[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2422-H2427]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROHIBITING MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES IN SAUDI ARABIA FROM BEING REQUIRED 
                 OR COMPELLED TO WEAR THE ABAYA GARMENT

  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4714) to prohibit members of the Armed Forces in Saudi 
Arabia from being required or formally or informally compelled to wear 
the abaya garment, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4714

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. WEAR OF ABAYAS BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN 
                   SAUDI ARABIA.

       (a) Prohibition Relating to Wear of Abayas.--A member of 
     the Armed Forces may not be required or formally or 
     informally compelled to wear the abaya garment or any part of 
     the abaya garment while in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
     pursuant to a permanent change of station or orders for 
     temporary duty.
       (b) Instruction.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
     provide each member of the Armed Forces ordered to a 
     permanent

[[Page H2423]]

     change of station or temporary duty in the Kingdom of Saudi 
     Arabia with instructions regarding the prohibition in 
     subsection (a). Such instructions shall be provided to a 
     member within 10 days before the date of a member's arrival 
     at a United States military installation within the Kingdom 
     of Saudi Arabia or immediately upon such arrival. The 
     instructions shall be presented orally and in writing. The 
     written instruction shall include the full text of this 
     section.
       (2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall act 
     through the Commander in Chief, United States Central Command 
     and Joint Task Force Southwest Asia, and the commanders of 
     the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps components of the 
     United States Central Command and Joint Task Force Southwest 
     Asia.
       (c) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Procurement of 
     Abayas.--Funds appropriated or otherwise made available to 
     the Department of Defense may not be used to procure abayas 
     for regular or routine issuance to members of the Armed 
     Forces serving in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or for any 
     personnel of contractors accompanying the Armed Forces in the 
     Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the performance of contracts 
     entered into with such contractors by the United States.
       (d) Commander Authority.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
     the commander of the United States Central Command may 
     require the wear of the abaya garment in specific 
     circumstances that, in the opinion of the commander, 
     constitute an operational requirement essential for the 
     conduct of the military mission.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H.R. 4714.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the bill offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin).
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation establishes certain requirements 
relating to the wear of the abaya garment by Members of the U.S. Armed 
Forces in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This bill represents a 
compromise bill on an amendment proposed during the markup of H.R. 
4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003.
  Mr. Speaker, I think many Members feel the wearing of the abaya 
uniform by female service members should be entirely voluntary. I agree 
with that particular view. The pending legislation provides for such 
voluntary wear, except under specific circumstances that the Commander 
of the United States Central Command may designate when the CINC 
determines that mandatory wear constitutes an operational requirement 
essential for the conduct of the military mission.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I explain the bill the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hostettler) and I wrote together and introduced today, I would 
like to thank the Members who made this possible.
  From the moment I introduced language that prohibited the requiring 
or strongly encouraging our military women to wear abayas, both the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) were by my side. As we negotiated with the 
committee, maneuvered through the Committee on Rules, floor 
consideration and final passage of the National Defense Authorization 
Act, the three of us illustrated the power of bipartisanship and 
determination. I am truly honored to have worked with such 
knowledgeable and dedicated Members of this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman McHugh) of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel and the 
members of the Committee on Armed Services for their understanding and 
willingness to work with us to include this language in the defense 
bill. To clarify for the Congressional Record, it is the intent of the 
House that this language be included in the final defense bill that is 
passed by both Chambers and enacted into law.
  Mr. Speaker, one last thank you before I highlight the importance of 
this legislation, and that is my constituent, Lt. Colonel Martha 
McSally. Many of you know her as the first female fighter pilot to fly 
in combat, as well as leader in the effort to change the military's 
policy of requiring military servicewomen in Saudi Arabia to wear 
abayas. For 7 years this battle was fought. She is a remarkable person, 
whose patriotism is undeniable, integrity unquestionable, and 
determination to do what is right unparalleled. I am deeply honored to 
sponsor this legislation today to help Lt. Colonel McSally end this 
battle once and for all.
  My colleagues have heard me say it numerous times before: women make 
first-class soldiers and should not be treated like second-class 
citizens. This bill we consider today will prohibit the military from 
requiring or formally or informally compelling servicewomen in Saudi 
Arabia to wear abayas and would block the military from making regular 
procurements of abayas.
  This sends a very strong message. It says Congress will no longer 
tolerate forcing our dedicated military servicewomen who are on the 
front lines risking their lives, protecting and fighting for freedom 
and democracy and to defend Saudi Arabia itself to wear a religious 
garment of faith most of them do not follow.
  As you can see from this picture, the abaya and head scarf cover the 
entire body from head to toe. Our female servicewomen stationed in 
Saudi Arabia are wearing this and having the most radical of Islamic 
beliefs imposed upon them, even though the Department of State does not 
require or encourage any of its employees to wear the abaya. It does 
not require its employees to wear abayas while on duty precisely 
because they are representing the United States of America. Not even 
the spouses and dependents of the State Department staff wear the 
abaya, nor did Mrs. Cheney or former Secretary of State Madeleine 
Albright during their visits to Saudi Arabia.
  The Government of Saudi Arabia itself does not require non-Muslim 
women to wear abayas. My colleagues may be interested to know that even 
General Schwarzkopf did not issue any mandate requiring the 
servicewomen to wear abayas during the Gulf War. Male servicemembers 
are not required to wear the abaya, grow beards or embrace any Islamic 
religious beliefs in this way, so neither should women. Forcing our 
female service troops to wear the abaya has a negative impact on our 
recruitment and diminishes morale, unit cohesion and the chain of 
command headed by female servicemembers. Most of all, this practice is 
completely unnecessary.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about leadership. This is about sending a 
message to the world that America treats its citizens equally. And this 
message comes from the top. On November 17 of last year, President Bush 
launched a worldwide effort to focus on the brutality against women and 
children by the al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban. Under this 
regime, women were denied access to doctors and education and could not 
work outside the home or even leave the home by themselves.
  This severe repression of women under the guise of religion masked an 
insidious discrimination that neither America nor many Muslims condone. 
In fact, most of the Islamic world recognizes women make important 
contributions to their societies. That is why America must 
affirmatively reject subjecting our military servicewomen to this 
discrimination and that is why I have fought to bring this bill to the 
floor today.
  I urge my colleagues to join me, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler), and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) in 
passing this legislation and ending the demeaning practice of making 
only American servicewomen wear the abaya.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

[[Page H2424]]

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin) and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) in 
sponsoring H.R. 4714, a bill to prohibit members of the Armed Forces in 
Saudi Arabia from being required or formally or informally compelled to 
wear the abaya garment.
  Present DOD policy of ``strongly encouraging'' our female military 
personnel to wear the abaya sure sounds like an order to me. Christians 
like Lt. Colonel Martha McSally should not be forced to wear a Muslim 
outfit, especially when off duty and on their own time.
  I am puzzled by the fact that our female military personnel are 
treated like second-class citizens while stationed on soil they are 
defending from Iraqi aggression. As a matter of fact, the State 
Department does not require its female embassy employees to wear the 
abaya in Saudi Arabia. When Second Lady Lynne Cheney accompanied Vice 
President Dick Cheney on his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, she did not 
wear an abaya; she wore a business suit.
  It gets better. The Government of Saudi Arabia, according to their 
officials in the D.C. embassy, does not require foreigners to wear the 
abaya.
  Forcing our female troops to wear the abaya in the past and now today 
strongly encouraging them to do so has a negative impact on our 
recruitment and retention of highly qualified military personnel.
  How many well-trained, well-qualified military personnel have 
separated from the military to avoid wearing the abaya in Saudi Arabia? 
How many have not decided to enlist in our U.S. military in the first 
place to avoid ever being forced to wear the abaya?
  The argument that women should wear the abaya for force protection 
begs the question what are we doing in any country if the best force 
protection measure is wearing an abaya?
  Likewise, I believe Lt. Colonel McSally was right when she said, 
``When you separate your troops into two groups and then impose the 
values of the host nation on one of them, to me that is abandoning your 
American values.''
  This important legislation informs our allies that while our presence 
in their country is advantageous to their security, we are there not to 
defend their values, but the values of Americans. Some of those are 
women who have volunteered to put their lives on the line for our 
liberties.
  The time is now for the Congress to take control of this issue, given 
our responsibilities under Article I, section 8 of our Constitution; 
and H.R. 4714 does just that. I should not have to remind anyone in 
this Congress about the plaque that hangs in the House Committee on 
Armed Services room which reminds us, all of us, including officials 
from the Department of Defense, that according to our Founding Fathers, 
``The Congress shall have power to make rules for the government and 
regulation of the land and naval forces.''

                              {time}  1715

  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
commend Lieutenant Colonel Martha McSally for her courage in bringing 
this issue to the public's attention. For 6 years, she quietly tried to 
persuade the Pentagon to modify its policy with no success. She even 
discussed the issue with then Defense Secretary William Perry in 1995. 
In 2000, she lobbied then Secretary of the Air Force, Whit Peters. 
Moreover, she has written memos and met with top generals in the Air 
Force and still got nowhere.
  It was not until she was questioned by a reporter for USA Today in 
April 2001 that she talked publicly about this policy, and I am glad 
she did. Otherwise, the Congress would probably still be in the dark 
about this religious liberty and quality of life issue for our female 
military personnel.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we take action to remedy this injustice now. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4714.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our esteemed ranking member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, first let me say I appreciate and applaud 
the persistence of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) in 
behalf of this legislation. It is the right thing to do. I appreciate 
the work of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) on this issue.
  There was a phrase that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) 
used that is part of our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, the United States 
Constitution requires the Congress to raise and maintain the military 
and also to establish the rules and regulations thereof. Through my 
years in Congress, I have had the opportunity to do both and 
particularly, in writing rules and regulations insofar as military 
education is concerned and insofar as the structure of the military is 
concerned, which resulted in what we now call Goldwater-Nickles.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing to do. The Americans are in 
Saudi Arabia, have been in Saudi Arabia, were there to make sure that 
Saddam Hussein's troops did not come down south and into that country. 
They are there for the protection of that country. This is a very 
appropriate thing to do, to not make the American women of the military 
abide by anything but the American rules.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  (Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for their leadership and their perseverance on 
this issue. This is a provision that probably should have been included 
in this year's defense authorization bill and may ultimately get rolled 
into that bill in conference, but without their perseverance we would 
not have been able to bring this bill to the floor of the House today.
  It is my hope that the House tonight will send a very clear message 
to the Department of Defense that its policy on the wearing of the 
abaya, first making it mandatory and then strongly encouraging women 
service members in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya, is completely 
unacceptable to this House and to the American people.
  This bill, when passed, and I believe it will be passed and included 
in the defense authorization bill, or a stand-alone bill will pass the 
Senate, will end the DOD policy that affects American servicewomen 
serving in Saudi Arabia.
  The sad thing is that this bill is needed at all. This policy should 
never have been put in place in the first place. When it was put in 
place and brought to the attention of senior commanders at the 
Pentagon, it should have been immediately repealed as transparently 
unconstitutional. Yet, it requires action by the United States House of 
Representatives in order to send a clear message to the Department of 
Defense that if they do not get it, we do, and they have to change this 
policy.
  The Department of Defense changed its policy slightly by changing it 
from being mandatory to strongly encouraging American servicewomen to 
wear the abaya when off duty and off post in Saudi Arabia. Maybe that 
was clever from a public relations point of view, but for those of us 
who have served in the military, and I have, we know that ``strongly 
encouraged'' is not optional. When a senior officer tells a young 
service member that they are strongly encouraged to wear an abaya, that 
is about as close to an order as one can get. In fact, if one values 
one's military career, one will do it. If one values just one's freedom 
from hassles, from being labeled as a troublemaker or not a team 
player, it means one will do it, because it really means that one has 
to, because the commander says they are strongly recommending it. And 
they say that with a kind of tone in their voice that means, you do it 
or else.
  It is those kinds of policies that we do not need in the United 
States military, and I think this goes beyond the issues of class, 
beyond issues of respect for women in positions of command. I believe 
that this is a first amendment issue.

[[Page H2425]]

  The abaya is traditional Muslim garb. It is as inappropriate for the 
Department of Defense to order servicewomen to wear traditional Muslim 
garb, most of whom are Christians or Jewish who do not share the faith 
of women who choose to wear that dress, it is as inappropriate to do 
that as it is to tell servicemen serving in Israel that they must wear 
a yarmulke when they go to the Western Wall. Now, most servicemen would 
do so out of respect for the traditions of the country in which they 
are a resident. But it is inappropriate for the Department of Defense 
to force service members to wear religious clothing, pure and simple, 
and it is likewise inappropriate to strongly encourage that they do so.
  This legislation is very clear in its language. It prohibits formally 
or informally compelling service members to wear the abaya. That covers 
all of the synonyms for ``strongly encouraged'' so that they could not 
just change it to ``strongly recommend'' or ``highly recommend.'' They 
are prohibited from informally or formally compelling them. There is 
only one exception, and that exception is force protection. This House 
has rejected the DOD's spurious arguments about force protection, and 
that is exactly what they are.
  The only exception is very narrowly crafted, and that is if it is 
essential to the conduct of the military mission and, in sitting on 
this floor with my colleagues and talking about what that might mean, 
if there was a serious civil unrest in Saudi Arabia and we had soldiers 
who are downtown in a building and we needed to extract them without 
local people knowing who they were, or for some reason for a special 
forces operation or to move people around, we may need to hide who our 
people really are. Those are the essential kinds of things that might 
justify such an order. Nothing else does.
  I commend the gentleman from Rhode Island and the gentleman from 
Indiana for their leadership. This House will make a statement tonight 
that we will not tolerate this kind of policy from the Department of 
Defense, and we are strong enough and united enough to stand up for 
them.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this 
important issue, and the gentlewoman from New Mexico also, who served 
in the military and who brings a great deal of knowledge and 
understanding to this issue. I thank her for her very impassioned 
statement before Congress today.
  Our country is at war. Our troops overseas are risking their lives to 
protect our lives and our rights as United States citizens. 
Unfortunately, in Saudi Arabia we have seen servicewomen who have lost 
their rights to wear their military-issued uniforms as they are 
protecting our rights. Instead, while fighting to protect our freedom 
and democracy, these women are being encouraged and sometimes required 
to wear an abaya. For those of us who are not familiar with it, it is a 
long black robe that covers a woman from head to toe.
  Requiring women to wear this garment discriminates against them and 
violates their religious freedom by forcing them to adopt another 
faith's garb. It does not increase the safety and security of U.S. 
interests. Instead, it works against them. By discriminating against 
women in the military, we undermine the authority of officers stationed 
in Saudi Arabia and diminish morale among servicewomen.
  Last December, Lieutenant Colonel Martha McSally, the highest ranking 
female fighter pilot in the Air Force, brought a lawsuit against the 
military for its practice of requiring servicewomen stationed in Saudi 
Arabia to wear this black garment, ride in the back seat of cars, and 
be accompanied by a man when off base. In response to her courageous 
suit, I sent a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, along with 18 other 
Members of Congress, urging him to revoke this discriminatory policy 
against women serving in Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the referenced letter.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The Government of Saudi Arabia does not 
require non-Muslim women to wear abayas and the State Department does 
not require them or even encourage any of its employees to wear this 
garment. Our Armed Forces should show the same amount of respect for 
its employees.
  The bottom line is that our servicewomen are fulfilling a very 
difficult job in Saudi Arabia, and they deserve to be treated with 
respect. They must not be forced into a subservient position.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. servicewomen are valued, respected, capable members 
of our Armed Forces. It is the duty of the United States Government and 
its military to demonstrate to other nations how much we value our 
servicewomen serving overseas.
  The United States must set a standard for equality around the world 
and stop this discriminatory treatment against American servicewomen.
  I congratulate my colleagues on the committee for putting forward 
this bill. I support it strongly. It is an important statement in 
support of our women serving overseas in Saudi Arabia and other 
countries.

                                                U.S. Congress,

                                    Washington, DC, Dec. 17, 2001.
     Hon. Donald Rumsfeld,
     Office of the Secretary, Pentagon, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Rumsfeld; We are very troubled to learn that 
     American servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia are required 
     to wear abayas and ride in the back seat of cars when off 
     base, and that they cannot go off base unless accompanied by 
     a man. We are conscious of the need to maintain good 
     relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly during this time of 
     war; however, we understand that servicewomen are the only 
     federal employees stationed in Saudi Arabia who are obliged 
     to follow these rules.
       Our servicewomen are fulfilling a very difficult job in 
     Saudi Arabia, and they deserve to be treated with respect. By 
     requiring servicewomen to adopt a subservient position, the 
     military is sending the very clear signal that they are not 
     deserving of equal respect. This has a particularly 
     significant impact on officers, who are being asked to be 
     subservient to men under their command. It is very difficult 
     for these officers to maintain the same degree of authority 
     if they must adopt a submissive role off base.
       We urge you to revoke this policy and to treat servicewomen 
     with the same dignity afforded other federal employees in 
     Saudi Arabia.
           Sincerely,
         Carolyn B. Maloney; Betty McCollum; Janice Schakowsky; 
           Lloyd Doggett; James P. McGovern; Nita Lowey; Peter 
           DeFazio; Martin Frost; James Leach; Barbara Lee; Diane 
           Watson; Lucille Roybal-Allard; Ellen Tauscher; Jim 
           McDemott; Elijah Cummings; Julia Carson; George Miller; 
           Neil Abercrombie; Diana DeGette.

  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of the concerted efforts of several members 
of the Committee on Armed Services, this bill expresses the views of 
many Members of Congress regarding the wearing of the abaya by our 
military personnel serving in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it 
affords the commanders the latitude necessary to educate service 
members about the threats and allows such force protection measures as 
may be dictated by a unit's mission and location. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to just take a minute to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) once again for 
their leadership and determination. I think that this bill sends a very 
clear message about how we expect our soldiers to be treated overseas 
and in this country.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
4714, a bill to prohibit members of the Armed Forces in Saudi Arabia 
from being required or formally or informally compelled to wear the 
abaya garment. I commend my colleagues on the Armed Services 
Committee--Mr. Langevin and Mr. Hostettler for their perseverance on 
this issue and for bringing this bill to the floor today.
  This legislation will end a Defense Department policy affecting 
servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia.
  It is a sad commentary that this legislation is needed at all. This 
policy should not have been implemented in the first place; it should 
have been changed rapidly when it was brought to the attention of 
senior commanders and the Pentagon; and the revised policy is also 
flawed.

[[Page H2426]]

  This bill would have been part of the Defense Authorization bill this 
year, and it may be incorporated into that legislation in conference 
committee. It is my hope that the Defense Department won't wait to be 
forced to do the right thing.
  Our vote tonight is to send a message to the Defense Department loud 
and clear: your policy requiring or strongly encouraging servicewomen 
stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya is without merit and is 
offensive to the American people. You need to change it, or the 
Congress will change it for you.
  Mr. Speaker, those who choose to serve our country, regardless of 
gender, should be treated with respect by their commanders. There's a 
lot of talk about loyalty from the bottom up. But loyalty from the top 
down is more important, and more rare. Since the beginning of the 
Republic, Americans, both men and women have done their duty to secure 
the liberties that we enjoy. Women make first-class soldiers and should 
not be treated like second-class citizens.
  But this legislation goes far beyond issues of class and respect for 
women in the service. The abaya is a garment that covers a Muslim woman 
from head to toe with only the eyes showing. It is associated by others 
and by servicewomen with the Muslim religion. Forcing American 
servicewomen--most of whom are Christian or Jewish--to wear traditional 
Muslim dress is deeply offensive to their religious beliefs and 
possibly unconstitutional.
  But the Defense Department just doesn't seem to get it. They would 
never force American servicemen to wear a yarmulke in Israel or a 
crucifix in order to avoid harassment or be sensitive to the local 
culture. Indeed, the same regulation that ordered women to wear the 
abaya in Saudi Arabia prohibited servicemen from wearing local Saudi 
dress for men.

  The Defense Department has never seemed to be troubled by this double 
standard that directs servicemen to dress conservatively while 
prohibiting the wear of local dress, and presumes that young 
servicewomen could not or would not follow similar command guidelines 
and ordered them to wear the abaya.
  The Department's modified policy that ``strongly encourages'' women 
to wear the abaya only sounds satisfactory to people who have never 
been in the military. When an officer ``strongly encourages'' any young 
troop to do something, that is not optional. It means you darn well 
better do it if you value your career in the military. It means if you 
don't do it, you risk being branded as an attitude problem, a 
troublemaker, someone deserving extra (and certainly unwanted) 
attention that is likely to make your life a whole lot harder and 
possibly downright miserable. Every veteran in this body knows what I'm 
saying is true.
  DOD's policy change to ``strongly encourage'' wearing the abaya was 
clever as a public relations move, but not clever enough to hide from 
this body that DOD wishes to preserve a practice offensive to military 
women and offensive to the American people and the beliefs we cherish.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation states that a member of the Armed 
Forces may not be required or formally or informally compelled to wear 
the abaya garment or any part of the abaya garment while in the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia. It prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to 
purchase abayas. It requires commanders to inform their troops of this 
policy and provide them a copy of it in writing.
  The language ``formally or informally compelled'' is intended to 
cover a range of synonyms for ``strongly encouraged''. We did not want 
to prohibit DOD from ``encouraging'' wear of the abaya while they 
change their policy to ``recommend'' it, or ``suggest'' it. We are not 
interested in playing with words. DOD may not formally or informally 
compel wear of the abaya in any way. The current DOD policy of 
``strongly encouraging'' wearing of the abaya is not consistent with 
this legislation and, if this legislation passes, it must be changed.
  There is one exception in this legislation, and it deserves 
explanation. The Defense Department initially justified their abaya 
policy on the grounds of host nation sensitivity, even though neither 
the Saudi government nor the State Department require or strongly 
encourage wearing the abaya. In fact, the State Department also does 
not recommend that tourists--arguably the least prepared to deal with 
religious enforcers, called Mutawa'iin--wear abayas. The recommendation 
for tourists is the same as for the male service members: conservative 
clothes that cover the arms and legs.
  Then, as pressure grew, the Defense Department modified their policy 
and the justification for it on the grounds of ``force protection''. 
They maintain that they must continue to have the option of ordering 
women to wear the abaya if a commander considers it to be necessary for 
the safety of our servicewomen.

  In passing this legislation, the Congress is explicitly rejecting 
this ``force protection'' argument. Indeed, in negotiations with DOD 
staff before the FY03 Defense Authorization Act came to the floor of 
the House, the DOD argued for a ``force protection'' exception that was 
so broad that it made the prohibition meaningless. The members of 
Congress involved in these discussions rejected DOD's arguments and the 
force protection exception is not included in this bill.
  What we have included is a much narrower exception that says the 
commander of the United States Central Command may require the wear of 
the abaya in ``specific circumstances'' that ``constitute an 
operational requirement essential for the conduct of the military 
mission.''
  First, the Commander of USCENTCOM may not delegate this authority to 
anyone else below him. Second, he may not do so based on a general need 
for ``force protection'' or ``safety''. The only time he may do so is 
if it is an operational requirement to complete the military mission.
  In crafting this exception, we had in mind very unusual circumstances 
like special operations requiring concealment, an unusual need to move 
people in-country without the knowledge of the best country, or if 
there were widespread civil unrest to extract service members from a 
dangerous situation without detection or provocation.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope this House will be heard today and that we send a 
resounding message to the Department of Defense. Your policy on wearing 
the abaya is inconsistent with our values as a nation and we insist 
that it be changed.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I support this legislation, I would like 
to make a few observations. It is unfortunate that we are in a position 
where we must act on such legislation. Because of our unwise policy of 
foreign interventionism, which has placed thousands of American service 
members in the Middle East including in Saudi Arabia, we are placed in 
a no-win situation. Either we disregard and mock the customs and 
culture of Saudi Arabia by refusing to adhere to dress codes that they 
have adopted, or we subject American women to a dress code that is 
offensive to our own culture and customs and is disrespectful to the 
sacrifices they are making for this country. What a choice, Mr. 
Speaker!
  I am voting for this bill because I believe, on the whole, that it is 
preferable to place concerns about our own citizens over those whose 
homeland is being defended by American troops. Young Americans join the 
all-volunteer military as an act of patriotism in hopes of defending 
their country and their constitution. We in Congress must honor that 
sacrifice. it is bad enough that our troops are sent around the world 
to defend foreign soil. Asking them to comply with foreign customs 
which violate basic American beliefs about freedom in order to appease 
the very governments our troops are defending adds insult to injury. I 
do not believe a single female member of the armed forces enlisted for 
the ``privilege'' of wearing an abaya while defending the House of Saud 
or that one single male member of the armed forces enlisted in order to 
force his female colleagues to wear an abaya.
  The fact remains that we continue to maintain troops in a place where 
they are not needed. It is the consequences of this dangerous policy 
that concern me most. Isn't it time to return to a more sound foreign 
policy, one that respects the culture of others by not intervening in 
their affairs? Is it not time to bring American troops home to protect 
America, rather than continuing to station them in far off lands where 
the protection they offer is not needed?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill to 
prohibit the Department of Defense from requiring female service 
members to wear the `abaya', a long black robe covering the body from 
head to toe, worn with a head scarf and often a veil.
  Currently, the DOD requires U.S. servicewomen to wear the abaya when 
they leave base in Saudi Arabia. DOD policy also mandates that 
servicewomen cannot sit in the front seat of a vehicle when traveling 
off-base. I am outraged that DOD would not only tolerate, but 
perpetrate, this type of discriminatory treatment against American 
servicewomen. Our women in uniform are performing their duty to protect 
the interests of both the United States and of the host country. It is 
unfortunate that the Saudi government has so little appreciation for 
the contributions of U.S. servicewomen as to allow harassment of them 
to take place at the hands of the Saudi religious police. But it is 
unconscionable that our own government should uphold this 
institutionalized disrespect of women by requiring that Americans 
conform to these standards.
  U.S. servicewomen are valued, respected, capable members of our armed 
forces. It is the duty of the U.S. government, including its military, 
to demonstrate to other nations the high regard in which we hold them.
  It is important to note that official Saudi policy does not require 
non-Muslim women to wear the abaya. Similarly, the U.S. State 
Department allows its female employees to use their own best judgment 
when deciding how to dress when they go outside the embassy. The 
Department of Defense should show the same

[[Page H2427]]

degree of trust in its employees, and end this backward order regarding 
the abaya. This legislation would do just that, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4714.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________