[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 146 (Friday, September 28, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12320-S12324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1585, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2008 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Nelson (NE) (for Levin) amendment No. 2011, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Reid (for Kennedy) amendment No. 3058 (to amendment No. 
     2011), to provide for certain public-private competition 
     requirements.
       Reid (for Kennedy) amendment No. 3109 (to amendment No. 
     3958), to provide for certain public-private competition 
     requirements.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman, Senator Levin, 
and I are prepared to go forward with any amendments. We are anxious to 
have Members bring those amendments to the floor.
  At this time, I see one of my colleagues seeking recognition.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the late Arthur Helton, perhaps our 
country's greatest advocate for the rights of refugees, wrote:

       Refugees matter . . . for a wide variety of reasons. . . . 
     Refugees are a product of humanity's worst instincts, the 
     willingness of some persons to oppress others, as well as 
     some of its best instincts, the willingness of many to assist 
     and protect the helpless. . . .

  A year after he wrote those words, Arthur Helton was killed in 
Baghdad in 2003 when a bomb destroyed the U.N. headquarters in Iraq. 
His words still resonate today, especially when we consider the immense 
human cost of the war in Iraq and its tragic effect on the millions of 
Iraqis--men, women, and children--who have fled their homes, their 
country, to escape the violence of a nation at war with itself.
  These brave and heroic Iraqis work with the American military, staff 
our embassy, and work with American organizations to support our 
mission in Iraq. They are among the 4 million Iraqi refugees who have 
been forced from their homes. They are the people we have an obligation 
to help.
  Instead of protection, we have offered them bureaucracy and 
doublespeak, false words and dubious hopes. Despite the overwhelming 
need, the U.S. has resettled less than 2,000 Iraqis this fiscal year. 
Last night, the Senate acted and stood up to help Iraqi refugees.
  I thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for adopting our amendment, 
the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007. I thank Senator Warner as well. 
This was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators: Senators Smith, 
Levin, Hagel, Biden, Brownback, Lieberman, Leahy, Snowe, Durbin, 
Voinovich, Feinstein, Collins, Obama, Dole, Menendez, Mikulski, and 
Clinton.
  The need is especially urgent for those whose work for the United 
States has put them in danger. Because they supported us, insurgents 
have repeatedly threatened to kill them. Many have lost their homes, 
their property, their livelihoods. They face ongoing threats every 
single day. Some have fled the country and are waiting in refugee 
camps, and others are in hiding. All of them hope the United States 
will not forget their sacrifices.
  Still others have tried to flee, only to be stopped at the border, 
trapped in a country that cannot protect them, abandoned by a country, 
our country, that they believed would set them free. Others continue 
their work, living in fear of the day that the insurgents punish them 
for working for Americans. They are women such as Sarah, whose husband 
worked as an interpreter for the coalition forces in a combat hospital. 
Although he kept his job secret, insurgents discovered his identity. 
They broke into his family home, kidnapped her and released her only 
after torturing and raping her.
  The family fled to a neighboring country where they have waited for 
almost a year in the hopes of qualifying for refugee status. Sarah's 
husband has been forced to return to Iraq. Each day that passes without 
assistance brings the rest of the family closer to an involuntary 
return to Iraq.
  She wrote: Dear gentlemen: I put my suffering between your hands as 
my hope in you is great that you will hear our calling.

  And there are men such as Sami who worked for USAID. He received 
several death threats, one in the form of a blood-soaked bullet sealed 
in an envelope. Sami pressed on, despite the threats, in order to help 
improve local governments and strengthen civil society.
  In June 2006, a group of men armed with machine guns attempted to 
kidnap his pregnant wife and 2-year-old son outside their home. The 
attack was thwarted, but his wife nearly miscarried and his son 
suffered prolonged shock. Sami and his family fled to Jordan where they 
live day to day waiting for the labyrinthine process to rule on their 
refugee case. Our Government owes these Iraqis an immense debt of 
gratitude. Many American employees owe their lives to those Iraqis.
  Despite the clear and present danger many Iraqis face based on their 
ties to the United States, their religious affiliation, or their work 
with media, nongovernmental and humanitarian organizations, the vast 
majority of Iraqi refugees must go through a long and complicated 
referral process of approximately 8 to 10 months, in which the United 
Nations serves as an intermediary. There are no provisions for 
conducting refugee screenings within Iraq as there should be.
  In a recent cable, Ambassador Crocker asked the administration to 
reconsider its practices. He estimates that under the current practices 
it would take more than 2 years to process the over 10,000 referrals 
made by the United Nations. As Ambassador Crocker noted:

       Clearly, this is too long. Refugees who have fled Iraq 
     continue to be a vulnerable population while living in Jordan 
     and Syria.

  Ambassador Crocker asked for the authority to process refugees in 
Iraq. He asked for the authority to provide special immigrant visas for 
those who have worked in good faith with our Government in Iraq. He 
asked to expedite the processing of refugee claims to

[[Page S12321]]

save lives. Surely, we can all agree with Ambassador Crocker that delay 
is unacceptable. But we must clearly do better by these Iraqis who have 
sacrificed so much for the United States.
  The amendment approved by the Senate last night will cut through the 
redtape. It requires the Secretary of State to establish a refugee 
processing program in Iraq and in countries in the region for Iraqis 
threatened because of their association with the U.S. Government.
  Those Iraqis who worked with our Government will be able to apply 
directly to the United States in Iraq, rather than going through the 
United Nations referral system outside Iraq. It authorizes 5,000 
special immigrant visas yearly for 5 years for Iraqis who have worked 
for the U.S. Government in Iraq and are threatened as a result. It also 
allows Iraqis in the United States who have been denied asylum because 
conditions in Iraq changed after Saddam Hussein's government fell to 
have cases reheard.
  Surely, we cannot resettle all of Iraq's refugees in the United 
States, but we need to do our part. America has a special obligation to 
keep faith with the Iraqis who now have a bull's eye on their back 
because of their association with our Government.
  I had the honor of meeting SGT Joseph Seemiller, a young man who is 
haunted by the military motto: Leave no man behind. Sergeant Seemiller 
is dedicated to helping the translator he was forced to leave behind in 
Iraq. On countless occasions, his translator helped to avoid several 
American and Iraqi casualties. He braved innumerable death threats and 
the horrific murder of his brother, finally fleeing to Syria where he 
has waited for more than 2 years for a chance to be resettled in the 
United States.
  Those words haunt us all. I am delighted the Senate has taken this 
important step to honor our commitment to the brave men and women whose 
lives are at risk.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I commend Senator Kennedy on his leadership on the issue 
he has been talking about. We have a great responsibility, particularly 
to those people in Iraq who have helped us--translators, truck drivers, 
people who put their lives and the lives of their families on the line 
to help us. Whether you agree with American policy in Iraq--and I 
don't--whether you feel we ought to have gone there--I thought it was a 
mistake and so voted--we are there. People are putting their lives on 
the line to help our troops and us. We surely owe them an opportunity 
to become refugees if they otherwise qualify. Instead they run into the 
hurdles, barricades, and bureaucracy Senator Kennedy talked about. He 
has taken a very important lead on that issue. There has been a lot of 
bipartisan support on this effort.
  There is another group I have been particularly worried about; they 
are religious minorities in Iraq, including Caldeans and Assyrians. 
These are Christians caught in the crossfire. That group is also given 
a special preference in this legislation which was adopted last night. 
It is a modest beginning toward carrying out our responsibility--and we 
bear some real responsibility as well as obligation--for some of these 
folks. It is a very small step. I wish to say Senator Kennedy has been 
relentless on this refugee issue. It was off the radar. Millions of 
people displaced inside Iraq, 2 million people outside Iraq who are 
refugees, 4 million Iraqis left their homes, half to other places in 
Iraq, half, roughly, to other countries in the region. These groups are 
so vulnerable. We must take action on it. We did last night. I thank 
and commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Brownback, who has been working 
with me particularly on these religious refugees, these minorities, 
and, of course, Senator Warner and the Republicans who worked to put 
this package together last night--all are entitled to our thanks but 
mainly Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might add, on our most recent trip 
visiting Iraq, you went out of your way--as a matter of fact, I joined 
you--in not only meeting with representatives of these Christian 
minorities who had been persecuted through the years, but then we 
included a trip into Jordan, where we also made some assessment of the 
refugee situation over there. I think some credit goes to our chairman 
for his personal initiatives.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Of course, as my partner on these 
trips, the Senator from Virginia was a very important part of that and 
added his prestige to the effort. I thank him for mentioning it but 
also for his participation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we wouldn't be able to have made 
progress unless we had the strong support of both the chairman and 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I am very grateful to 
them. This has been a strong bipartisan effort. It is important. We 
want to work with the Department and the agencies to make sure it is 
implemented correctly. I am appreciative of their continuing 
involvement in caring about these individuals. You could hear both of 
them speak about this measure and know they are involved, and they care 
very deeply about our responsibilities. We are enormously grateful to 
them for including this in the legislation.


                           Amendment No. 3058

  I wanted to address the Senate for a few minutes on the underlying 
and pending amendment. At this critical time, when we face major 
challenges in our national security, America relies more than ever on 
the Department of Defense and its dedicated employees at home and 
abroad. More than 675,000 civilian workers serve our country every day 
repairing planes, ships, tanks or overseeing the storage and 
distribution of vital weapons and supplies. These hard-working 
Americans are the backbone of our commitment to keep our troops safe 
and protect our Nation. But these vital civilian employees of the 
Department of Defense have been under sustained attack from the Bush 
administration. Instead of honoring and fairly rewarding their 
patriotic service, the administration has gone on a binge of 
outsourcing, forcing Federal workers to fight to keep their jobs in a 
competition where the deck is stacked against them.
  The Department of Defense has been an aggressive accomplice to the 
administration's effort. More than 121,000 civilian Defense employees 
could lose their jobs in the next 3 years. In fact, these employees are 
more likely to lose their jobs than employees of any other Federal 
agencies. Ill-advised outsourcing has not only hurt the DOD employees 
who are deprived of their jobs and benefits; it also has a massive 
impact on our brave men and women in uniform. Our Armed Forces deserve 
the very best workers supporting them. They also deserve the 
opportunity to continue serving their country after they come home from 
the battlefield. Thirty-five percent of civilian Defense employees are 
veterans. These loyal Americans deserve to be commended and cheered for 
choosing to continue to serve their country when they return home. Yet 
the administration is bent on taking their opportunity away from them, 
and from Americans currently serving overseas as well, by outsourcing 
their jobs.
  At the very least, we owe these patriotic Americans a fair chance to 
compete for important work. But the administration's irresponsible 
outsourcing rules are heavily biased against Federal employees. The 
point, it is insidious. The rules are different for contractors than 
for Federal workers. Private companies get advantages that dedicated 
Federal workers do not. The current system is designed to promote 
outsourcing, even when it doesn't save money. One of the most appalling 
roadblocks preventing fair competition is the unjust advantage 
contractors gain by shortchanging workers' health and retirement 
benefits. At a time when 47 million Americans don't have health 
insurance and only one in five Americans has a secure retirement plan, 
we should be doing all we can to encourage more companies to provide 
fair benefits to their employees. But current Federal contracting rules 
actually discourage private companies from providing health coverage or 
helping employees to save for retirement.
  Firms that provide no benefits or inadequate benefits win bids to 
perform Government work, even when the cost savings from their bid are 
attributed solely to the fact that they are shortchanging workers. We 
understand that. These veterans have served in the Armed Forces. They 
come back, are

[[Page S12322]]

working in the Defense Department. More than a third of all workers 
have served, been in the military, served our country. Now they are 
working. Because they are working for the Defense Department, they get 
health insurance and some retirement benefits. Now a contractor comes 
in and says they want to bid for a particular job. In the bidding 
process, the Government has to add the cost of retirement and their 
health insurance, while the private contractor provides no health 
insurance and no security for these workers in terms of pensions. They 
have some obvious advantage in what is now a rush to the bottom, 
constantly outsourcing and winning contracts.

  This is unfair. Our amendment, spoken to brilliantly last evening by 
Senator Mikulski, says, let's exclude those and have real competition. 
Let's take the fact that they have health insurance and have retirement 
benefits off. Let them compete and have real competition for this work. 
We know in circumstances where they have that real competition, these 
workers will win the jobs.
  The unfair practice creates a dangerous race to the bottom in which 
the private sector companies compete against each other to see who can 
provide the fewest benefits to their workers. It penalizes companies 
that want to do the right thing. As a result, the bidding process is 
actually increasing the number of Americans whose health and future 
security are in jeopardy. That is irrational and unconscionable. It is 
patently unfair to the thousands of Federal employees who lose their 
jobs every year because of irresponsible contractors. Workers should 
not be unfairly disadvantaged and lose contracts simply because they 
receive decent benefits. Each and every Member of Congress has good 
health insurance. Each and every Member of Congress has a secure 
retirement. Americans who serve our country in the Defense Department 
deserve the same.
  One of the key protections in the fair competition amendment corrects 
this injustice. It prevents contractors from winning bids to perform 
Government contracts solely because they provide inadequate benefits or 
no benefits at all. The Department is instructed not to consider health 
care and retirement costs in comparing contract bids. The winners of 
competition should be employers who operate more efficiently, not 
employers who provide the fewest benefits. The amendment does not 
dictate the benefits that employers must provide. It does not state the 
benefits employers have to provide or require contractors to modify 
their existing benefits. All it does is eliminate the perverse 
incentive that discourages contractors from providing fair benefits and 
give Federal employees a fair chance to prove they are the best workers 
for the job.
  It is a realistic solution to improve the process of public-private 
competition, and it has bipartisan support. The health care provisions 
have been a part of the appropriations legislation for years and a 
bipartisan Kennedy-Hatch amendment, providing the same treatment for 
retirement costs, was accepted on the Defense appropriations bill last 
year. Members on both sides of the aisle recognized it is not good 
policy for the Government to shift work from the public sector 
employees to private sector employees solely because it is cheaper to 
deny health and retirement benefits to employees. The fair competition 
amendment contains other important protections to level the playing 
field for civilian Defense employees in public-private competition. It 
allows Federal employees to appeal unfair privatization decisions, as 
contractors can do now. We are making sure those employees have the 
right to appeal. It allows managers to extend a contract when Federal 
employees perform well, as they can for private contractors under law. 
It prohibits the use of outsourcing quotas so agencies aren't forced to 
such privatization against their will. It ensures that outsourcing will 
occur only when it produces real savings to taxpayers. Shouldn't that 
be the criteria? Shouldn't that be the test, real savings, quality work 
for the taxpayers?
  It calls on the Department of Defense to stop dragging its feet and 
issue long overdue guidelines so civilian employees have a fair 
opportunity to compete for new work or work that has been outsourced 
incorrectly or unfairly in the past. This amendment is about fairness. 
Americans understand fairness--fairness to the taxpayer, fairness to 
civilians, fairness to Government workers, fairness to our men and 
women in uniform who deserve the very best possible support for their 
missions at home and abroad.
  I urge my colleagues to support the fair competition amendment.
  I will take a moment to demonstrate what the challenge has been. 
Competition: in 2004, 10 percent of the jobs were lost; 29 percent in 
2005. This is the projection for 2006 and 2007. It is a real crisis for 
many workers. This says thousands of veterans could lose their jobs 
under the Bush outsourcing rules. Thirty-four percent of civilian 
Defense employees are veterans. Our amendment ensures that these 
226,000 dedicated Americans who have served our country will not lose 
their jobs because of unfair outsourcing. That is what this amendment 
is basically about. This is the issue. We are looking at fairness--
fairness for the taxpayer, fairness to those who have served our 
country as men and women in uniform and now are serving in the Defense 
Department, fairness to them, fairness to the civilian employees, and, 
most of all, fairness to the men and women in the services who deserve 
to have the best trained, highly skilled, highly motivated workers 
working on the various products that are necessary to keep our Nation 
secure.

  They deserve the best. We want the best. This decision ought to be 
based upon the best and not about who can provide the least health 
benefits to workers in this country. That is the issue. The issue is 
fairness. Hopefully, this amendment will be accepted.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Reed and I have talked with our 
colleague Senator Sanders. He has two very laudable amendments. It is 
our hope we can work through these amendments, but they do relate to 
the responsibilities of other committees of the Senate, primarily the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
  I think we have agreed that our distinguished colleague from Vermont 
would have an opportunity this morning to discuss these amendments to 
make a case in the Congressional Record for use by many on Monday as we 
further assess the amendments should they actually be brought up before 
the body and acted upon. I would ask Senator Reed if that is a fair 
appraisal of the situation?
  Mr. REED. Yes, it is.
  Mr. WARNER. Is that agreeable to the Senator from Vermont?
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes, it is. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. WARNER. So the status on the floor is the Defense bill is pending 
and there is an amendment at this time, and there is no request at this 
time to set aside that pending amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3082

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Warner very much for 
his consideration, and Senator Reed, Senator Levin, and Senator McCain. 
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and 
that the Sanders-Byrd-Burr-Bond-Webb-Feingold amendment No. 3082 at the 
desk, and later the Sununu-Kerry-Brown amendment at the desk, No. 2905, 
be called up.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, could I make a parliamentary inquiry.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.
  Mr. REED. I think the Senator from Virginia suggested that the 
amendment is pending, so that the Senator from Vermont would not be 
requesting to set it aside; he just wants to speak to his amendments.
  Mr. SANDERS. That is correct.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.

[[Page S12323]]

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by discussing amendment No. 
3082. I appreciate the opportunity, and I look forward to working with 
Senator Warner and others early next week on this issue.
  The amendment I am offering, along with my colleagues Senators Byrd, 
Bond, Burr, Feingold, and Webb, would authorize $15 million in funding 
for gulf war illnesses within the Department of Defense's 
congressionally directed medical research programs. These funds would 
go to a peer-reviewed research program open to researchers inside and 
outside of Government, focusing on the chronic effects of neurotoxic 
exposures, body functions underlying the illnesses, and the 
identification of treatments. This funding level matches the funding 
level that is included in the Defense appropriations bill passed out of 
the committee a few weeks ago.
  This research is done by the Congressionally Directed Medical 
Research Programs, which is a research organization focused on finding 
and funding the best research to eradicate diseases to protect the 
health of current, future, and former members of the Armed Forces, 
while also benefiting the overall health of the American public. 
Importantly, a few days ago, as a member of the Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I can tell my colleagues that we had a very 
interesting hearing where we heard from the colonel at the DOD who runs 
this program using the $5 million appropriated by Congress last year to 
them, and the colonel described what has been happening. She reported 
to us that there was a great deal of interest in the initial 
solicitation for research proposals. They received 80 proposals. They 
recently granted $4.4 million to nine researchers from prestigious 
academic institutions across the country to find treatments for gulf 
war illnesses.
  The truth is, this is an issue that I and many others in Congress 
have been working on for many years. The reality is that in the first 
gulf war, as a result of service in the first gulf war, we have today 
well over 100,000 soldiers who are suffering--veterans who are 
suffering from a myriad of illnesses which we call gulf war illness. 
Some of these illnesses reflect themselves as fibromyalgia. Some people 
have headaches. Some people have short-term memory loss. Some people 
have gastrointestinal problems. We heard testimony from a young woman 
whose life, as a result of her service in the gulf, has been radically 
changed and her health has significantly deteriorated. There is a great 
deal of evidence that many of the children born to those men and women 
who served in the gulf, including this particular woman, were born with 
significant problems and disabilities.

  I would be less than honest if I did not say that substantial sums of 
money went to the DOD and the VA--and believe me, as a member of the 
Government Reform Committee in the House, I spent dozens of hours--
dozens of hours--along with Representative Chris Shays of Connecticut 
listening to testimony. I have to tell my colleagues that from many 
people in the veterans organizations, there was extreme frustration 
with the actions of the VA and the DOD; that, in the very beginning of 
this process, refused to even recognize the problem, and then what they 
said is: Well, maybe it is a psychological problem. There was a 
widespread feeling that the VA and the DOD were not responding to the 
real problems impacting tens and tens of thousands of our soldiers who 
returned.
  We have an obligation. Obviously, right now, all kinds of attention 
is being paid, appropriately enough, to our soldiers who come home from 
Iraq, who come home from Afghanistan. We are worried about TBI, 
traumatic brain injury; we are worried about post-traumatic stress 
disorder, and we should be. But we cannot in good conscience turn our 
backs on the tens and tens of thousands of soldiers who today are 
suffering from their service in the first gulf war. They are hurting.
  The good news is there is now a line of research being developed 
through the DOD organization that I mentioned before, and that is the 
Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program that is beginning to 
have some results. Without going into great medical and scientific 
analysis, what they are beginning to find is that as a result of the 
extremely toxic theater that existed in the gulf war, including burning 
oil wells, bromide given as an anti-nerve gas agent, DEET being used to 
protect soldiers from mosquitoes, and of course the saran released into 
the air, what researchers are now beginning to find is that there 
appears to be brain damage that is the cause of some of the symptoms 
our soldiers are seeing, and we are beginning to see more, very 
promising research in this area.
  My concern is if you talk to the veterans of the gulf war, they will 
tell you that there is a very high level of frustration about the huge 
amounts of money being spent by people who didn't even acknowledge or 
appreciate the pain our soldiers were experiencing. So what this 
amendment does is focuses research into those areas where we are 
already seeing some significant progress. That is what this amendment 
is about. I look forward to discussing this issue further with the 
members of the relevant committees when we return next week. That is 
one of the amendments we are working on.


                           Amendment No. 2905

  The other amendment is amendment No. 2905, which deals with a very 
immediate crisis. The former amendment deals with what happened 16 
years ago. This is an amendment dealing with the problem we are seeing 
today. I don't have to tell anyone in this body that the studies are 
very clear that we are likely to see a record-breaking level of post-
traumatic stress disorder coming from service in the theater in Iraq. 
It appears at this point, based on several studies I have read, that 
the numbers will be a lot higher than Vietnam, and God only knows that 
Vietnam was high enough. I think the evidence is pretty clear that we 
did not do a good job in addressing the post-traumatic stress disorder 
of those soldiers who came home from Vietnam.
  Now, what this amendment does is it would create a $30 million pilot 
project--and I should indicate this amendment is supported by Mr. 
Sununu of New Hampshire, Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts, and Mr. Brown of 
Ohio, the sitting Presiding Officer. It builds on a program, a small 
program we developed in the State of Vermont. Here is what the issue 
is.
  We can put zillions of dollars into research and into treatment for 
PTSD, but it will only do a limited amount of good if we don't bring 
those soldiers who are hurting into the facilities and into the 
counseling for them and their families that could provide help. I can 
tell you that in a rural State such as Vermont, where you have people 
from the National Guard who do not have the active-duty military 
infrastructure, a lot of these men and women will come home from Iraq, 
they will return to their small towns, and they will be hurting, their 
kids will be hurting, their wives will be hurting, and they are not 
going to stand up and say: You know what. I am having nightmares or 
when I go through a tunnel, I am having a panic attack.
  That is not what they are going to do. They are going to sit home and 
suffer and not know how to reach out for counseling. Some of them will 
be embarrassed; that is part of the problem.
  The history of the VA and the DOD is not good in knocking on doors 
and reaching out. What we have done in Vermont, working with the 
National Guard, in cooperation with the VA, is we established what we 
call a door-knocking program where we have men and women who have 
served in Iraq who are going into our communities and knocking on 
doors, sitting down and having a cup of coffee, talking to the 
families, asking them how things are going. The conversation might be: 
My husband hasn't been able to sleep. Oh, really. And they have that 
discussion. It is reaching out. The problem they may be having is a 
problem that may be experienced by tens of thousands of other people 
who went to Iraq. That is what this program is about.
  Some people say the VA has done a good job historically in outreach, 
but I don't believe that. I offered an amendment when I was in the 
House to counteract a rule that said the VA cannot do any outreach at 
all. So we have a major problem called post-traumatic stress disorder. 
Part of the problem is people are not going to stand up and say: I am 
hurting, how can I get help? I think the answer, to some degree, is to 
have people who served in Iraq knock on doors, and maybe they are

[[Page S12324]]

dressed in blue jeans, maybe they are not, but to come in an unofficial 
and informal way, sit down, have a cup of coffee, and try to assess 
what is going on.
  I appreciate the support of the Presiding Officer for this amendment, 
as well as others in the Senate. It is a very important amendment. I 
believe we owe it to our soldiers. I look forward to continuing this 
discussion early next week with my colleagues.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me just, first, thank the Senator from 
Vermont for his willingness to work over the next couple of days to see 
if we can figure out a way to address the issues, which are very 
important issues, that his amendments incorporate. I commend him also 
on his extraordinary commitment to the veterans of both wars--the ones 
we don't reach, as well as the ones we know about.
  We are going to work with him over the next couple days to see if 
there is a way to work these amendments out. I appreciate his 
willingness to hold off offering them.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan. I know 
his heart is in the right place. He will agree that we can spend 
zillions of dollars, but it doesn't do any good if it doesn't reach the 
people we want to reach. And we cannot turn our backs on people who 
fought in another war which is not in the newspaper today.
  Mr. LEVIN. The American people are divided on the war, but they are 
not divided on supporting our troops and our veterans who fought in 
former wars. This unites the American people. I commend the Senator for 
that feeling and the strong identity he has with the men and women who 
have represented this country and put their lives on the line and are 
now hurting.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, can we determine from the Presiding 
Officer the pending matters? Are we in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. No. The Senate is debating the 
bill, H.R. 1585. Pending is the Kennedy amendment.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 2640

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Leahy and Schumer, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from 
further consideration of H.R. 2640 and that the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration; further, I ask that a Leahy-Schumer substitute 
amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the 
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related 
to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I object on behalf of Senator Coburn, who 
was unable to be here today. I understand he has spoken to the 
colleagues enumerated in this request and they are aware of the basis 
for his objection. So, for the moment, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
fair competition amendment proposed by my colleague from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy, to H.R. 1585, the Defense Department authorization 
bill.
  This amendment would minimize the harmful effects that the current A-
76 process for outsourcing federal functions to private contractors has 
on Federal workers. It will do this by leveling the playing field 
between Federal workers and private contractors by removing several 
unfair advantages that contractors currently have in the process. I 
want to highlight just two of the important improvements that the 
amendment would make to the A-76 process.
  First, this amendment would take away the competitive advantage that 
contractors currently have if they deny their employees health and 
retirement benefits. I have fought to improve and protect federal 
workers' benefits as the chairman of the Federal Workforce 
Subcommittee. At a time when more and more Americans have no health 
insurance, it is simply wrong to give private contractors an advantage 
in winning work done by DOD employees by denying their workers the 
health benefits that Congress has guaranteed to Federal employees.
  Also, this amendment would give employees the same right to protest 
unfair contract awards under the A-76 process that private contractors 
already have. The current situation makes no sense. Private contractors 
were given the right to protest contracting decisions in the 
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, a law that was written for 
competitions between private contractors. The same protest right was 
never extended to Federal workers who compete against private 
contractors under the A-76 process. Basic fairness dictates that if one 
party can protest the results of a contest, both sides should be able 
to.
  I believe this amendment introduces a more appropriate level of 
caution into the process for outsourcing Federal jobs. Caution is 
especially important for jobs related to national defense and security. 
The recent events involving Blackwater as a contract security provider 
in Iraq remind us how difficult it can be to hold outside contractors 
accountable. The Federal Government over time has been a model for fair 
and equal employment practices, and in turn Federal workers have shown 
strong loyalty, courage, and dedication to serving their country. When 
we award jobs that are currently done by Federal workers to private 
contractors, we limit our ability to demand a high level of 
accountability and fairness from the private companies that win the 
contracts, nor can we expect the same level of dedication from their 
employees.
  When used properly on a limited basis, the A-76 process can improve 
Government efficiency by injecting competition into certain Federal 
functions that mirror activities performed by the private sector. 
However, the results of A-76 competitions suggest that there is limited 
economic value to the process. Federal employees do their jobs more 
efficiently than private contractors in most cases. Federal employees 
win 80 percent of the competitions under the A-76 process despite 
advantages given to private contractors. These positive results do not 
justify keeping the advantages granted to the private sector. Leveling 
the playing field will do more than make A-76 competitions objectively 
fairer. It can undo the harm to Federal employee morale that is caused 
by forcing them to compete for their jobs within a system that is 
rigged against them.
  At a time when the Federal Government faces tremendous challenges in 
hiring and retaining talented workers, it is important that we act to 
address the harmful effects that the current A-76 process has on the 
Federal workforce. That is what the fair competition amendment would 
do, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

                          ____________________