  With that said, I still hope we can work out an agreement to allow us 
to finish the bill after a certain number of amendments, and with a 
time certain for passage. I will continue to discuss our options with 
the managers of the bill and hope that we can proceed in a balanced way 
to finish the bill.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     503, S. 2400, an original bill to authorize appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2005 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 
     services, and for other purposes.
         Bill Frist, John Warner, Bob Bennett, John Cornyn, Mitch 
           McConnell, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Lamar 
           Alexander, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rick Santorum, Lisa 
           Murkowski, Gordon Smith, Thad Cochran, Wayne Allard, 
           Chuck Hagel, Craig Thomas, Jeff Sessions.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Alabama is recognized to 
offer an amendment on which there will be 10 minutes of debate.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for 5 minutes and be notified at the conclusion of the 5 
minutes, and the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3372, As Modified

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, for decades, civilian employees of the 
United States working overseas were shielded from prosecution for 
criminal acts that were committed abroad. These persons were outside 
the scope of military justice, and they were beyond the jurisdiction of 
Federal courts in the United States, and also our State courts. Often, 
foreign countries, when incapable of investigating and prosecuting the 
cases, or they didn't have adequate laws, or they were not even 
criminal offenses in the foreign country, did not prosecute. Maybe the 
foreign country had no interest in prosecuting a fraud against the 
United States.
  In 1999, one of my constituents approached me with a terrible story 
of how two innocent children were molested while living overseas with 
their father, who was an Army service person. Because the perpetrator 
of the crime did the act overseas, he was beyond the scope of 
jurisdiction in the United States. Moreover, German law didn't cover 
this, so the person was completely unprosecutable at that time.
  After hearing this story, I began to work on and introduce the 
Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which was signed into law 
eventually in the year 2000.
  It provided U.S. Federal courts with jurisdiction over civilian 
employees, contractors, and subcontractors affiliated with the 
Department of Defense who commit crimes, and would have subjected that 
person to at least 1 year of prison had the offense occurred in the 
United States.
  We worked with the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, 
and the Department of State and produced legislation which I think was 
very helpful.
  Now, in the war on terrorism, the Department of Justice is finding 
this statute very helpful. In fact, the contractors involved in the Abu 
Ghraib prison would probably not be prosecutable had we not passed this 
law some time ago.
  But as we have looked at it, we understand there are some gaps that 
still exist.
  Senator Schumer raised this issue in the Judiciary Committee, and I 
began to work on dealing with those loopholes.
  This act will deal with what our previous act dealt with--those who 
were directly related to the Department of Defense, either contractors 
or civilian employees. But the abuses in Abu Ghraib involved private 
contractors who may not have in every instance been directly associated 
with the Department of Defense, and as such, perhaps those people--or 
some of them at least--might not be prosecutable under this statute. So 
it highlighted our need to clarify and expand the coverage of the act.
  I offer an amendment today, and I am pleased that Chairman Warner and 
Ranking Member Levin have agreed to it. I believe it has been cleared 
on both sides and accepted by the managers.
  This amendment would give the Justice Department authority to 
prosecute civilian contractors employed

[[Page 12449]]

not only by the Department of Defense but by any Federal agency that is 
supporting the American military mission overseas.
  The number of private contractors working in Iraq is about 10 times 
as great as it was in the Persian Gulf conflict.
  Private contractors are necessary to rebuilding a healthy Iraq. Yet 
we cannot allow them to escape justice for crimes they may commit 
overseas.
  I am not sure right now the Iraqi government has the ability or the 
interest in prosecuting a contractor who may have defrauded the United 
States. It clearly remains true that if they are to be prosecuted, it 
needs to be done here.
  Our mission overseas is an honorable endeavor. It should not be 
tainted by illegal acts by any, particularly a few, who embarrass our 
country. Recent events have brought to light the need to ensure that 
those acting improperly are held accountable in a court of law.
  This amendment clarifies existing precedent and leaves no doubt 
whether wrongdoers can be brought to justice. This includes physical 
acts against personnel by contractors. It also includes frauds that 
could be committed against the Department of Defense such as 
overcharging. Fraudulent activities of any kind could be prosecuted 
under this act.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from New York, who, 
having suffered the blows of terrorism firsthand, has taken an interest 
in these matters for some time now. I am delighted to work with the 
Senator on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is an important amendment 
to this bill. It is passing with bipartisan cosponsorship, both the 
House and the Senate unanimously. It shows we can get things done in a 
bipartisan way. In good part that is because of my colleague from 
Alabama. I salute him for his leadership on this issue. He originally 
discovered the loophole about contractors who work for DOE, that they 
could not be prosecuted should they commit crimes abroad. He 
successfully passed a law last year about this issue.
  When we discovered all the problems in the prisons in Iraq, it was 
clear that not all the contractors were contracted to by DOD. Other 
agencies contracted them. It made sense to me that we prosecute them as 
well. I believe it made sense to everybody. So I suggest to my 
colleague from Alabama that we work together to expand the amendment to 
include all contractors who work abroad who commit crimes or potential 
crimes.
  As usual, we worked very well together on this. I thank the Senator 
for his leadership in passing the original bill, now law, and now 
amending this to broaden it.
  The amendment Senator Sessions and I are offering today will close a 
dangerous loophole in our criminal law that would have allowed civilian 
contractors who do the crime to escape doing the time. As I mentioned, 
Senator Sessions closed part of this loophole a few years ago when he 
passed the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and showed a 
great deal of foresight with that legislation.
  The problem is that aside from Senator Sessions' bill there are 
negligently few provisions that give DOJ the power to go after civilian 
contractors. In short, if they do not contract with DOD, there is too 
strong a likelihood they will escape prosecution. Nothing in this 
amendment should be interpreted as undermining ongoing DOJ 
investigations or providing a basis for argument that DOJ does not have 
jurisdiction to prosecute contractor crimes in Iraq. Title 18, section 
7, of the Criminal Code clearly confers such jurisdiction. This 
amendment covers contractors and territory for which title 18, section 
7, does not confer jurisdiction.
  I am proud to have worked with my colleague from Alabama to get this 
done. By passing this amendment today, this body gains stature because 
an important amendment is passed in a bipartisan way, and our country 
gains stature because the world sees when a crime is committed, unlike 
in so many other places in America, it is prosecuted.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself and 
     Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 3372, as 
     modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To extend military extraterritorial jurisdiction to cover not 
 only personnel and contractor personnel of the Department of Defense, 
 but also personnel and contractor personnel of any Federal agency or 
   provisional authority supporting the mission of the Department of 
               Defense overseas, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. CONTRACTOR ACCOUNTABILITY.

       Section 3267(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) employed as--
       ``(i) a civilian employee of--

       ``(I) the Department of Defense (including a 
     nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department); or
       ``(II) any other Federal agency, or any provisional 
     authority, to the extent such employment relates to 
     supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas;

       ``(ii) a contractor (including a subcontractor at any tier) 
     of--

       ``(I) the Department of Defense (including a 
     nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department); or
       ``(II) any other Federal agency, or any provisional 
     authority, to the extent such employment relates to 
     supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas; 
     or

       ``(iii) an employee of a contractor (or subcontractor at 
     any tier) of--

       ``(I) the Department of Defense (including a 
     nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department); or
       ``(II) any other Federal agency, or any provisional 
     authority, to the extent such employment relates to 
     supporting the mission of the Department of Defense 
     overseas;''.

     SEC. __. DEFINITION OF UNITED STATES.

       Section 2340(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(3) `United States' means the several States of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, and the 
     commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United 
     States.''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 4 years ago, I worked with Senators 
Sessions and DeWine to pass the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction 
Act, MEJA, which established Federal jurisdiction over crimes committed 
by civilians employed by, or accompanying, our military overseas. The 
Sessions-Schumer amendment further extends the jurisdictional authority 
we created in MEJA by closing a possible jurisdictional gap that could 
allow persons who commit crimes while accompanying our military 
overseas to escape justice. I support this amendment, and am pleased 
that the Senate has adopted it today. In addition, I thank the sponsors 
for accepting my addition to their amendment, which closes a similar 
jurisdictional loophole in Federal law.
  Attorney General Ashcroft referred to this loophole last week, during 
his annual appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, while 
attempting to defend the Administration's position on torture. 
Interestingly, this loophole was created by legislative language that 
was proposed by the Department of Justice as a means of broadening, not 
shrinking, Federal criminal jurisdiction. This language, enacted as 
part of the USA PATRIOT Act, redefined the ``special maritime and 
territorial jurisdiction of the United States'' to include U.S. 
military bases and other U.S. Government properties in foreign States. 
The administration's summary of its proposal explained that it would 
``extend'' Federal jurisdiction to ensure that crimes committed by or 
against U.S. nationals abroad on U.S. Government property did not go 
unpunished.
  Unfortunately, the administration drafters of this proposal neglected 
to mention to Congress how it would impact on the Federal anti-torture 
statute. That statute prohibits torture committed ``outside the United 
States'' by persons acting under color of law, and defines the term 
``United States'' to include the ``special maritime and territorial 
jurisdiction of the United States.'' By extending the special maritime 
and territorial jurisdiction of the

[[Page 12450]]

United States, the PATRIOT Act effectively narrowed the reach of the 
anti-torture statute. Post-PATRIOT Act, the anti-torture statute may 
not allow for the prosecution of an individual who commits torture on a 
U.S. military base outside the United States.
  My addition to the Sessions-Schumer amendment corrects this problem 
in a simple and straightforward way. It extends the anti-torture 
statute to apply, without exception, to acts committed outside the 50 
States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, 
and possessions of the United States.
  It may be that we should go further. Arguably, the anti-torture 
statute should be extended to apply anywhere in the world--both inside 
and outside the United States. I would welcome the views of the 
Department of Justice on this question. In the meantime, there are 
other Federal statutes that prohibit violence or excessive force by 
those acting under color of law within our borders.
  Torture is one of the most serious crimes imaginable. I can think of 
no reason why the Federal Government should create safe havens for 
torturers anywhere in the world. To the contrary, we should use every 
means available to track them down and bring them to justice. The 
language that I have proposed, and that the Senate has accepted, will 
assist the Justice Department in doing just that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3372) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I rise to thank Chairman Warner and Ranking Member 
Levin for their acceptance of a very important amendment last evening 
that was offered by me along with Senators Smith, Corzine, Kennedy, and 
Akaka to clarify the important role that the Department of Defense 
Vaccine Healthcare Centers Network plays in increasing training and 
competency in understanding vaccine associated adverse events, their 
diagnosis, treatment and medical exemption management.
  My amendment, No. 3392, expands upon the language that originally 
created the Vaccine Healthcare Centers, or VHCs, in 2001, to better 
reflect their current function and mission, and recognize the growing 
importance the Network will play in the future with the recent passage 
of the BioShield Act.
  As one example, the original language referenced only the anthrax 
vaccine program but the VHCs have played a fundamental role in 
developing and testing the DoD Smallpox Vaccine Program with clinical 
and research follow-up. These functions should be reflected in the 
authorization of the VHCs and the Bingaman-Smith-Corzine-Kennedy-Akaka 
amendment does that.
  Mr. President, Congress created the Vaccine Healthcare Centers, VHC, 
Network as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001, but 
focused the VHCs on establishing ``a system for monitoring adverse 
events of members of the armed forces to the anthrax vaccine.''
  The Vaccine Healthcare Center at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was 
created in 2001 to respond to that congressional requirement. 
Subsequently, with the creation of three additional regional centers at 
Naval Medical Center Portsmouth in Virginia, Womack Army Medical Center 
in North Carolina, and Wilford Hall Medical Center at Lackland Air 
Force Base in Texas, the VHC Network today provides educational and 
clinical support services that are available to 2.4 million Active Duty 
and Reserve servicemembers and over 6 million family members for all 
immunizations--not just the anthrax vaccine.
  The importance of the VHCs to both servicemembers and the military 
cannot be understated. The VHCs, particularly the one at Walter Reed 
Army Medical Center, has established itself as an unbiased, objective 
source of clinical vaccine-related information to servicemembers, 
providers, the military and Congress, which is rather a remarkable 
accomplishment.
  In fact, there are strong feelings with respect to the anthrax and 
smallpox vaccines, and it is no secret that I have grave concerns with 
the military's policies with respect to the mandatory nature of those 
vaccines at this time. However, regardless of how you feel about the 
policy, few would disagree that the VHCs have provided a strong 
scientific, and unbiased clinical perspective that all sides respect 
and appreciate.
  As the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, or AFEB, found in a report 
it published on April 14,2004, ``The VHC Network has become an integral 
component of the referral and consultation services available on 
vaccine adverse event issues for the DoD and can play an important role 
in the study and evaluation of cases or clusters of possible rare 
vaccine-induced adverse events.''
  Furthermore, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee 
on February 25, 2004, Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr., Assistant 
Secretary for Defense Health Affairs stated, ``And we are delighted to 
say we now have on-site in the Vaccine Healthcare Center Network, a 
network of specialty clinics to provide the best possible care in rare 
situations where serious adverse events follow vaccination. In all our 
vaccination efforts, we focus on keeping individual service members 
healthy, so they can return home safely to their families and loved 
ones.
  Although I do not always agree with Dr. Winkenwerder on force 
protection policy, I do on the importance of the Vaccine Healthcare 
Centers Network. My amendment with Senators Smith, Corzine, Kennedy, 
and Akaka updates and recognizes the importance of the VHCs to our 
Nation's servicemembers.
  The original stated purpose of the language in 2001 was narrowly 
focused on the creation of a DoD Center of Excellence treatment faculty 
focused on providing treatment and follow-up as part of a system of 
monitoring adverse events of servicemembers for the anthrax vaccine. In 
fulfilling that original mission, DoD found that the VCH Network was 
needed to improve vaccine safety and efficacy for all vaccines, and not 
just limited to the anthrax vaccine.
  To achieve this purpose, VHCs provide education, expert consultations 
and problem resolution, medical exemption management, disability 
assessments, and clinical research. These functions are not adequately 
recognized in the current DoD authorization language and my amendment 
reflects these expanded roles on behalf of our Nation's sevicemembers.
  In fact, during fiscal year 2003 alone, the VHCs responded to over 
160,000 contacts and provided case management for over 600 complicated 
vaccine-related cases for servicemembers. Moreover, just 4 days ago, 
the Chicago Tribune reported that a study by a researcher at Walter 
Reed Army Medical Center in conjunction with the Vaccine Healthcare 
Center there has conducted research that indicates ``military personnel 
inoculated against smallpox face a seven to eight times greater risk of 
heart inflammation'' than those who had never been vaccinated.
  The study finds that, since the smallpox vaccination program was 
resumed in 2002, 615,000 servicemembers have been inoculated and that 
there have been 77 confirmed or suspected cases of heart inflammation, 
including at least one in my state.
  As exemplified by the myopericarditis issue with smallpox vaccine, 
the VHCs also provide a place to identify uncommon adverse events and 
help provide early recognition and interdiction which drives policy 
changes in real time to protect the health and well-being of our 
Nation's military personnel.
  Mr. President, vaccines are a prescription drug and, like any 
prescription drug, carry risk and side effects. We, as a Nation, cannot 
ask our servicemembers to continue with a vaccination policy and not 
recognize this critical fact. The VHC Network serves everybody by 
providing objective clinical education, services, and

[[Page 12451]]

research into these matters that better inform all parties, including 
policymakers, of both the risk and benefits vaccines carry. Moreover, 
the Network serves to minimize those risks as best as they can.
  Army Surgeon General, Lt. General James Peake, urged repeatedly in a 
memorandum dated February 10, 2004, to commanders and regional medical 
commands that clinicians utilize the VHC Network resources, while 
noting the ``U.S. Army lost a valuable Soldier, Rachel Lacy, in April 
2003, a month after receiving five vaccinations during mobilization.''
  Unfortuantely, this critical resource could have been lost or 
severely limited without the passage of our amendment. That would be 
unacceptable, particularly in light of the high praise from Dr. 
Winkenwerder, Lt. Gen. James Peake and the Armed Forces Epidemiological 
Board for the critical work VHCs perform. To that end, I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks 
the memorandum from Dr. Peake.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. And finally, as the use of passive immune globulin and 
other immune modulators increases, complex interactions and expert 
evaluation of adverse events will be needed more than ever in support 
of both our Nation's servicemembers and to guide both military 
readiness and homeland defense policy. The VHCs are a critical 
component in that endeavor.
  So again, I thank the mangers of the bill, Chairman Warner and 
Ranking Member Levin, for agreeing to the Bingaman-Smith-Corzine-
Kennedy-Akaka amendment to appropriately reflect and confirm 
congressional support for the activities undertaken by the VHC Network, 
as their role is critical to the health and well-being of our Nation's 
servicemembers.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              (Exhibit 1)

         Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Army 
           Medical command,
                          Fort Sam Houston, TX, February 10, 2004.

          Memorandum for Commanders, Regional Medical Commands

     Subject: Learning from Adverse Events After Vaccination--
         Action Memorandum.

       1. Immunization is one of the most valuable tools available 
     to keep Soldiers healthy. The overwhelming majority of 
     immunizations are followed by mild symptoms, such as soreness 
     at the injection site; severe adverse reactions are extremely 
     rare. Unfortunately, the U.S. Army lost a valuable Soldier in 
     April 2003, a month after receiving five vaccinations during 
     mobilization. Although the evidence was inconclusive, medical 
     experts determined that vaccination may have contributed to 
     her death (Tab A). Additional information about the case is 
     available at www.vaccines.mil/panelreport.asp.
       2. Please relay this message to clinicians in your command, 
     noting these key points: Remind vaccinees to seek medical 
     care if they experience medical problems, or they can call 
     the DoD Vaccine Clinical Call Center at 866-210-6469; Remind 
     clinicians to take a vaccination history during patient 
     assessments. Be particularly alert in post-vaccination cases 
     of fever, chest symptoms (e.g., dyspnea, chest pain), or 
     clinical findings such as pleural or pericardial 
     inflammation; In conditions not responding to antibiotics, 
     consider the possibility of autoimmune disease and 
     appropriate treatments for such conditions; Seek specialty 
     consultation as clinically appropriate. Consider the unique 
     consultation resources within the Vaccine Healthcare Center 
     (VHC) Network (www.vhcinfo.org, 202-782-0411 (DSN: 662); 
     [email protected]); Continue to report adverse events 
     after vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting 
     System (VAERS, www.vaers.org); Continue to follow guidelines 
     for managing adverse events after vaccination 
     (www.vaccines.mil/pdf/cpguidelines.pdf). Note there are new 
     guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of 
     myopericarditis after smallpox vaccination; Grant medical 
     exemptions when clinically appropriate. When needed, use 
     consultation services for a second opinion (e.g., Vaccine 
     Healthcare Center Network);
       3. For more vaccine resources, take advantage of the 
     experts at the Vaccine Healthcare Center Network 
     (www.vhcinfo.org) and the Military Vaccine Agency 
     (www.vaccines.mil).
       4. My points of contact for this action are COL John 
     Grabenstein at 703-681-5101 and COL Renata Engler at 202-782-
     0411.
                                                   James B. Peake,
                                   Lieutenant General, Commanding.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the Department of 
Defense authorization bill, Senators Warner and Levin, for their 
assistance earlier this week in adopting an important amendment. I 
offered the amendment, now a provision of this bill, to express the 
sense of the Senate concerning programming on American Forces Radio and 
Television Service, AFRTS.
  As my colleagues know, for American service members and their 
families stationed in more than 177 countries and U.S. territories 
around the world, as well as for DOD civilians and their families, 
AFRTS is intended to broadcast a ``touch of home'' by providing 
programming that reflects a cross section of what is widely available 
to stateside audiences. According to the AFRTS website, its programming 
is meant to ``represent what is seen and heard in the United States.''
  I support AFRTS in its mission. Making U.S. entertainment and news 
programming available to American service members wherever they are 
located is important for their morale and to keep them informed. I 
believe the fiscal year 2004 funding level of $47 million for AFRTS is 
justified.
  Several weeks ago, however, it came to my attention that the 
programming on one AFRTS service--its ``uninterrupted voice,'' or talk 
radio, service--has what I consider to be a political bias in its 
social and political commentary.
  For the information of my colleagues, the radio broadcast component 
of AFRTS, which is American Forces Radio, consists of 13 channels, or 
``services.'' Seven of these radio services focus on music, with news 
briefs at the top of every hour. Two are continuous news information 
services. One service broadcasts National Public Radio 24 hours a day, 
7 days a week. Two services are continuous sports talk. The final 
service is what the network calls uninterrupted voice service, or talk 
radio service.
  Based on conversations between my staff and personnel at AFRTS, I 
believe the bias that exists in the social and political commentary 
portions of this talk radio service is not intentional. I commend the 
openness of American Forces Radio officials in the dialogue we have now 
begun on this topic. But in my view the bias in this programming is 
real.
  Public criticism of American Forces Radio content has focused on the 
fact that Rush Limbaugh's commentary is carried daily on the talk radio 
service. I generally do not agree with Rush Limbaugh's commentaries. 
But I do not object to the fact that they are run on a daily basis on 
this service. Some people do object. However, what I do take issue with 
is the fact that there is no commentary on the service that would even 
begin to balance the extreme right-wing views that Rush Limbaugh 
routinely expresses on his program.
  Critics have specifically cited Rush Limbaugh's use of his show to 
condone and trivialize the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at 
the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. As many of my colleagues know, and as 
has been pointed out previously here on the Senate floor, Mr. Limbaugh 
reportedly likened the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. guards at Abu 
Ghraib to a fraternity initiation. He called some of the abusive 
tactics a ``brilliant maneuver.'' I think the critics are right. 
Limbaugh's remarks--and there are many more offensive remarks by Mr. 
Limbaugh on this topic than I have mentioned here--are repugnant. They 
do damage to the American image when they are heard around the world. I 
would guess that Limbaugh's comments on Abu Ghraib also probably offend 
a large majority of American service members.
  Still, I am not calling for American Forces Radio to pull Rush 
Limbaugh's commentaries from their talk radio service. I am asking, and 
I am pleased that the Senate is now on record asking, that AFRTS meet 
its own mandate, as generally articulated in Department of Defense 
Regulation 5120.20R. That regulation calls for AFRTS political 
programming that is ``characterized by its fairness and balance,'' as 
well as news programming

[[Page 12452]]

guided by a ``principle of fairness'' that requires ``reasonable 
opportunities for the presentation of conflicting views on important 
controversial public issues.''
  Liberals, moderates and independents contribute to funding for 
American Forces Radio through payment of their taxes, just like 
conservatives do. There is no reason that American service members 
should receive lengthy right-wing commentaries with regularity on 
American Forces Radio's talk service, without some balance from 
competing views as part of that same service. For the good of its 
listeners, and to meet its own mandate, American Forces Radio needs to 
make a greater effort to give a balanced, fair representation of 
varying political viewpoints on its talk radio service.
  In conversations with my staff, individuals at AFRTS have said that 
their programming of Rush Limbaugh on the talk service is driven 
strictly by national ratings here in the States. That was not the 
position taken by a DOD official on CNN earlier this month, however. 
According to news coverage posted on CNN.com, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense Allison Barber has said that the appropriateness 
of content is a factor in deciding what commentaries are broadcast on 
American Forces Radio.
  I agree with the Deputy Assistant Secretary's statement. Content is a 
factor in deciding which commentaries to run on American Forces Radio. 
At the same time, I also agree with stated AFRTS policy. There should 
be fairness and balance in political programming on American Forces 
Radio.
  My amendment in no way prescribes specific content or programming at 
AFRTS. That is not the role of the Senate. What my amendment does do, 
appropriately, is state that it is the sense of the Senate that the 
Secretary of Defense should ensure that AFRTS policies of fairness and 
balance are being fully implemented. The amendment calls on the 
Secretary to develop appropriate methods of oversight in this regard. I 
look forward to working with the Department and others to see that 
AFRTS meets these proper goals.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for 
the amendment adopted yesterday to the Department of Defense 
authorization bill that would strengthen Federal hate crime laws.
  This amendment would strengthen Federal hate crimes law in two 
important ways. First, it would remove the requirement that the victim 
be engaged in a federally protected activity when the crime occurs. 
This change will make it easier for hate crimes to be prosecuted and 
local officials to be assisted when the hate crime is based on race, 
religion, or national origin. Second, the current statute is expanded 
to cover hate crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, and 
disability.
  Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation began to track hate crimes 
in 1991, the incidents of hate crimes based on sexual orientation have 
more than tripled. If the changes to the Federal hate crimes statute 
incorporated in this amendment are enacted, it will allow the Federal 
government to prosecute these crimes and assist local law enforcement 
officials in dealing with these violent hate crimes.
  Any crime hurts our society, but crimes motivated by hate are 
especially harmful. Many States, including my own State of Vermont, 
have already passed strong hate crimes laws, and I applaud them in this 
endeavor. An important principle of the amendment is that it allows for 
Federal prosecution of hate crimes without impeding the rights of 
States to prosecute these same crimes.
  The adoption of this amendment by the Senate is an important step 
forward in ensuring that the perpetrators of these harmful crimes are 
brought to justice. The American public knows that Congress should pass 
this legislation, and I call upon the conferees to retain this 
important provision during the conference on this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will ask unanimous consent the resolution relative to 
the Detroit Pistons victory be introduced in 1 minute, but first I ask 
unanimous consent that I temporarily turn the floor over to Senator 
Biden. Then I will introduce this unanimous consent resolution, Senator 
Stabenow will be recognized for 5 minutes, I will be recognized for 5 
minutes, and then Senator Miller will be recognized for 8 minutes after 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________