[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11103-11119]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 11104]]

  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 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

[[Page 11105]]

     Chief, United States Central Command and Joint Task Force 
     Southwest Asia, and the commanders of the Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Marine Corps components of the United States 
     Central Command and Joint Task Force Southwest Asia.
       (c) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Procurement of 
     Abayas.--Funds appropriated or otherwise made available to 
     the Department of Defense may not be used to procure abayas 
     for regular or routine issuance to members of the Armed 
     Forces serving in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or for any 
     personnel of contractors accompanying the Armed Forces in the 
     Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the performance of contracts 
     entered into with such contractors by the United States.

  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

[[Page 11106]]

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 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

[[Page 11107]]

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 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

[[Page 11108]]

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.
  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?

[[Page 11109]]


  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 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

[[Page 11110]]

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 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 of New Hampshire. 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

[[Page 11111]]

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 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

[[Page 11112]]

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 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

[[Page 11113]]

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.
  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

[[Page 11114]]

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.
  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

[[Page 11115]]

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.

  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

[[Page 11116]]

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 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

[[Page 11117]]

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 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.

[[Page 11118]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 11119]]

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.

                          ____________________