[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 85 (Monday, June 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5925-S5940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 2514, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2514) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2003 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the
[[Page S5926]]
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we made some very good progress on the
national Defense authorization bill last week, and I am optimistic,
with the continuing good help that is always available from our
leadership and the cooperation of Senators, that we can complete action
on this bill in a timely manner this week.
We debated the bill for over 18 hours last week, and we disposed of
29 amendments. We still have some amendments that will require debate
and rollcall votes, and we will be working with the sponsors of those
amendments to try to get them before the Senate as promptly as
possible.
We were able to clear a number of amendments last week. We have a
package of cleared amendments. I am looking at my good friend from
Virginia. He is nodding his head, so we believe we can act on a number
of cleared amendments later today.
We expect to move shortly to an amendment from the Senator from New
Hampshire and the Senator from Minnesota prohibiting the chain of
command from requiring female servicemembers to wear an abaya in Saudi
Arabia. We are going to vote on that amendment. It is currently planned
at approximately 5:45 p.m.
Following the disposition of that amendment, it is our hope that we
can have another amendment offered for debate and schedule a vote for
sometime tomorrow morning.
Finally, I note that the Defense Department and the Nation lost a
great public servant this weekend. Doc Cooke, whose official title was
Director of Administration and Management, but who was more widely and
affectionately known as the mayor of the Pentagon, passed away on
Saturday following an automobile accident several weeks ago.
There was no one more dedicated to the people of the Department of
Defense than Doc Cooke. He will be greatly missed. Our thoughts and our
prayers are with his family.
I know my good friend and colleague from Virginia also knew Doc Cooke
a lot better than I did, and I am sure he will want to add a few words.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend. I remember him
with the warmest regard and respect. I will get for the record the
number of Secretaries of Defense under whom he was privileged to serve,
but it is somewhere in the seven to eight number. He was affectionately
known as the mayor of the Department of Defense.
Mind you now, this is a building that was built in the late thirties
and early forties, the thought being it might be used as a hospital for
heavy casualties if we ever incurred them. Then it was quickly
transformed into the Department of Defense. It is vast. Some 25,000
individuals are at work at any one time either in the building or the
environs. He knew every square foot of that building. He knew it well.
I remember one time, I made a very foolish decision--perhaps I made
several when I was Secretary of the Navy--when I decided to visit the
office which every sailor and marine occupied. It took me 1 year to
cover the building. I was forewarned that I had made an ill-advised
decision. It was interesting. Doc Cooke helped me plot that, as he did
many other projects.
He was behind the restoring of the building the day the tragic
accident befell the men and women who worked in certain spaces on 9-11.
He spearheaded that effort, together with the Secretary of Defense,
such that all the schedules for completion are being met. That is the
type of man he was. He was very humble and very soft spoken.
He had an unfortunate accident on the way to give a speech in
Charlottesville. He did not recover from his injuries. His car simply
went off the road, which indicates possibly he was afflicted by some
illness and lost control. No one else was injured. We are thankful for
that.
I thank my good friend and colleague because those of us who were
privileged to serve in that building, as I did for over 5 years,
remember well Doc Cooke.
Mr. President, turning to the bill, I thank the chairman for his
estimate. I join him in saying we made progress last week. Our
leadership not only challenged us but I think has given us a set of
orders to finish this week. There is every reason we can do that, and
do it in a way to allow Senators to bring forth their amendments to the
bill and to have a reasonable period for debate.
Fortunately, we have in place an understanding with the leadership
that the chairman and I will make the determination as to relevancy of
amendments. Primarily the rule that governs the Parliamentarian as to
whether or not a bill is referred to a committee is the guidepost we
will follow, but we will consult together on these issues.
We are now awaiting the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I
am told he is on his way.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Has Senator Smith offered his amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
Senator Smith's offering of his amendment, which will be momentarily,
the time until 5:45 p.m. today be equally divided and controlled in the
usual form, with respect to the Smith amendment, with no second-degree
amendment in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, but at
5:45 p.m., without intervening action or debate, the Senate vote in
relation to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3969
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the
desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself,
Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Reed, Mr. Craig,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Harkin, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an
amendment numbered 3969.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To impose certain prohibitions and requirements relating to
the wearing of abayas by members of the Armed Forces in Saudi Arabia)
On page 125, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
SEC. 554. WEAR OF ABAYAS BY FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES IN SAUDI ARABIA.
(a) Prohibitions Relating to Wear of Abayas.--No member of
the Armed Forces having authority over a member of the Armed
Forces and no officer or employee of the United States having
authority over a member of the Armed Forces may--
(1) require or encourage that member to wear the abaya
garment or any part of the abaya garment while the member is
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pursuant to a permanent change
of station or orders for temporary duty; or
(2) take any adverse action, whether formal or informal,
against the member for choosing not to wear the abaya garment
or any part of the abaya garment while the member is in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pursuant to a permanent change of
station or orders for temporary duty.
(b) Instruction.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide
each female member of the Armed Forces ordered to a permanent
change of station or temporary duty in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia with instructions regarding the prohibitions in
subsection (a) immediately upon the arrival of the member at
a United States military installation within the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. 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
[[Page S5927]]
Armed Forces in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the
performance of contracts entered into with such contractors
by the United States.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I offer this amendment
today, an amendment to the Defense bill, along with Senators Cantwell,
Grassley, Dayton, Reed, Craig, Landrieu, Harkin, and Boxer, to rectify
a DOD policy that is, frankly, unfair, inequitable, inexplicable, and
which violates our basic values and beliefs as a nation that believes
in freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
We are seeking to eliminate the abaya policy still being imposed upon
our female soldiers in Saudi Arabia. For those who do not know what
this is, the abaya outfit covers, from head to toe, the person wearing
it, and this abaya covers the entire military uniform of female
officers who serve in Saudi Arabia. This policy is unfair, and it is
inexplicable.
More than a year ago, I wrote to Secretary Rumsfeld, along with four
of my colleagues: Senators Helms, Craig, Nickles, and Collins, and I
asked for an explanation from the Department of Defense regarding the
abaya mandate upon females stationed in Saudi Arabia. We received
interim responses to the letter but never a substantive reply. Finally,
the letter was bucked down to General Shelton and then to General
Franks. I wrote a second letter to Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz many
weeks after our first letter went unanswered.
Eventually, we discovered the reason we never received a reply.
Frankly, it was too hard for anyone to defend the policy. Everyone was
so surprised when they got the letter. They could not understand where
this policy came from, why it would be implemented to the effect that a
military officer, on duty, would be forced to cover her uniform, the
uniform of the United States of America, when on official duty.
How in the world could anyone justify that, as if they were ashamed
of the uniform and had to cover it up? So we could not get an answer.
That is the bottom line.
I received a letter from a man who lived in Saudi Arabia for 19 years
who agreed with my position regarding the abaya. So I asked Paul
Wolfowitz essentially what this man asked me: Can we not instruct our
officers in avoiding harassment and help preserve our hard-fought
freedoms and not make them subject to police state tactics? Isn't that
possible?
On September 11, as we all know, the United States was attacked.
Shortly thereafter, our Armed Forces began their operations in
Afghanistan. After the Taliban and al-Qaida forces were in retreat,
Afghan women joyfully--you can remember the press reports--began
shedding their burqas, the head-to-toe gowns women were made to wear by
the brutal Taliban regime. I think we can all remember those vivid
pictures that began to crop up in the papers and in the magazines,
showing women peeking out through these burqas and finally beginning to
have the freedom of expression they so deserved. It was a very warm
moment to see that, and a very touching moment.
U.S. reporters began to question, now, the Department of Defense,
about how we could justify celebrating the victory over the repressive
Taliban which the burqa symbolized, yet at the same time require our
own American women in uniform to wear the Saudi equivalent of the
burqa, which is the abaya. We just liberated the women in Afghanistan
so they could remove the burqa if they so wished. Now, by the same
token, at the same time, we are implementing--holding onto a policy
which forces American women officers, officers of the U.S. military, to
cover their uniform while on official duty.
I must say, when I first heard this, I did not believe it. I was told
this by an individual I will talk about later, and I said I didn't
believe it. I said: I will have to check into this because I don't
believe this is happening. But I found out it was true.
The Department had a hard time answering this glaring contradiction,
and in fact they did not offer any reasonable explanation.
White House counselor Karen Hughes was presented with an Afghan burqa
when Bush administration aides came back from the trip to Afghanistan.
Apparently--I wasn't there, but based on reports--she put it on.
Everyone was amused when Karen put the burqa on and began to ask about
it, wondering how the Secret Service would react if she walked into the
Oval Office with one on. But Karen Hughes is one of the administration
representatives in favor of the rights of Afghan women. The First Lady
herself spoke out against this appalling mistreatment of women by the
Taliban. So undoubtedly Karen Hughes's burqa episode may have seemed
somewhat amusing. But it certainly was not a laughing matter to Karen
Hughes, who spoke out very strongly in favor of the rights of Afghan
women.
It is not a laughing matter that hundreds of United States female
soldiers are subjected to wearing the Saudi variant of the burqa, the
abaya.
In a State Department publication, ``The Taliban's War Against
Women,'' there is this quotation about the burqa. Here is the quote
about the burqa:
The fate of women in Afghanistan is infamous and
intolerable. The burqa that imprisons them is a cloth prison,
but it is above all a moral prison. The torture imposed upon
little girls who dared to show their ankles or their polished
nails is appalling. It is unacceptable and unsupportable.
That is the State Department. That is not my quote, that is a quote
issued by the State Department.
In the quotation from King Mohamed VI of Morocco, just substitute the
word ``burqa'' for ``abaya'' and consider we are doing this to our
women. After we cheered the liberation of Afghan women, after the fall
of the Taliban, we are now doing this to our women in Saudi Arabia.
With all due respect, if you cannot defend a policy, you probably
ought to change it. This really doesn't require a lot of thought. If
you can't defend it, it probably should be changed. The Secretary of
Defense, I am very pleased to say, did eventually repeal the abaya
mandate.
However, that is the good news. Regrettably, that repeal, which I
believe was meant in good faith, was then circumvented at lower levels.
In other words, the Secretary said let's repeal it, but when it went
down to the command level, nothing happened, and women were still being
forced to wear the abaya. So basically the decision to repeal it was
ignored. I can't think of a nicer way to say it. Female soldiers in
Saudi Arabia are now essentially coerced into wearing Muslim garb by
being warned they will endanger their fellow comrades if they do not
wear it. They are now strongly encouraged to wear this Muslim robe.
That is the exact language that is used in the command directive:
Women are ``strongly encouraged'' to wear this Muslim robe.
To a young soldier--those of you who have been in the military, as I
have, understand this--when you are strongly encouraged to do something
by your superiors, and you are in uniform, you do it. It is no
different from a direct order. It is essentially the same thing. So the
mandate is gone, but women are still being forced to wear abayas.
It is incredible to think that a woman in a military uniform has to
cover that uniform up with an abaya, and that is a directive at the
command level of the U.S. military. It really is incredible to me that
we have to be here on the Senate floor to correct this into law
because, frankly, it is a stupid rule. It ought to be eliminated. It
should not have to be done here on the Senate floor.
I tried every way for months not to be here on the Senate floor to do
this. I tried, but I could not get it done because it is still there. I
have yet to meet a man or a woman who has served in Saudi Arabia in the
military who agrees with this policy. I have yet to meet anybody who
agrees with the policy, whether they served or not. So repeal of the
mandate may have helped the Department of Defense in terms of public
relations, and legally because of the lawsuit brought--reluctantly, I
might add--by Air Force COL Martha McSally, who fought for 6 years
within the system to overturn this policy and first publicized the
injustice of this policy last year.
Here is an exemplary officer who fought for 6 years quietly to try to
remove this, to say it was wrong. The essence of her message is this: I
am a Christian. I don't want to wear an
[[Page S5928]]
abaya. I want to wear my uniform. I want to do what everybody else
does, on duty and off. If I want to wear my uniform, I wear it. If I
want to wear civilian clothes, I wear civilian clothes. I don't want to
wear an abaya.
Yet she was forced to do it. She tried for several years to get it
corrected, but to no avail. She was basically ignored.
Whoever brings this type of issue up, the so-called whistleblower,
right away people say there must be something wrong with her; she is
not a good officer; she has some agenda; she is a women's rights
advocate, or whatever--things like that are spread around. Let me tell
you about her.
She is an Air Force Academy graduate. She was selected twice before
her time to get an increase in rank. She was an A-10 pilot with 100
hours in the no-fly zone over Iraq and a devout Christian. She said in
her interview she believes strongly that wearing the abaya violates her
faith. Since when are we in the business of telling a military officer
that she has to wear something that violates her faith and covers up
her own uniform?
McSally's research on the issue showed that the policy was originally
justified--here is the justification for the policy: ``Host nation
sensitivities.'' Worries about offending the Saudis--offending the
Saudis whom we saved from Saddam Hussein. They would all be buying oil
from Saddam, while they sat in England someplace unless we had defended
them. Now we are worried about their sensitivities, telling a military
officer of the U.S. Army or Air Force or whatever that they can't wear
their uniform proudly and show it off. They have to cover it up. That
just doesn't cut it.
The issue showed that the policy was originally justified as ``host
nation sensitivities.'' Then it was later changed to ``force
protection'' after the Khobar Towers were bombed. Neither action makes
sense.
Let me say that again.
First, it was ``host nation sensitivities.'' When that didn't work,
it became obvious that there was no justification for that. After the
Khobar Towers were attacked, then we changed it to ``force
protection.''
In other words, we have to protect our troops. And because McSally,
or anybody else, may not wear the abaya and show off her uniform, it
would infuriate some Saudi citizen. And, therefore, because our
military are walking around in Saudi Arabia somewhere on duty or off
duty, some Saudi citizen might be offended and take some action to harm
other military people as well.
McSally eloquently and courageously exposed the absurdity of the
justifications of this abaya edict. In doing so, she may--the word
``may'' is the action word here--have harmed her stellar military
career.
In these fitness reports of officers, there are certain little action
phrases that have to be put in there for you to get promoted. If they
are not there, you get the message. Those of us in the military know
all of that.
If her career is ruined, it would be a stain on the U.S. Air Force
that will never go away. If Colonel McSally is somehow getting any type
of retribution--implied, indirect, or direct of not getting a
promotion, or not getting a command--if that happens--I am not saying
it is going to happen. I am not accusing anybody of it happening. But I
am saying, if it does, I would say to the Air Force, it is a stain on
the Air Force that is going to take a long, long time to clean.
Women in Saudi Arabia have to have male escorts. American women
wearing abayas are in the company of American males. Typically, they
are military males with crewcuts and collared shirts. If an officer
junior to McSally--a male--is walking down the streets of Saudi Arabia
in a crewcut with an open-collared shirt and a pair of khakis, the
officer who is superior to the man has to cover her entire uniform with
an abaya, and can't wear civvies at that.
I am going to tell you, that is not right. You do not have to be very
smart to figure out that it isn't right.
American men are prohibited from wearing Muslim garb. These women in
abayas are Americans. It is obvious they are Americans. Why would a guy
in a crewcut, who is obviously a marine, or an Air Force officer, be
walking down the street with a woman in an abaya? There is no secret
here. That doesn't constitute ``force protection.''
The whole argument is ridiculous. It is certainly not going to fool
any terrorist, if that is the rationale.
Remember this: People do not want to wear these. They are willing to
take any risk, if there is such risk, not to have to wear the abaya.
Let me consider for a moment what ``host sensitivity'' means. It was
the original justification for the abaya policy. Does it mean we are
going to subject our women to the same conditions that the Saudis set
for theirs? Will we eventually be making any American female
servicemember who deploys to Afghanistan wear a burqa?
I visited Afghanistan. We landed in a snowstorm and reviewed the
American military who were there. Men and women were standing in a
snowstorm waiting for our plane to land. Senator Daschle was there.
Several of my colleagues were there. They were wearing their uniforms.
Frankly, they looked pretty doggone good in them.
Not one of those women had to wear a burqa or an abaya because they
happened to be in Afghanistan. It is so ridiculous it is not even worth
the breath it takes to talk about it.
Yet we have to talk about it right here on the floor of the Senate
because some bullheaded person down there in the command wouldn't
change it. That is the reason we are here. It is the only reason we are
here.
I have heard some justify this practice as, well, when you are in
Rome, do as the Romans do. They are mistaking minor cultural norms,
such as not showing the bottoms of one's feet, or removing your shoes
at the door, for example, which is customary in Japan before entering a
home, with something entirely different and far more important. This is
the U.S. military officer's uniform.
It is not about harmless customs. Rather, it is about our fundamental
values--religious freedom based on the first amendment. And it is about
gender discrimination. That is what this is. It is gender
discrimination. And it is a violation of the first amendment. It goes
against every rule we have in the military about showing off our
uniforms and being proud to wear them.
The Saudis certainly don't believe in ``When in Rome, do as the
Romans do.'' Let me give you an example.
The Dallas Morning News reported that Crown Prince Abdullah asked
women to be barred from air traffic control duties when he traveled to
Texas to meet with President Bush. So much for reciprocal ``host nation
sensitivities.''
Can you imagine that? Crown Prince Abdullah asked that women in our
air traffic control towers be barred from those towers when he traveled
to Texas to meet the President of the United States.
Don't tell me about reciprocal ``host nation sensitivities.''
I have also heard some say the burqa is just plain clothing; it just
represents culture; that it is like the Indian sari.
That is not true.
A Washington Times article on Saudi authorities seizing women's robes
points out this fallacy. The Washington Times' story said the Saudi
Ministry of Commerce confiscated 82,000 gowns from stores and factories
after inspection showed they were not in conformance with Islamic law.
I repeat, in conformance with Islamic law. The abayas were not plain
and opaque, but rather were determined to be ``provocatively
clinging,'' or too highly decorated, or too revealing.
Are our DOD officials going to be asking the Saudi Ministry of
Commerce to determine whether our issued abayas are in conformance with
Islamic law? Do we consult with the Saudi Committee for Preservation of
Morality and Prevention of Vice--the morality police--on the
appropriateness of our abaya purchases for our female soldiers? We are
paying for them. We are buying these abayas with U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Let me provide a short history of this mandate. It surfaced somewhere
in 1992, 1994, or 1995. There was never an abaya mandate during Desert
Storm--never an abaya mandate during Desert Storm when we had 500,000
troops in the gulf. General Schwarzkopf never
[[Page S5929]]
ordered our women to wear abayas during the gulf crisis, nor were they
ordered not to drive cars, which is another order given to American
military women.
Let us consider the contradictions. Women in the military in Saudi
Arabia are forced to wear the abaya by a local U.S. command decision.
State Department women are not under any abaya mandate. If you are
working for the State Department, or if you are the wife of an
Ambassador, whatever, there is no abaya mandate for you. Wives of
military attaches, there is no abaya mandate. Even the Saudi Government
never mandated the wearing of an abaya for non-Muslim women. I can't
find it anywhere. If somebody can find it, show me, because I can't
find it. No such mandate.
We are choosing to say that American military officers--outstanding
U.S. military officers--have to wear an abaya to cover the uniform that
they wear with pride. You and I--or anyone who knows anything about the
military--know that the two things military officers like to show off
are their fitness, because they work hard at being in shape, and their
uniforms. Yet they are forced to cover up.
Colonel McSally explained that this is an indignity and an outrage we
have perpetrated upon ourselves. We did this. The Saudis did not do
this. The U.S. command did this. We are eventually making our women
more vulnerable to harassment by making them wear an abaya.
Imagine the ridicule and the jokes that must occur back on the base
and the insults these women have to take from colleagues over this.
When a woman puts one on, she immediately places herself under the
jurisdiction of the dreaded mutawa. You know who they are. In Saudi
Arabia, they are the religious police.
The U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia points this out when it states that
with regard to ``force protection,'' that ``even with the abaya and
scarf, harassment still occurs.''
The Embassy's policy is sound and reasonable compared to DOD's. It
says, ``The Embassy will support a women in whatever personal choice
she makes on the issue of not wearing an abaya or head scarf.''
That is the Embassy policy.
The State Department, unlike DOD, trusts women to make these
decisions of their own accord and judgment. So the State Department
says: You make the choice. If you want to wear an abaya, wear it. But
the DOD says you have to wear it.
Let me tell you a little bit about the mutawa. One press report I
found was of a female soldier harassed in Saudi Arabia because she was
wearing an abaya. The religious police ordered her to cover her head,
rapping a cane against the wall beside her head. This, again, proves
the point that an abaya puts you at risk of harassment from the mutawa.
They knew she was an officer so they harassed her. They knew she was
a soldier, because she was walking with some guy wearing Bermuda shorts
who had a crewcut. They knew he was an officer in the military, and
they knew she was, too. So they chose to harass her.
DOD women are instructed to carry the veil. Imagine, this is DOD
women instructed to carry the veil, and told to put it on immediately
if they are confronted by a ``local.'' This, again, makes my case that
women are subject to harassment for wearing an abaya and more likely to
be left alone if they are dressed in other garb, tourist clothing, or
their uniform.
Tourists are not required to wear abayas. The Saudis only encourage
tourists to wear conservative western dress. Forcing a female soldier
to wear an abaya actually identifies her as an American. If she were
wearing conservative attire, she would blend in with other tourists,
and there would be nothing said about it.
One other story about the mutawa. My colleagues should be aware of
this story. The mutawa are the religious police in Saudi Arabia. They
recently caused the death of 15 school girls in Saudi Arabia. These
were Saudi girls. These school girls--here is what they did wrong--they
were trying to flee their burning school. They were trying to flee
their burning school, but because they were not suitably attired--they
did not have their full abaya garb on--they were forced back into the
flames by the religious police. Do you know what? Not one major news
organization in our country carried the story front page, that I know
of. I will stand corrected if somebody can produce one. It is a
shocking incident. They forced the deaths of 15 girls because they were
trying to run out of a burning building, their school, and did not have
their abayas on. That is the mutawa. Those are the people who are
harassing our military personnel when they are forced to wear these
abayas.
Yet consider the fact that our policy in Saudi Arabia towards our
female soldiers seems to be done in deference to these religious
zealots, not the ordinary Saudi or the Saudi Government. They are the
same ones who recently caused the senseless deaths of these 15 young
women in their own country for lack of a head scarf. Think about that.
And we are going to kowtow? We are going to tell a U.S. Air Force
officer--who is a decorated officer and has been promoted ahead of
schedule twice, an Air Force Academy graduate, who flies over Iraq in
the no-fly zone--we are going to say to her, you have to cover up your
U.S. uniform because you might be harassed by somebody who did
something such as this, allowing 15 school children to die because they
did not have a head scarf on when trying to run out of a burning
building?
They ought to be thankful, the Saudis, that they are still a country.
If it had not been for us, they would be living under Saddam right now.
Our military personnel--our men and women--should not have to put up
with this kind of stupidity.
Again, I am here on the Senate floor, taking my colleagues' time, to
offer this amendment because we could not get the local commander to
pull back from this rule, this order.
These are the same people, these self-anointed religious police, whom
we seek to accommodate under the rationale of ``host nation
sensitivities.'' I will not use profanity on the Senate floor, but
``host nation sensitivities'' can go straight to that place way down
below as far as I am concerned. Maybe we need to have some sensitivity
training for the host nation. Maybe that is the idea. Maybe that is
what we should do.
I do not need to repeat that this Nation is a superpower. We ought to
act like one. Our military is the envy of the world. Our men and women
in uniform are proud of those uniforms, as I said before, and proud of
what those uniforms stand for. We should not treat any of them--men or
women--as second-class citizens, regardless of the sensitivities of the
host nation.
They do not want to be treated that way. They are willing to take any
risk of somebody harassing them, or whatever it is, to wear their
uniform. And they have that right. They should never be asked to cover
their uniform in some disgraceful attempt to hide the military uniform
of the U.S. Air Force or any other branch of our military.
We deployed a half million troops in the gulf against Iraq only a
little over a decade ago and suffered nearly 300 casualties to defend
the sovereignty of Kuwait and to protect the Saudi Kingdom, which was
directly threatened by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi forces. And
because the mutawa wants these women to wear burqas or abayas, we are
going to kowtow to that? And we can't get this repealed without coming
to the Senate floor? Give me a break.
Our deployment in the gulf was pretty important. I supported going to
the gulf. But it was not more important than the esprit de corps and
the unity of our servicepeople in the region, nor more important than
abiding by the principles fundamental to the creation of the United
States of America: Religious freedom of expression, and to wear proudly
the uniform of the United States of America, which millions have done.
How can you ask a military officer--an exemplary military officer--to
cover up her uniform, to be ashamed of her uniform?
In 1981, an Air Force officer sued the Air Force because he wanted to
wear a yarmulke, a symbol of the Jewish faith. The case went to the
Supreme Court, and the officer lost. The Air Force's argument then--and
I juxtapose it now to show the contradictory rationale for the abaya
today--is the importance of the military uniform and uniformity itself
in terms of discipline and hierarchical unity.
[[Page S5930]]
The Air Force's argument in the yarmulke case can be summed up thus:
The considered professional judgment of the Air Force is that the
traditional outfitting of personnel in standardized uniforms encourages
the subordination of personal preferences and identities in favor of
the overall group mission.
That is exactly right. That is the point.
Uniforms encourage a sense of hierarchical unity by tending
to eliminate outward individual distinctions except for those
of rank. The Air Force considers them as vital during
peacetime as during war because its personnel must be ready
to provide an effective defense on a moment's notice; the
necessary habits of discipline and unity must be developed in
advance of trouble.
Let me use, for a moment, an anecdote, a fictitious anecdote, but one
that likely happened.
A person like Colonel McSally decides to drive off base on duty, in a
jeep, with three other officers. First of all, according to this rule,
she has to sit in the back because she is not allowed to drive the car.
And the other three officers, in this fictitious example, which
probably happened, are junior to her. She is the senior officer. She is
forced to sit in the back. On top of that, she has to wear an abaya to
cover herself up from head to foot so nobody knows she has the uniform
on.
How humiliating is that? Give me one good reason anybody would
support a policy like that? There is not a person in that jeep who
would ever say that she should have to do that. They would be willing
to take any risk that might come their way, if there were some, so that
she would not have to do it. And she tried to change this for years, to
no avail.
How far we have come. Martha McSally is not asking to wear publicly a
cross as the symbol of her faith. She is asking not to wear a religious
garment not of her faith.
She is arguing the Air Force's case when it argued against the
yarmulke. She is arguing not to be wearing a badge of religious and
ethnic identity. That is all she is asking.
Interestingly, the Senate disagreed with the decision by the Supreme
Court that disallowed the wearing of a yarmulke. The Senate voted 55-42
for a Lautenberg amendment that would have allowed first amendment
expression by permitting ``neat and conservative'' religious attire,
but letting the DOD decide when wearing such apparel interfered with
members' duties.
Many Senators still serving today voted in favor of that Lautenberg
amendment.
The Reagan administration supported the Air Force, and the Senate
amendment was never enacted into law.
The Senate vote was a defense of religious expression. Fifteen years
later, we are facing a grievous situation where our servicewomen in
Saudi Arabia are coerced into wearing religious garb in conflict with
their faith and which subverts the discipline and uniformity of the
U.S. military uniform.
This is intolerable, humiliating, deplorable, and it is
unjustifiable. I would be happy to provide for the record the numbers
of letters and phone calls I have made in the last year or so, to try
to avoid coming here on the Senate floor to have this put into the
legislative process--to no avail. I see it primarily as a first
amendment issue in that we should not be conforming by dress to a
foreign state religion. It is also an issue of gender discrimination.
Support for lifting this mandate comes from all directions--the left
and the right of the political spectrum, from the Rutherford Institute,
which sued the Air Force over this policy and on behalf of Lt. Col.
McSally, to the National Council of Women's Organizations, an umbrella
organization.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wyden). The time of the Senator from New
Hampshire has expired.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I didn't realize I was under a time
constraint. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Support for lifting this mandate comes
from both the left and right--the Rutherford Institute, which sued the
Air Force on behalf of Lt. Col. McSally, to the National Council of
Women's Organizations, an umbrella organization which now includes such
well-known members as the League of Women Voters, the National
Organization of Women, Women in Government, the YWCA, Hadassah, and the
Feminist Majority Foundation. The House has already spoken, approving a
similar bipartisan amendment by Representatives Langevin, Hostettler,
and Wilson to repeal the mandate and stop the DOD from purchasing
abayas. We purchase them on top of everything else. The taxpayers are
paying for the abaya.
The majority leader in a front page Washington Times story on June 17
commented about the U.S. relationship with the Saudi Government:
We need to be more aggressive. We need to be even
confrontational with the leadership of the Saudi government
in those occasions when they're not doing enough, and when
they are sponsoring this propaganda of the ilk we've . . .
seen.
He was talking about fighting terrorism. The same advice should apply
to the Saudis when it comes to making our female troops wear Muslim
clothing. We need to stand up to the Saudis, stand up for women in the
military. We also need to stand up for ourselves as a nation, stand up
for our values and our beliefs.
I also note that the chairman of our Armed Services Committee made a
pointed comment when the abaya issue surfaced about disrespect for
female servicepeople in Saudi Arabia, and maybe we should reconsider
our bases there in light of this disrespect.
I totally agree with the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
To repeat the four points this amendment addresses, it says: You
cannot require or encourage an abaya to be worn; No. 2, no adverse
action against women who choose not to wear it; No. 3, no money to
procure abayas for regular or routine issuance; and No. 4, that the
Secretary of Defense provide instructions to this effect immediately
upon arrival in Saudi Arabia. That is it. That is the amendment. That
is what it does.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield the floor
and thank my colleagues for their attention.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator from Massachusetts wish to speak on this
amendment?
Mr. KENNEDY. Just for a moment, if I have the opportunity to speak on
another amendment as well. I will follow whatever procedure the
chairman wishes.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the Senator from Vermont wish to speak on this
amendment?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I wish to follow the Senator from Massachusetts on this
amendment, yes.
Mr. LEVIN. On the pending amendment?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I reserve the right to object.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could ask the Chair, is there a time
agreement on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time was evenly divided until 5:45. The
Senator from Michigan does control all of the remaining time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes on this amendment.
Then if no one else wishes to speak on the amendment, it will be up to
the author of the amendment if he wishes to speak further. I would
suggest that the time that remains between now and 5:45 then be used
for other purposes, if there is nobody who wishes to speak further on
this amendment. I yield myself 4 minutes on the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If the Senator will yield for a moment, I
did have a couple of requests from Senators who may be here to speak.
That is all. I didn't want to ignore that request. I have no objection
to the Senator speaking to another matter. If the Senators do come down
and wish to speak, I would like them to have that opportunity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. With that understanding, I will proceed and yield myself 4
minutes.
Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment of the Senator from
New Hampshire to prohibit the requirement or the encouragement that our
female service members serving in Saudi Arabia wear an abaya when they
leave their military bases.
From 1991 until January 2002, U.S. military authorities required
female
[[Page S5931]]
service members leaving military bases in Saudi Arabia to wear the
abaya, a traditional religious garment for Saudi women. The rationale
for this policy was force protection, respect for host nation customs,
and preventing conflicts with the Saudi religious police.
This issue came to a head in December 2001, when Lt. Col. Martha
McSally, an Air Force pilot stationed at Prince Bandar air base,
initiated a lawsuit against DoD seeking a court order declaring the
policy unconstitutional. In January 2002, the military announced a
change in the uniform policy, making wearing of the abaya ``not
mandatory, but strongly encouraged.'' Lt. Col. McSally claimed this was
insufficient and did little to change de facto pressure on military
service women to conform to the old policy.
Mr. President, Lt. Col. McSally is the highest ranking female Air
Force jet pilot. She is an Air Force Academy graduate with a Masters
degree, a Desert Storm veteran, and has over 100 hours as a rescue
pilot. When she refused to wear the abaya, Lt. Col. McSally was
criticized for her unprofessionalism and lack of leadership. When she
told her commanding officer ``I cannot, will not put that thing on,''
she risked her career for the rights of America's female service
members and, I suggest, for the rights of all of us.
Lt. Col. McSally is an officer who has patrolled the no-fly zone in
Iraq and led search-and-rescue missions in Afghanistan. She is asked
every day to be ready to save the lives of her fellow service members.
Yet we deny her and all female service members serving our Nation in
Saudi Arabia the same rights as their male counterparts as soon as they
leave the base.
The Department's decision to change the requirement for female
service members stationed in Saudi to wear the abaya off-base to a
``strong encouragement'' is, at best, a superficial change. A ``strong
encouragement'' is practically the same as an order in military terms.
The State Department doesn't require female foreign service officers
to wear an abeya in Saudi Arabia. Forcing service members to conform to
a religious code not of their own violates their religious freedoms.
Requiring, or ``strongly encouraging,'' female service members to wear
the abaya is oppressive, and it is demeaning to people who do not
believe in the same religion as those presumably putting pressure on
the U.S. to require wearing an abaya. At the same time we are asking
our female service members to risk their lives to fight for the
liberties we cherish, we are denying them the very freedom they are
defending, simply because they are stationed in a country with
different cultural norms. This is not acceptable.
The amendment before us would correct this policy by prohibiting,
requiring, or encouraging our female servicemembers to wear an abaya
when serving in Saudi Arabia. It would also prohibit taking adverse
action against servicemembers for choosing not to wear an abaya while
assigned or on temporary duty in Saudi Arabia. Further, it would
prohibit the use of Department of Defense funds to procure abayas for
military personnel serving in Saudi Arabia and would require the
military to inform female servicemembers of these prohibitions when
they are ordered to duty in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. President, this is simply the right thing to do for our
servicemembers who so loyally serve our country wherever we ask them to
serve.
I congratulate Senator Smith for his initiative in this matter. I
think it is a very significant statement about what we are all about
and what our military is all about. I hope the Senate will adopt this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join strongly in recommending that our
colleagues support Senator Smith's initiative. And I associate myself
with the remarks of our distinguished chairman. This is something that
has to be corrected right now. We have extraordinary women performing
in almost every capacity of our military today. This is one of those
situations where maybe there were the best of intentions at the time,
but it is out of hand now. It is time to correct it with finality and
clarity. We are doing that with the Smith amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join Senators Smith and
Cantwell, along with several other Senators, in proposing an amendment
to end, once and for all, an ill-conceived and discriminatory policy in
the U.S. Military.
Several years ago, the United States Central Command instituted a
policy that requires our female service members in Saudi Arabia to wear
an abaya while off base.
The abaya is a traditional religious garment worn by Saudi women not
unlike the Afghan burqa.
Saudi women can face beatings by religious police if they are not
wearing this garment and the U.S. Central Command has justified this
policy as a force protection measure.
However, the Saudi Government does not require non-Muslim women to
wear an abaya.
Westerners are merely expected to wear conservative clothing, such as
slacks and collared shirts for men and long skirts and long sleeved
blouses for women.
While it's sensible to make reasonable accommodations for a host
culture, we must not forget that American personnel abroad are
representatives of our free society.
In fact, the U.S. State Department explicitly forbids its female
employees in Saudi Arabia from wearing the abaya while serving in an
official capacity for the United States Government.
We should be setting a positive example of respect for women,
especially the very women who are helping to defend Saudi Arabia from
would-be aggressors.
In order to try to alleviate the mounting criticism of the abaya
policy, the Central Command revised its policy in January to state that
the wearing of the abaya is ``not mandatory but is strongly
encouraged''.
This distinction does not go nearly far enough and may mean little in
practice.
Let me be clear, the abaya policy is not simply a bad idea and
completely unnecessary, it is blatantly discriminatory.
All attempts to justify this policy have fallen flat and it has
become painfully obvious that this policy must be abolished entirely.
Our amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense from requiring
American servicewomen in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya and forbid DOD
to spend taxpayer money to purchase the garment.
It also protects our female service members from any kind of
retaliation for not wearing the abaya garment.
At a time when Afghan women are celebrating their new found
liberties, it is frankly embarrassing to have a policy in place that
subjects our own servicewomen to a demeaning practice.
It is time for this policy to go and I would urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues,
Senator Cantwell of Washington, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, and
Senator Grassley of Iowa, as a co-sponsor of this critical amendment to
provide justice, dignity, and equal rights to our service women
stationed in Saudi Arabia.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia requires its women to wear garment called
the abaya, it is a covering which extends from head to toe on a woman.
It is part of the Muslim faith and their customs and traditions.
The Saudi Arabian government does not require American women living
or visiting in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya. Rather, both men and
women are encouraged to wear modest American clothing.
When visitors come to my home, I anticipate they will abide by the
rules I have established in my home. Therefore, I respect the wishes of
the Saudi government, that when westerns enter Saudi Arabia, westerns
should wear modest clothing. I would not want to violate the customs of
a host country.
What I cannot understand is why the Department of Defense has
determined that American service-women must wear the abaya when they
leave the confines of the military bases in Saudi Arabia. The host
government does not mandate that service women wear the abaya. More
importantly to me, the
[[Page S5932]]
Saudi government does not require our service women to dress
differently from our service men. However, our very own Department of
Defense requires our service-women to dress differently from our
service men. This is unjust and outrageous.
Our service women are equals to their male counterparts in the Armed
Services. Women have died and bled in defense of this country. They can
fly fighters, pilot helicopters, and drive ships. Those rights did not
come easily. Roadblocks were put in the way, and I thought they has
been overcome. But now, the Department of Defense wants to make our
first-rate women soldiers second class citizens in the United States
military.
I hope the Senate will approve this amendment and stand with the
House of Representatives, which passed similar legislation, to send a
strong message to the Department of Defense that women in uniform are
not second class citizens.
In closing, I want to salute the women who brought this issue to
America's attention. Lieutenant Colonel Martha McSally has always been
a warrior. She fought the Pentagon's bureaucracy to become one of the
first female fighter pilots. And, now she has to fight the Pentagon,
once gain, in a court of law to overturn the Pentagon's abaya policy.
Colonel McSally you serve as an inspiration to young women across the
United States who want to serve their country. Today, I hope the Senate
can come to Colonel McSally's defense, and all women serving in Saudi
Arabia, to lift this irrational Pentagon rule.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Mikulski be added as an original cosponsor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield some of the time to Senator
Smith to control. Apparently, I control the time. Why don't I yield 5
minutes to Senator Smith under his control, and then yield to Senator
Kennedy for 12 minutes, and then yield to Senator Jeffords for 10
minutes. That is just about right.
Mr. WARNER. May I inquire as to the subject of the Senator from
Vermont?
Mr. JEFFORDS. It is about homeland security.
Mr. WARNER. We are very anxious to get to the Kennedy matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate my colleague
from New Hampshire for an excellent presentation. I look forward to
supporting it for reasons that he has outlined. He made a very
compelling case here this afternoon.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Smith amendment be
temporarily laid aside so that I may call up amendment No. 3918.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that
immediately upon the reporting of my amendment, it be laid aside, and
the Senate resume the consideration of the Smith amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3918
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Durbin, proposes
an amendment numbered 3918.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Thursday, June 20, 2002,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 12 minutes. I see my friend from
Hawaii. He wanted to speak on my amendment. If the Chair reminds me
when 9 minutes is up, if there is no objection, I will let the Senator
from Hawaii speak for 3 minutes, if that is all right, following me.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield myself 9 minutes.
Mr. President, as I understand it, for the benefit of the Members, we
are going to vote at 5:45. I bring to the attention of the floor
leaders that we can have a vote on this at a time agreeable sometime in
the middle of the morning tomorrow. We will have additional time to
discuss this.
I offer this amendment to promote public-private competition for
Department of Defense work. Today, there is far too little real
competition for contracts to provide goods and services to Federal
agencies. We should be getting the most out of every taxpayer dollar.
So if a Federal agency could do the job better and cheaper than a
defense contractor, the Federal worker should get the job.
Today, less than 1 percent of Department of Defense service contracts
are subject to public-private competition. Only a tiny fraction of the
more than 2 million DOD contracts face real competition. As a result,
we are depriving loyal and dedicated public workers of the chance even
to compete for their own jobs. At the same time, we are depriving the
American people of the efficiencies they deserve, especially as we take
on today's great challenges in defending the security of our Nation.
My amendment would lower costs for taxpayers and enhance our Nation's
readiness by promoting expanded public-private competition.
Over the last decade, there has been a massive shift in who does the
work for the Department of Defense. This work has shifted dramatically
from civilian employees to private contractors. Between 1993 and 2001,
the number of civilian employees at the Department of Defense declined
by more than one-third. That represents the loss of 300,000 public
jobs. The work has gone instead to private contractors. During a period
of only 3 years, the contractor workforce expanded by almost 400
percent. The number of private contract jobs grew astoundingly, from
197,000 to 734,000 jobs--substantially surpassing the DOD's civilian
workforce of public workers.
These are the same contractors who overcharge the Defense Department
and taxpayers for simple tools and even toilet seats. The GAO study
found that the cost of nearly 3,000 spare parts purchased by the
military from private contractors increased by a 1,000 percent or more
in just 1 year. One spare part estimated to cost less than $3 was sold
to the Government by contractors for $14,529.
I have a list here from the GAO: A machine bolt, estimated at $40,
actual price: $1,887; a hub body, estimate $35, actual price: $14,529;
a self-locking nut, initial estimate $2.69, actual price: $2,185; a
radio transformer, initial estimate $683, actual price: $11,000. The
list goes on and on and on and on.
Surely, the DOD found that the cost of spare parts increased more
than twice as fast between 1993 to 2000 when there was no competition.
Do we understand that the cost of these spare parts increased
dramatically over the period of time when there was no competition.
Surely, we can do better.
The critical work by DOD is not subject to open, full competition. In
many cases, the private contractors face no competition at all. In
fact, the Associated Press reported last year that the Government
bought more than half of its products without bidding or other
practices to take advantage of the marketplace. As a result, current
defense contractors are being unfairly shielded from competition. It is
the taxpayers who are paying the price in higher costs.
In any other area of American business, these noncompetitive
practices would be unacceptable. In fact, no private company would
reasonably outsource jobs without a hard-headed analysis showing cost
savings. Even the Department of Defense recognized that real
competition has been sorely lacking.
When the inspector general looked at the Department of Defense
service contract process in the year 2000, he concluded that 60 percent
of service contracts suffered from ``inadequate competition.''
Despite these huge markups by private contractors, it doesn't mean
their workers are being paid even a living wage. In fact, according to
a study by the Economic Policy Institute, more than 1 in 10 Federal
contract workers is earning poverty-level wages, and most of the firms
paying these wages are defense contractors. Workers are
[[Page S5933]]
losing out and taxpayers are losing out from this lack of competition.
Clearly, more private-public competition is needed to ensure that the
taxpayers, as well as public workers, are getting a fair shake.
The record shows when there is real competition, public workers will
show their strength. In fact, when Government agencies have competed
for contracts, they have won the bids 60 percent of the time fair and
square.
The public-private competitions that have taken place have saved an
average of over 30 percent for an estimated $660 million in savings to
taxpayers. That means the taxpayers save money and good workers keep
their jobs.
The amendment I am offering this evening requires an analysis of the
costs of maintaining work in the public sector and contracting work out
to the private sector. It lays out flexible principles to guide the
public-private competition process and allows DOD broad flexibility in
establishing a competition consistent with these principles.
The amendment also offers wide discretion to DOD by creating a number
of exemptions from the public-private competition. When national
security so demands, DOD is given the power to waive public-private
competition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from
Massachusetts he has used 7 minutes of his time.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the amendment also exempts many categories of work for
public-private competition, including high-tech work.
The amendment also provides a waiver to DOD for functions that must
be performed urgently.
Finally, it remains in the discretion of DOD to determine which jobs
may be open to public-private competition.
The principles underlying this legislation have broad support. In
fact, the administration is on record for expanded public-private
competition. I want to show statements that were made this past spring.
This is Angela Styles of the Office of Management and Budget:
No one in this administration cares who wins a public-
private competition. But we very much care that government
service is provided by those best able to do so. Every study
on public-private competition I have seen concludes that
these competitions generate significant cost savings.
GAO recommendations:
Competitions, including private competitions, have been
shown to produce significant cost savings for the government,
regardless of whether a public or private entity is selected.
Mr. President, why not have competition? That is what this amendment
is all about. When we have not had the competition, we have seen these
explosions of cost. We are just saying let the Department of Defense
set up the criteria. They can exclude the matters which are of national
security importance, urgent, or have some other requirements. But when
we have the results, as I mentioned, the fact we have bolts and self-
locking nuts, radio transformers, routine matters--I have a list of
over 30 items right here in my hand--cable assembly; linear
microcircuit; aircraft stiffener, $125, sold for $3,400; insulation,
$1, sold for $3,390.
Why do we tolerate it, Mr. President? How can the Defense Department
not be willing to accept this?
I believe I have about 3 minutes. I yield those remaining 3 minutes
to my friend and colleague from Hawaii.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for the time.
Mr. President. I rise in support of an amendment to the DOD
authorization bill that takes important steps to enhance cost-
effectiveness and accountability in Government. I am pleased to have
worked with Senator Kennedy to offer this amendment to improve
financial transparency and cost savings in procurement policies.
This amendment will promote sensible procurement policies by
requiring cost savings before decisions are made to outsource
Government functions. The requirement that the government show a 10-
percent cost savings prior to outsourcing has been a part of the
commercial activities analysis for many years and is considered
standard practice. I tried to codify the 10-percent cost-saving
provision last year in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002. I was met, however, with opposition because the
Commercial Activities Panel had not yet completed its review. I am
happy to report that the Commercial Activities panel completed its
review last month and I am renewing my efforts, with my colleagues, to
codify the 10-percent cost-savings provision. It is important to note
that the amendment includes a provision which allows the Secretary of
Defense to waive the cost-savings requirement if national security
interests are compelling.
This amendment would promote public-private competition by ensuring
that federal employees have the opportunity to compete for existing and
new DOD work. It strengthens fairness in public-private competitions by
ensuring that DOD competes an equitable number of contractor and
civilian jobs. It also improves government transparency by establishing
measures to track the true cost and size of the DOD contractor
workforce.
The amendment offers wide discretion to the Department by creating a
number of exemptions from the requirements of public-private
competition. The amendment gives the Department the authority to waive
public-private competition requirements when national security requires
such action.
The passage of this amendment would lead to smarter and more
efficient procurement policy for the Federal Government. As chairman of
the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I will continue to
work to ensure DOD procurement policies are conducted in a manner that
achieves the best return on the dollar. This amendment takes important
steps toward this goal.
I yield back my time, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Amendment No. 3969
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Washington needs
5 minutes, and Senator Jeffords has agreed to withhold his comments
until after the vote, which is very helpful. Senator Smith has 5
minutes, and I believe Senator Thomas wants 8 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I do not need 5 minutes. I
yield my 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator from Iowa here to speak on this amendment?
Mr. GRASSLEY. No.
Mr. LEVIN. Senator Reid is not in the Chamber. The agreement is we
will vote at 5:45 p.m. If we provide time for those two Senators, it
will be 5:40 p.m. Do we know whether there is any objection to voting
at 5:50 p.m. instead of 5:45 p.m.? None.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cantwell speak for 5 minutes,
then Senator Thomas speak for 7 minutes, and then we will vote at 5:50
p.m. instead of 5:45 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Smith-
Cantwell-Grassley amendment to prohibit the Department of Defense from
ordering female military personnel to wear the Saudi abaya garment.
Before I begin my statement, I would like to thank Senator Bob Smith
for his tremendous work on the issue.
For most of the last 8 years, officer and enlisted women who are
stationed with the Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Saudi Arabia have
been required to wear the abaya when going off base, either for
official duties over their uniforms or in their off duty hours. The
abaya is the traditional religious garment for Saudi women, similar to
the Afghan burqa.
On Tuesday, May 14, the House passed, by unanimous voice vote, its
prohibition against the Department of Defense requiring or compelling
U.S. female service members in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya garment,
either on or off duty. Like the House legislation, the amendment we are
discussing today prohibits the Department of Defense from forcing or
encouraging American servicewomen in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya
garment, restricts the Department of Defense from spending taxpayer
money to purchase the garment, and protects servicewomen from
retaliation should they choose not to wear the garment off base.
As a democracy, we should be at the forefront of embracing equality
for all
[[Page S5934]]
of our citizens, and by our actions show that we practice what we
preach. The military has gone to great lengths to communicate to the
troops that they are respected regardless of race, religion or gender.
But encouraging our military women in Saudi Arabia to wear the abaya
communicates just the opposite viewpoint . . . it reinforces gender
stereotypes and sends the message to our soldiers that women are not
equally valued.
The Department of Defense policy requiring military women to wear an
abaya whenever they went off base, and other measures directed
exclusively towards women, started shortly after the Gulf War. It is
important to note that during the war, General Schwarzkopf worked
closely with the U.S. embassy and the consulate in Dhahran on the Gulf
coast to set up liaison procedures with the Saudis that would nip
problems in the bud. As a result, while women were encouraged to wear
the abaya when off base, they were not required to. Nor were they
required to sit in the back seat of motor vehicles. Nor were they
forbidden from driving, since that rule impeded the military's mission.
Why these policies changed in the early 1990s is still unclear. At
first, the reason was ``host nation sensitivities.'' As you may recall,
although there were many restrictions on the troops during Operation
Desert Storm, the relative freedom our military women enjoyed vis-a-vis
the local women, prompted a demonstration by defiant Saudi women who
drove their cars around Riyadh, saying, in effect, that what U.S.
military women could do, Saudi women should be allowed to do, too. This
situation, and the fact that Riyadh is one of the most conservative
areas of the country, may have been the reason the Joint Task Force
Southwest Asia commander acquiesced to these new policies. The
consequence of this, however, is a policy that sets up a double
standard and denigrates female personnel in the U.S. military.
After the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, the primary reason for the
restrictive policies towards women changed to ``force protection.'' The
Department of Defense states that this policy is for the protection of
the military women . . . that if they do not wear this garment they
would be subject to beatings and other harassment by the Mutawa, the
Saudi religious police. The Department of Defense states that if women
do not wear the abaya, they will not blend in, thus making military
personnel in Saudi Arabia targets for terrorist attack. Finally, the
Department of Defense states that if women do not wear the abaya, male
military personnel would be subject to harassment and arrest.
Frankly, any action taken against U.S. military personnel--male or
female--by the Saudi religious police--the Mutawa--for purported
infractions of their strict behavioral codes should be strongly
protested by the military and the state department to the Saudi
government. Although women have been harassed, both while wearing the
abaya and when not wearing the abaya, I have no information that any
protest about the Mutawa's actions has ever been initiated either by
the State department or the Department of Defense.
I understand that the norms for public behavior in Saudi Arabia are
extremely conservative. According to our own State Department travel
advisory regarding proper attire and behavior when visiting Saudi
Arabia, visitors, both male and female, should wear very conservative
clothing, and behave so as not to draw attention to themselves.
For women, skirts should be ankle length, sleeves wrist length, and
necklines above the collarbone. Pants and pantsuits may attract
unwanted attention. The Mutawa are charged with enforcing these
standards. Although the climate in Saudi Arabia is very hot, and
lightweight clothing is recommended for travelers, the abaya consists
of a black material that, along with the headscarf, covers the wearer
from head to foot. However, I think it is really important to note that
the Saudi government does not require non-Muslim women to wear the
abaya.
While U.S. military women have been required to wear the abaya even
when on duty, official State department policy is that its female
personnel on official business are expressly forbidden from wearing the
abaya because they are representing the United States Government. These
women may wear the abaya when off-duty if they choose, and many state
department female employees do choose to wear the garment when not on
official business, in deference to the Saudi culture.
The Department of Defense now says that it will change its policy
from explicitly ordering that women wear the abaya while on duty but
off base, to a policy that ``strongly encourages'' wearing an abaya.
Women in my state who have been stationed with the military in Saudi
Arabia tell me that the words ``strongly encourage'' are tantamount to
an order. There is no choice.
Many other men and women from my home state of Washington have
written me supporting changing the Department of Defense policy in
Saudi Arabia that strongly encourages women to wear the abaya garment
over their clothes when they leave the base.
One of my constituents, a veteran from Kent, WA, wrote to say ``women
that have served this country honorably and distinguished themselves in
battle deserve our respect and support.'' He applauded the willingness
to women, especially Lieutenant Colonel Martha McSally, the Air Force
Colonel who first brought this attention to national attention, for
``her willingness to stand up and fight the repressive and unreasonable
orders for females in the services to wear an abaya and be subject to
other demeaning practices when they are stationed in Saudi Arabia.''
Another veteran from Olympia, WA, who writes that he is ``appalled at
the treatment of a true American hero . . . [while] the Pentagon
demeans her with an embarrassing dress code while in Saudi Arabia.''
Another constituent from Seattle, WA, was a military police officer
in the U.S. Army, and wrote that she was ``incensed to learn that our
military women in Saudi Arabia are being subjected to'' wearing the
abaya and asked that we immediately rescind these regulations.
We are not advocating that military women be able to wear tank tops
and shorts when off base in Saudi Arabia . . . but we do believe that
wearing the recommended conservative clothing maintains a woman's
dignity and status among our U.S. troops stationed there. We need to
balance host nation sensitivities with our nation's goal to promote
American values of democracy and equality abroad.
The fact of the matter is that what it comes down to, when you value
people, you give them freedom, including the freedom of self-
determination. That is who we are and what our country represents
across the world.
As U.S. Senators, we should strive to ensure that our military men
and women are treated fairly wherever we send them to accomplish our
country's work. I understand that Americans serving overseas are there
by agreement of the host nation, and that the host nation can withdraw
that agreement when they see fit. I also understand and believe that
Americans should respect and abide by a host nation's laws.
Yet, every military member is a representative of our country and a
soldier-statesman whether a private or a general. When they represent
us, they represent our democratic ideals. Soldiers, both men and women,
are fighting for our democratic principles. We want our military
personnel to abide by the rules of the country in which they are
stationed, but we should not impose stricter rules on only one group of
our soldiers, especially when it is not required by the host nation.
The Department of Defense has had ample opportunity to rescind this
policy, but they have only made token attempts to change its policy in
a manner that effectively leaves its original policy in place. There is
no doubt that the Department of Defense needs the flexibility to ensure
the force is protected and our country's military readiness is not
impeded. However, this must not be done at the expense of our female
soldiers' civil and religious freedoms. There are approximately 1,000
women stationed in Saudi Arabia. It inconceivable that while we entrust
these women and ask them to put their lives on the line, at the same
time we are asking them to succumb to outdated ideas about what
individuals can or cannot do because of gender.
[[Page S5935]]
Last month, the House, by voice vote, unanimously approved similar
legislation. We are here today to complete the circle and show our
support for our women in uniform who not only have to fight our
enemies, but also apparently have to fight for their rights within our
own military.
While there are sometimes conflicts in what the military wants, and
what the civilian leadership wants, we must remember that the military
answers to its civilian leadership. If Congress didn't use its
authority to require the military to change its policies, our service
academies would still be all men, our fighter pilots would still be all
men, and our ships would still be all men. And our military would be a
shell of what it is today, because without women, the military could
not function as a professional, all-volunteer force.
Mr. President, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work
of Darlene Iskra, a legislative fellow in my office. Darlene is a
retired Navy Commander; in fact, she is the first woman ever to command
a U.S. Navy ship. Her work in my office, and especially on this issue,
has been invaluable.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
Kennedy amendment.
In 1998, this body passed unanimously the Federal Activities
Inventory Reform Act of 1998. I was one of the principal sponsors. The
FAIR Act was passed unanimously, as I said. It was a carefully crafted
compromise at that time between the private sector and the unions, the
first time a process was codified to help assure proper implementation
of a 47-year-old Federal policy that states the Government shall not be
involved in commercial activities, a policy that has been in place for
a very long time, and a very clear policy, I believe, that we ought to
go to the private sector for those things that can be done in the
private sector that are not inherently governmental. We passed that
unanimously. It is now in the process of being implemented.
The sponsor of this amendment spent most of his time talking about
the Defense Department support of this proposition. I want to share a
letter or two that I received. This one happens to be from the
Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld:
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my strong
opposition to the draft amendment proposed by Senator Edward
Kennedy. . . . As you know, we have made a top priority of
finding efficiencies and savings within the Defense
Department to enable us to improve our tooth-to-tail ratio. .
. . The draft Kennedy amendment would increase Department
cost by requiring public-private competitions for new
functions and for previously contracted work already
subjected to competition. It would also adversely impact
mission effectiveness by delaying contract awards for needed
services.
This is very strong opposition from the Secretary of Defense.
This next letter comes from the Executive Office of the President,
Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell Daniels. He says:
I am writing to express deep concern over the possible
Kennedy amendment. . . . While agencies are embracing
competition, focusing on core mission, and eliminating
barriers to entering the marketplace, this amendment does the
opposite. It would require the government to consider
reforming noncore activities that it doesn't have the skills
to do when entrepreneurs and their employees are ready,
willing and able to perform.
Finally, let me share one more letter, from Assistant Secretary of
Defense Powell Moore. He says:
The Department of Defense strongly opposes an amendment to
be offered by Senator Kennedy that would restrict the
Department's ability to contract with the private sector. The
following information sheet outlines the Department of
Defense' views on the proposed Kennedy amendment.
Very briefly--and this is from the Department of Defense--the
amendment would increase costs to the Department by over $200 million a
year. By requiring 10-percent cost savings with no limitation, DOD will
not be able to take advantage of savings greater than $10 million but
less than 10 percent.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question on that cost point?
Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. That derives from the 10-percent differential, does it
not?
Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.
Mr. WARNER. It does not include the costs of the hiring and the
training and incalculable number of new Federal employees; am I not
correct?
Mr. THOMAS. The Senator from Virginia is correct. Indeed, the
Secretary says the added costs to which the Senator refers are likely
to exceed $100 million per year in addition.
Mr. WARNER. In addition. I thank the Senator.
Mr. THOMAS. He says further:
Less efficiency: The amendment would adversely impact
mission efficiencies and effectiveness.
I just got through saying we unanimously adopted the outsourcing
bill, the FAIR bill. This amendment, according to the Department of
Defense, would foster insourcing which would exacerbate the Federal
human capital crisis we are now in, in this war on terrorism.
Finally, he indicates it preempts the congressional intent. This
amendment would preempt implementation of the recommendations of the
congressionally mandated, GAO-chaired, commercial activities panel.
I intend to spend a good deal more time talking about this as we have
more time after the vote. There are a number of others who wish to
speak as well, and I will say I will object to any certain time before
noon tomorrow for a vote on the Kennedy amendment.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Amendment No. 3969
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has now been yielded back.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3969.
The clerk will now call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the
Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski)
would each vote ``aye.''
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Santorum) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Durbin
Helms
Hutchinson
Mikulski
Murkowski
Santorum
Torricelli
The amendment (No. 3969) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is it clear that the matter has been
reconsidered and laid on the table?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been so ordered.
[[Page S5936]]
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just came down and voted, and I am not
aware of the parliamentary situation. But I wonder if it would be
appropriate to get 5 minutes on a very urgent subject.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Surely.
Mr. REID. We see a number of people on the floor. We see the Senator
from Kansas is here, the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from
Arizona. And I know the two managers have some work to do on the bill.
I am wondering how long the Senator from Kansas wishes to speak.
Mr. BROWNBACK. About 5 minutes.
Mr. REID. Is that on the pending amendment or some unrelated matter?
Mr. BROWNBACK. On the pending amendment.
Mr. REID. On the pending amendment.
Mr. WARNER. And Senator Domenici wants to speak.
Mr. REID. Senator Domenici wants to speak on an unrelated matter.
Mr. WARNER. And I believe my colleagues from Wyoming and Arizona want
to speak on the pending amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. However you would like it. You would rather I speak on
the pending amendment?
Mr. REID. The Senator from New Mexico may speak on whatever he
wishes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I was just kidding.
Mr. REID. I just want to make sure we have a lot of conversation on
this amendment. I am sure we would allow the Senator from New Mexico to
speak as in morning business. Is that what the Senator wishes to do?
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for 5 minutes--not on this--as in morning
business. And I thank the Senator.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from New Mexico be recognized to speak as in morning business for 5
minutes, and that following his statement we turn to the pending
amendment, the Kennedy amendment, and that Senators then speak to their
hearts' content on that matter.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder if
I might, as a manager, be recognized first in the order of those to be
recognized following the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. REID. That sounds entirely appropriate. I ask unanimous consent
that the comanager of the bill, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner,
be recognized following the statement by the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Domenici are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with all due respect to my good friend and
valued member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Kennedy, his
amendment, in my judgment, would do very serious damage to the
Department of Defense, particularly to the ability of the Department to
contract quickly for essential services--the operative word being
quickly. What now takes the Department weeks to contract for would take
up to years if this amendment is adopted. As DOD wages a global war
against terrorism, I and many others find it very hard to believe that
the Senate would even consider approving such legislation.
I understand the frustrations with the current A-76 process, which
governs public-private competition of existing Federal work. That is
why 2 years ago, as part of the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization
Act the Congress established the Commercial Activities Panel, under the
auspices of the GAO, to review and recommend ways to fix the A-76
process. This panel recently issued its recommendations. Those
recommendations should include replacing A-76--and the Presiding
Officer spent a lot of time on this issue and was very much involved in
the debates last year--with a process that relies on an existing
Federal acquisition framework that emphasizes quality, best value,
fairness, and transparency.
Let's give this initiative time to work. The legislation before us,
however, would go directly counter to the recommendations of this
panel--a panel comprised of members of the administration, industry,
labor, and the Comptroller General of the United States, who spent
almost 2 years analyzing the complexity of this subject. And now, if
we, the Senate, were to adopt this amendment, and indeed it would go to
conference and somehow become law--which I seriously doubt--were we to
go on record at this time and adopt this amendment, we would be sort of
ignoring the good work taking over 2 years by a panel, which was
established by this body.
The Senate needs more time to review the issue of public-private
sector competitions, in light of the recommendations of this panel. We
have not yet held hearings on the recommendations which were released
only last month by the Commercial Activities Panel. The Governmental
Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee should seriously
review the commission's recommendations and hear from other parties.
Indeed, we could consider Senator Kennedy's legislation as part of that
review, as well as any other legislation that other Members of this
body may have. To consider this issue at this time would be to preempt
the work that should be and will be done by the committee.
At the appropriate time, I regret to say, I will offer a motion to
table the amendment of our distinguished Senator from Massachusetts,
Mr. Kennedy. If that motion fails, I will offer my own alternative that
implements the recent recommendations of the GAO Commercial Activities
Panel to fix the A-76 process. I hope that will not be necessary
because we should go through a series of hearings by the appropriate
oversight committees.
I believe Senator Thomas, likewise, has several other alternatives,
and there may be other Members with amendments on our side. I hope we
can find a way at this point in time to respectfully decline to accept
the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
The amendment before us would arbitrarily require the government to
compete with the private sector, under the time consuming and expensive
A-76 process, for the performance of commercial services--regardless of
whether there are any Federal workers to perform the work. In so doing,
this amendment would cripple government performance, undermine
competition, exacerbate the federal human capital problem, and
devastate small businesses. This amendment overturns over 50 years of
bipartisan policy mandates that the government should not compete with
the private sector for ``non-inherently governmental'' functions.
Under this amendment, almost every new contract, contract
modification, task order, renewal, or re-competition would have to
undergo a lengthy public-private ``competition'' under the OMB Circular
A-76--whether or not the government even has the right skills and
personnel to perform the work. The private sector and many in the
Federal workforce, believe the process is too expensive, too complex,
and unfair to all parties. Yet this amendment would require a vast
increase in A-76. DOD estimates this expansion would cost over $200
million a year, at a minimum.
By mandating A-76 competitions, this amendment would cause long
delays in the performance of defense services. Compared to most modern
competitive procurements, which are completed in weeks or months, A-76
competitions take a minimum of 18 months and often as long as three
years or more to complete. Under the amendment, DOD would lose its
critical ability to swiftly procure innovative defense and homeland
security services and products necessary to prevail in the war against
terrorism.
The advocates for this legislation say they have given DOD a waiver
from the requirements of the bill. With over $60 billion in services
contracts a year there are just too many contracts for DOD to process
waivers at the Secretary of Defense or Assistant Secretary level. DOD's
procurement process is already too cumbersome. We do not need another
step in the process. As the top federal acquisition official, Angela
Styles recently stated:
The proposed legislation would put at risk the Federal
Government's ability to acquire needed support services in
both the short and long term.
[[Page S5937]]
The amendment would undermine the robust competition for government
service work that currently exists. The fact is that almost all of the
work that would be affected by this amendment is already routinely
competed in a robust and aggressive marketplace. According to the
Federal Procurement Data System, in FY00 72 percent of all service
contract actions--and more than 90 percent of all information
technology contract actions--were subject to competition. Of the
remainder, over 50 percent involved services--e.g., electricity or
water--for which there was only one available provider. By contrast,
less than two percent of all service work performed by Federal
employees is subject to the competition of any kind. When Federal
employees are subjected to competition the savings have--according to
DOD--consistently averaged 34 percent.
The amendment would devastate small businesses. Small businesses
account for 35 percent of Federal contract dollars. Yet the amendment
would exclude most small businesses--particularly woman-, minority-,
and veteran-owned companies--from participating in service contracting,
because of the added costs and time associated with the A-76 process,
when compared to traditional procurements. Small businesses just don't
have the capital to wait several years to begin work. They would, in
effect, be excluded from new Federal contracts under this amendment.
In general, the cumulative effect of the provisions of the Kennedy
amendment would add significant costs to Department of Defense
operations. These costs would result from: (1) The vastly increased use
of the burdensome A-76 process for contracting-out or contracting-in
decisions; (2) the delay of up to 3 years in providing essential
operational support services because of the expanded A-76 requirements;
and (3) a massive diversion of DOD administrative resources from
mission critical support to administer a several fold increase in
burdensome, labor-intensive A-76 studies.
I hope my colleagues will reach the conclusion that this amendment
does not succeed in resolving the underlying problem the amendment is
trying to address--that is, how to structure public-private
competitions that are fair, transparent, and protect the rights of
Federal workers while ensuring that DOD receives quality solutions at
the best value to the taxpayer to meet its missions and
responsibilities in our fight against global terrorism.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Kennedy
amendment to the DOD authorization bill. When I first came into the
Senate, I chaired a subcommittee within the Governmental Affairs
Committee that dealt with this issue. We held a number of hearings on
the topic of public-private competition. I wish to talk briefly about
this legislation and the background of it and why I don't think it is a
good idea to move forward on it at this time.
In 1998, Congress passed the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act,
the FAIR Act. I was a strong supporter of this legislation, and it
passed the Senate unanimously in 1998.
This piece of legislation was a compromise between the private sector
and unions that, for the first time, codified a process to help assure
proper implementation of the 47-year-old Federal policy that states:
The government should not be involved in commercial
activities.
That was a simple Government policy for 47 years, and the FACT Act
codified and fleshed out that simple statement, a statement with which
everybody agreed.
The goal of the FAIR Act was to eliminate the Government's direct
competition with the private sector--again, unanimously passed by this
body--while at the same time providing a better utilization of
taxpayers' dollars. The FAIR Act created a more cost-effective and
streamlined Federal Government and people agreed with that. Much of the
FAIR Act was pushed forward by the Clinton administration.
The Kennedy amendment applies only to the Department of Defense. It
directly impacts the FAIR Act. This amendment would create a two-tier
contracting system setting up different standards for DOD versus
civilian agencies. That is the first problem.
Next, this amendment would revise the steps that were made with
enactment of the FAIR Act. That is the next problem with the amendment.
This is a policy that was unanimously agreed to by this body. The
Kennedy amendment, for the first time, would mandate the Federal
Government compete with the private sector for work not currently being
performed by Federal employees.
The Kennedy amendment would increase the size and the cost of the
Federal Government.
The amendment would adversely impact DOD's mission, efficiencies, and
effectiveness because all service contracts would be significantly
delayed. If enacted, DOD would lose the flexibility it needs to
purchase innovative solutions to improve our military's performance and
national security.
This amendment would increase the cost to the Department of Defense
by over $200 million, not an insignificant sum at a time when we are
looking at deficit spending and trying to figure out ways to curtail
deficit spending and get back into surpluses.
Furthermore, this amendment would complicate DOD's procurement
process, cost the taxpayers more money, and increase dramatically the
number of DOD employees. This is not necessarily the direction in which
most people desire to go.
The amendment would hurt small businesses by making it harder for
them to compete in the business process. It goes against longstanding
goals of both Democratic and Republican administrations.
The Kennedy amendment ignores the progress made under the Clinton
administration's policy in its reinventing Government initiative of
streamlining the Government procurement process.
The Kennedy amendment also is counter to the efforts by the Bush
administration aimed at performance-based contracting and increasing
Government efficiencies.
The Bush administration opposes this amendment. Secretary Rumsfeld
said:
The Kennedy amendment would increase Department cost by
requiring public-private competitions for new functions and
for previously contracted work already subjected to market
competition. It would also adversely impact mission
effectiveness by delaying contract awards for needed
services. The proposed amendment would increase Department
costs and dull our warfighting edge.
This matter is not a union versus nonunion or labor-management issue.
Several groups have come out already against the Kennedy amendment,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Laborers' International Union
of North America, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers.
A similar amendment offered by Representatives Allen and Andrews was
defeated by the House when it was considered during its version of the
Defense authorization bill for 2003.
As we face the challenges of homeland security and national defense,
keeping our borders, economy, and society safe and free, we need to
create more efficient and effective partnerships between the public and
private sectors. Now is not the time to restrict the Department of
Defense's competitive sourcing policies with this amendment.
I think this is an ill-advised procedure for us to enter into at this
time. It goes against the longstanding bipartisan effort to not have
the Federal Government competing with the private sector. There is no
reason for us to go into this at this time. It really will be harmful
to our overall operation. For those reasons, I oppose the Kennedy
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Kansas yields
the floor.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I may have a colloquy with Senator
Warner for a moment.
Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Warner and I can agree on the
following order: That after Senator Thomas has finished, then Senator
Kyl be recognized perhaps at about 7 o'clock, and after Senator Kyl has
finished, we go into a period for morning business with Senators to be
recognized for not
[[Page S5938]]
more than 10 minutes each; that as soon as Senator Kyl is recognized,
that will be it for the day. We will do our cleared amendments in the
morning rather than trying to do them tonight.
We will try to proceed in the morning after we have had an
opportunity to review the amendment that Senator Warner has shared with
me now relative to missile defense.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am basically in concurrence, and then we
will be clear on the understanding that at the conclusion of the debate
by those Senators designated, we will conclude all work on the
authorization bill and go into morning business, subject, of course, to
whatever the leaders wish to take place.
I have provided the distinguished chairman with the proposal on
missile defense that I have. It is my hope we can debate that tomorrow,
establish a time agreement giving all a reasonable amount of time for
debate, spend some time in the morning, some time in the afternoon, and
have a vote tomorrow afternoon, so we can then move into Wednesday in
the expectation we can conclude this bill on Wednesday.
Mr. LEVIN. It is surely our hope we conclude the bill as early as
possible this week, but I will reserve judgment on the amendment
relative to missile defense that Senator Warner shared with me until
after we have had a chance to read it and study it.
I thank Senator Warner always for his courtesy. He is wonderful to
work with. We will try to get back with him either tonight by phone or
first thing in the morning relative to a possible procedure tomorrow.
As he stated, after Senator Thomas and Senator Kyl have completed
their remarks tonight relative to the Kennedy amendment--I ask
unanimous consent that after these two Senators have finished their
remarks relative to the Kennedy amendment, there be a period for
morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes
each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, is
recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the floor managers of the
bill for arranging this time and setting it up for this evening.
Mr. President, I wish to comment a little more on this bill. It is
one that I believe is very important. It is very important because it
changes what we have done in the past. It changes the concepts and the
principles that we have had for a very long time.
I suppose there are always different ideas about where we ought to be
going in Government. I am one who believes that those activities that
are not inherently governmental certainly ought to be available for the
private sector and that, indeed, we ought to try to contain the size of
the public sector--I think all of us would say we want to do that--and
to use the competition among the private sector to get the most
efficient task done for us that we possibly can.
Of course, as has been mentioned, this has been the policy of the
Federal Government for a very long time. Frankly, it has not worked
very well. We have not been able to find a way to identify those
issues, those activities that are nongovernmental, or at least not
inherently governmental, that could be contracted out. We have not gone
through the system. So we finally, in 1998, passed another bill that
provided for the identification of various activities. Unfortunately,
there was not much done with it. The administrations were not very
interested in doing that.
As has been mentioned, we now have some principles that have been put
in place that will provide for a more efficient way of moving toward
the concept with which I think most of us would agree, and that is we
ought to do in the private sector, in the competitive sector, all those
activities that are appropriate. If that is our view, then this
amendment is inconsistent with that view and, indeed, makes it much
more difficult for us to accomplish that.
For example, these are some of the things that were set forth by the
Defense Department that they believe are difficult and that should
cause us not to pass this amendment that is before us. First, it would
have more requirements. The amendment would significantly increase the
numbers of public-private competition by requiring each competition for
new work and work already under contract without any benefit to the
taxpayer or war fight. Private sector competition already provides
savings and efficiencies in the work that is covered by this amendment.
Certainly, costs ought to be something that we are always aware of, but
as we get into this business of terrorism and all this spending that we
must have, then increased costs seem to me to be even more important.
The amendment would increase costs to the Department. This is
information brought forth by the Defense Department. It would increase
costs to the Department by over $200 million a year. Cost for
additional competitions is likely to exceed $100 million or $4,000 per
position. By requiring 10-percent cost savings, with no limitation, DOD
will not be able to take advantage of savings greater than $10 million
but less than 10 percent. Added costs would likely exceed $100 million
a year in addition to what is already there.
Less efficiency: The amendment would adversely impact mission
effectiveness and efficiencies. Awarding contracts for services will be
significantly delayed under the contract. The average time to conduct a
public-private competition is 25 months, whereas the average time to
award a competitive contract with private firms is less than half of
that.
Time is important in the defense industry. We are in a time when we
need to make changes quickly.
Because contractors must commit more resources to pursue public-
private competitions due to longer lead times and more involved
process, there would be fewer competitors on such competitions, thus
limiting DOD's access. So it would result in the opposite of what we
say we have been for, for a very long time, and that is more
insourcing.
The amendment would foster insourcing, which would exacerbate the
Federal human capital crises. We talk a lot about the military and what
we are going to do and how we fulfill the numbers that are necessary.
Here is an opportunity to make that even more difficult and require
that we do that.
DOD does not have idle capacity available to compete for either new
work or work currently being performed by contractors. If DOD were to
win new work or already contracted work, hiring would have to increase
significantly at a time when we are already faced with difficulties.
The Government personnel system is not nimble enough to hire or move
large numbers of personnel on short notice. This is the assessment of
the Department of Defense of themselves.
Having DOD personnel perform new work or work previously contracted
out is not the best use of limited defense resources. Further, they say
it preempts congressional intent. Well, we are the ones, of course, who
ought to know that.
It has been indicated that this is supported by the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. But here is one that is kind of interesting. It is also
supported by a letter from the Laborers International Union of North
America. This is a labor union that is opposed to this amendment and
has two pages of materials as to why they are opposed.
Then, of course, I suppose not unexpectedly, there is a letter from
the Contract Services Association of America. These are the people who
are involved. These are the people whom we have been seeking to give
more opportunities, to make this work, than they have had in the past.
It is interesting how no more real attention has been paid to this
than the number of people and organizations that have come out in
opposition to the amendment. This says: Attention, Members of the U.S.
Senate--and it lists national security officials and experts, about 15
of them: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, OMB Director Mitchell
Daniels, the Under Secretary of Defense, a number of admirals, a whole
list of people who say this is not a good thing for us to do; organized
labor, the Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO;
Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO; Industrial Technical
Professional Employees Union, International Union of Operating
Engineers, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
[[Page S5939]]
Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, and others, as well
as small minority- and women-owned businesses. It is quite a large
list.
So it is interesting, and I think very important, to recognize the
number of groups that have indeed expressed their opposition to the
amendment we are seeking to deal with now.
This time, of course, will be very important. We have some others who
want to speak who will be coming out a little later to speak, as well
as tomorrow. Again, there are many reasons that have been set forth as
to why the Kennedy amendment should be stopped. The amendment would
arbitrarily require the Federal Government to compete with the private
sector for performance of noninherently government services, whether or
not there is an incumbent Federal workforce performing the act. It is
totally beyond what we sought to do unanimously in the Senate, and we
are very interested in seeking to keep that from happening.
Over 50 years of bipartisan policy has mandated the Government should
not compete with the private sector for noninherently governmental
functions. Nevertheless, this amendment would require every new
contract modification, task order, or renewal undergo a lengthy public-
private competition under OMB Circular A-76, whether or not the
Government even has the requisite skills or the personnel required to
perform the work.
Today, less than 2 percent of all Government services contracted are
conducted under A-76 because only that small portion of Government has
been involved in the incumbent Federal workforce. So this changes
things dramatically and not for the better. The amendment would cripple
Government performance. The amendment would undermine robust
competition for opportunities that already exist. So there are a lot of
things that are involved. One of them has been that the A-76 process
has been one that has needed help, and continues to.
For those who do not know, the Office of Management and Budget's
Circular A-76 is the Government's policy that is used to determine who
can best provide products and services it needs. The circular defines
Federal policy for determining whether commercial activity should be
outsourced to commercial sources or kept within the Federal Government.
OMB Circular A-76 was first issued in 1966 and has been revised
numerous times since. The A-76 process is very formal and intricate,
often a lengthy process for conducting public-private competitions. In
order to win an A-76 competition, an outside proposal must be at least
10 percent less than the Government proposal. The average A-76 study
requires approximately 30 months to be completed. For years,
individuals within the Government and the private sector
have criticized the A-76 process.
Two years ago, the Congress called upon the General Accounting Office
to evaluate the A-76 process because of concerns about its
effectiveness. A GAO panel unanimously agreed to 10 principles. In
particular, the panel agreed unanimously that public-private
competition should not be mandated, particularly for already contracted
or new work. However, that is exactly what the Kennedy amendment
proposes. The amendment goes against the recommendations of the GAO
panel. In fact, Senator Kennedy's amendment would derail the GAO
panel's recommendations and therefore would cause us a great deal of
slowness and indeed potentially losing the idea of the reconsideration
and the changing of A-76.
The goals of the FAIR Act were very clear. They were to create more
cost efficiency and streamline the Federal Government, to eliminate the
Government's direct competition with the private sector. This amendment
would in fact do very serious damage to the FAIR Act. The amendment,
for the first time, would mandate the Federal Government compete with
the private sector. The Kennedy amendment would drastically grow
Government workers. Page 12 of the amendment allows for unrestricted
growth. I can hardly understand why anyone would offer such an
amendment in this wartime situation where the numbers are very
difficult in the military.
Furthermore, as we have mentioned, the amendment would increase costs
to the Department by over $200 million, which would complicate the
process. So it is basically a step backwards in terms of what we have
been seeking to accomplish over a period of time. I think the goals
that have been out there have been shared by both Democrat and
Republican administrations. The movement was forward in the last
administration, slowed at the end, but now we have more movement in
this administration than in the past to move toward private-sector
activities. The administration is opposed to this amendment, and a
similar amendment was offered in the House of Representatives and was
defeated in the same authorization bill.
I hope we can take a long look at what this means in terms of the
principles we have established in the past and are seeking to continue
to establish.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, this is a very important bill, the Defense
authorization.
I ask if there is an order in effect as to how debate will be handled
for the rest of the evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Kyl is to be recognized, and following
his speech there will be a period of morning business.
Mr. REID. Senator Kyl is not here, so I ask unanimous consent to
speak on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. We talk a lot about the national defense of this country,
and rightfully so. There is something happening today in America that
necessitates our attention. It deals also with the national security;
that is, what are we going to do about passenger rail service in this
country? That is part of the security of this country. We are dismal
failures if we let this country have no passenger rail service. If
there were ever an opportunity to talk about how it is important we
have a good passenger rail service, it is now, during this time of
terrorism.
What has happened since September 11? Passengers have boarded the
Amtrak trains 47 percent more than they did before September 11. Why?
Because they feel more secure in a train than in a plane.
Every place in the world where they have train service it is
subsidized by the Government. It is interesting to note when Amtrak
came into being in 1970 it was done so because the private sector could
not make any money hauling people.
I come from Las Vegas, NV--the tourist destination, some say, of the
world. Las Vegas is separated by 250 miles from Los Angeles. The two
airports--Los Angeles International and McCarran Field, Las Vegas--have
more people coming into them than any airport in the country--more than
O'Hare. We are the sixth busiest airport as far as takeoffs and
landings in America. As far as people coming into the airport each day,
the only airport with more people is Los Angeles International.
The airports in Las Vegas and Los Angeles are jammed. The freeway
between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is jammed, I-15. We need a passenger
rail service.
What are we talking about doing? Going out of business, instead of
increasing travel between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, the two busiest
airports. Rather than relieve congestion, we are talking about going
out of business. That is disgraceful.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased my friend has raised this issue of
Amtrak rail passenger service in this country, a system owned by the
American people. I am glad to see one of our leaders on this issue on
the floor, Senator Carper. He and Senator Biden have been extraordinary
on this issue.
I am here to join because a lot of people think it is just a
Northeast issue. If you look at California--and we are highly
impacted--in the year 2001 we had 8 million passenger trips in
California related to Amtrak.
My friend is right on the issue of national security. But it is not
only national security, which is huge; it is also economic security for
our people.
Mr. REID. And I respond to my friend, economic security is national
security.
[[Page S5940]]
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. Right now, I am very concerned about a
doubledipper recession. I am very concerned we may have real problems
in this country with unemployment. We see what is happening in the last
17 months since this administration took over, and what is happening to
the crime rate. It is going up. One of the reasons it is going up,
experts say, is that the economy is bad. We know we are not spending
money to put cops on the beat. That hurts.
We have a quality-of-life situation and it is spiraling out of
control.
I say to my friend, on all fronts, this is a national security issue,
whether or not we say we want to have a rail system as does every other
great nation in the world. We are playing around with this issue and it
has to stop. It is bad management on the part of this administration to
be taking us to the 11th hour on this deal. We could have thousands of
people unemployed, thousands of people stranded, who cannot get to
work, shutting down a system that could be a backup to our air system,
especially at a time of terrorist threats.
My question to my friend is this: Is it true this Congress voted to
give $15 billion to the airlines, $5 billion of that in a direct check,
and then loan guarantees for the rest because we believe it is very
important to our economy, to our national security, to keep travel
going? Is it not ironic that when the people's own train system needs
$200 million to keep it going, we cannot get a direct answer from this
administration, and they are taking it to this 11th hour?
Mr. REID. I respond to the distinguished Senator from California, the
neighbor of the State of Nevada, yes, we did give money to the
airlines. I am glad we did. We provided money to help them stay in
business. We still have a large pot of money to which airlines can
apply.
I say to my friend from California, we help airlines every day,
airports every day. Highways are Federal construction. Ninety percent
of the construction that takes place in Nevada and California is
Federal money; 8 million passenger rides in California last year with
Amtrak. If the system were better, it would be triple. There could be
24 million passengers in that largest State in the Union.
We have such an antiquated system in most places we cannot run high-
speed rail. I do not apologize for my support for Amtrak. Nevada does
not get a lot of benefit. I hope we get more in the year to come. If it
closes down, we certainly will not.
I have heard people ask: What benefit do I get out of Amtrak? The
State of California and the State of Nevada have the Hoover Dam which
was built in the 1930s with Federal dollars. Those Federal dollars do
not help much of the rest of the country. They help California,
Arizona, and Nevada principally. But it is a great program that the
taxpayers helped to provide that is good for our country. Amtrak is
good for our country.
How can we have a country, which we all love so much, the only
superpower left in the world, and not have a passenger rail service? We
should be embarrassed about the passenger rail service we have today.
It is pretty bad. But we love it. We want to make it better.
I say to the administration, if they are listening: Fine, if you want
to bail us out with a few million dollars to keep us going, that is
fine, but that will not do the trick. We need a long-term plan for
Amtrak, a plan that spends money in improving the tracks.
I am in favor of high-speed rail between California and Nevada,
between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. It would increase productivity, it
would alleviate the burden at our airports and on our highways, and
make a more productive society.
I appreciate the statements of the Senator from California. I see my
friend from Delaware in the Chamber. He has been a leader in this
field.
I appreciate their interest and support for this program that people
are trying to let die. I feel so bad about that.
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend and my colleagues who may be
listening, during wartime I remember a bumper sticker that said
``Imagine Peace.'' It was a pretty simple thing, but you really have to
think what something could be.
We could really imagine this country connected by a rail system that
serves all our people. What an improvement in the quality of life; what
an improvement in the economy; what an improvement in air quality; what
a better way for us to go when we are competing for economic dollars.
This is an efficiency plan.
So whether it is the economy or national security, we do need some
bold leadership. I am glad my friend raised this issue. We certainly
have it from my friend from Delaware. I am glad he is on the floor
tonight. I am going to do everything I can. Our State of California
puts a lot of money into our rail system. We step to the plate and
match these dollars. We don't want to see Amtrak go away. It would be a
disaster for many areas of my great State.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. REID. Madam President, notwithstanding the order that is now in
effect that Senator Kyl would be recognized and we would then go into a
period of morning business, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from
Delaware be allowed to speak on the Defense bill which is now before
us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. THOMAS. I object to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from
Delaware be recognized to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________