[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26000-26004]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

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

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

  Pending:

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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that later in the afternoon 
there will be probably two votes, one on the Mikulski-Kennedy amendment 
and probably a vote on final passage; am I correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendments that are now 
scheduled for a vote are the substitute amendment and final passage.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I was under 
the impression we had a vote agreed upon.
  Mr. President, I understand there has been an agreement with the 
leadership that we will dispose of this amendment at the hour of 5:30. 
In any event, is the time divided between now and 5:30?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time is not divided.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I desire to talk on the amendment that is 
sponsored by Senator Mikulski, myself, and a number of others, which is 
an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. I see the ranking 
member of the committee. If he had other business he wanted to deal 
with, obviously, I would withhold.

[[Page 26001]]

  Mr. President, at the end of last week, on Thursday evening, there 
was an excellent presentation on this issue before the Senate by 
Senator Mikulski. I addressed the Senate on Friday on this issue, and I 
am going to take a few minutes this afternoon.
  This is an exceedingly important issue. It relates to the underlying 
concept of our national security and our national defense. In this 
legislation, we are authorizing some $675 billion, which is essentially 
the backbone of our defense. What this amendment deals with is the 
personnel who will be working on the tanks, the planes, and the 
military hardware which needs to be conditioned and updated and 
improved so it is available and accessible to those men and women who 
are involved in defending this country. These are the employees who 
work primarily in the Defense Department.
  There is a phenomenon that has arisen that works to discriminate 
against these excellent workers. They are not only excellent workers 
but a third of them are veterans. A third of them are veterans. These 
are men and women who have worn the uniform of our country and have 
decided that they want to continue in public service and so, therefore, 
have brought their skills and their training they have achieved in the 
military to give attention to the Defense Department. This is probably 
the highest percentage of veterans in any undertaking or employment 
base we have in this country, because these individuals, highly 
patriotic, highly motivated, highly skilled, want to continue their 
service to the country.
  Basically, what they are asking is for an opportunity to continue 
service within the Defense Department, working on the various 
challenges and contracts which come before the Defense Department. This 
chart shows that thousands of veterans could lose their jobs under the 
outsourcing rules. That is what this amendment is about. We are going 
to get fairness in competition so these workers are treated fairly and 
the taxpayer is treated fairly, and we get the dollar value for the 
taxes paid, and the workers will be treated fairly.
  Under the current system, the rules that have been developed by the 
administration undermine that sense of fairness for these workers--a 
third of whom, as I said, are veterans. That is the issue. Thirty-four 
percent of the civilian defense employees are veterans. This amendment 
ensures that these 226,620 dedicated Americans who have served our 
country will not lose their jobs because of unfair outsourcing. That is 
what we are talking about--unfair outsourcing.
  Let me explain how this works. The chart probably demonstrates it as 
well as it can be demonstrated. This is the Government here for some 
particular Defense Department work. You can see from the green box that 
the Government can provide a lower rate for the cost of providing the 
service, and can also do it with higher skills than on the private bid. 
But the fact that the Government employees have health insurance or 
retirement benefits adds an additional cost to their proposal, which 
puts them out of competition. So what we are finding now with these new 
rules and regulations is the bids and contracts are going to companies 
that are dropping their health care and dropping their pension programs 
and dropping other security benefits so they can come up underneath the 
Government contract. Essentially, this is a race to the bottom.
  In a country where we have 47 million Americans who are uninsured, 
and we are having a major national debate about covering children, why 
are we providing more financial incentives to companies to drop their 
health insurance? That is what we are doing. The ones who are losing 
out are, by and large, the ones who have served in the Armed Forces of 
our country.
  This isn't only on Government bids; this could be a responsible 
contractor and an irresponsible contractor. Maybe a responsible 
contractor can do it more efficiently even than the Federal Government, 
but look how it works. If you have a responsible contractor who is 
trying to provide some benefits, limited benefits, or good benefits for 
their employees--and that is the combination we are talking about, 
health and retirement; those are the two, retirement and health--we are 
seeing those contractors who can provide the services more efficiently 
and better. Nonetheless, the bid will go to the irresponsible 
contractor. So this works against responsible contractors and it works 
against veterans working in the Defense Department.
  What we are saying with this amendment--and there are other 
provisions in the amendment--but what we are saying is let the 
competition take place. Let the competition take place between the 
workers in the Defense Department and the private sector, but let them 
have an even playing ground. Let us exclude the health insurance and 
retirement benefits. Let us have the competition out there and the best 
person win. The best bid wins the contracts.
  Why would we want to continue to drive out these contracts? We can 
show what has been happening over time to these workers. We saw in 
2004, because of these new regulations, where Federal employees lost on 
10 percent of these bids; in 2005, it went to 30 percent; and the best 
estimate now is it is going all the way up to 78 percent, and basically 
it is about this issue--not completely, but it is fundamentally about 
this issue.
  Now, in the amendment there are other provisions which I will mention 
very briefly. Provisions of this amendment, which have been debated on 
the floor and acted on in the Senate at other times, have also had 
strong bipartisan support, and I will mention those very briefly.
  At the present time, a private contractor can appeal an unfair 
decision if there is a belief by the private contractor that there is 
unfairness in terms of the decision in the competition with the Federal 
workers. They are entitled to get an appeal. On the other hand, if the 
Federal workers believe it is an unfair competition, they have no right 
to do so. They have no right to do so. This restores that right. This 
represents a very similar provision that was sponsored by Senator 
Collins in 2004, and Senators Chambliss, Warner, Thomas, and Voinovich 
have also supported appeal rights in the past for Federal employees in 
previous appropriations legislation. I am not speaking for them, but it 
is an indication that this is an issue that has been before the Senate 
at other times and there has been bipartisan support for it.
  On this point here--can renew a contract without recompetition--if 
they have a follow-on contract, they can renew that, if it is a private 
contract. With the Federal workers, they do not have that right to do 
that at the present time. So under the outsourcing provisions, these 
Federal workers are shortchanged.
  The provision regarding the submission of the competitive bid that 
requires the Federal workers to follow procedural and administrative 
provisions actually increases the cost of their bids. Again, at the 
request of the employees, all they wish to do is have the same kind of 
``most competitive bid'' they can offer. They would like that one to be 
on the table so we will get the best in terms of productivity and skill 
and also get the best in terms of savings for the taxpayers. But they 
are denied that right.
  We provided, through the Appropriations Committee, those protections. 
Those provisions had been added through the Appropriations Committee. 
But what has happened is, as the Appropriations Committee process goes 
along, these provisions expire, and so we have to come back to them. We 
have to win them again every time. Because if they are added on the 
appropriations, they do not continue to last and we have to refight 
those issues.
  Finally, there are what they call ``quota provisions,'' which have 
been put on by OMB and require a certain amount of quotas in terms of 
the private contracting, which obviously provides some unfairness to 
the workers and, secondly, to the public and the taxpayers.
  These are basically the provisions we have in the legislation. The 
primary one we have talked about today has been on this competition we 
have had

[[Page 26002]]

for the benefit cost. This is the overarching issue and question.
  We are going to have a good national debate during the Presidential 
elections of 2008 about how we are going to address the problems of 
cost in this country on health care. We have gone from $1.3 trillion to 
$2.3 trillion in the last 5 years. We have added $1 trillion worth of 
spending in health care and have added 7 million more people who are 
uninsured and there would have been a great deal more if we didn't have 
the CHIP program.
  We cannot continue that as a Nation. We are not going to be able to 
continue that. Our companies are not going to be able to; the costs in 
terms of local communities have gotten prohibitive. These involve real 
people and real sacrifices--real important considerations. We are 
talking about families. We are talking about, by and large, fairly 
treating people who served in the military. They had health care when 
they were serving in the military. They could have the health care when 
they retired. But the real question is going to be, now, when they are 
continuing to be a part of the whole defense and security of this 
country, whether we are going to treat them with the kind of respect 
they need, understanding they have families and they need this health 
care coverage. They are glad to pay for it and bargain for it. They 
have to look down the road in terms of their security and the security 
of their families, in terms of pensions in the future. They are glad to 
pay for that. But why we should be able to effectively cut them loose 
at a time of intense competition, I don't know.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, who has been 
involved in the different phases. I mentioned half a dozen different 
phases on this issue. He has been involved and engaged in these 
different aspects since he has been on that committee. I enjoy serving 
with him on the Armed Services Committee. He has been an eloquent and 
effective voice and has given enormous support to this effort. I see 
him on the floor and thank him for all of his help and assistance on 
this issue.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his eloquent, 
passionate statement and for his kind words. I appreciate it very much. 
In a short while, I will be adding my own few words of support for this 
amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from 
Maryland, and others--including myself.
  I am privileged to be managing the bill until the chairman, Senator 
Levin arrives. I thought insofar as there are Members here on both 
sides, we would go back and forth. I suggest Senator Sessions, who is 
here now, go next. I will follow him.
  I ask, through the Chair, of my friend from Alabama, how much time he 
would like to speak?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like 10 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Alabama go 
next for 10 minutes and then I be recognized for 7 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                  The Retirement of General Peter Pace

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I had the honor today to be at the 
retirement ceremony, a few hours ago, for the 16th Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff of the armed services of the United States, GEN 
Peter Pace, and the installation of the 17th Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, ADM Mike Mullen. The weather was beautiful, indeed, in your 
State of Virginia at Fort Myer, the brass shining in the Sun, the music 
was stirring, and the uniforms of the services in their bright collars 
gave appropriate recognition to the passing of the torch from a 
Chairman proven to a new Chairman challenged.
  It is always thus, I suppose. It was a thrill to see the commander of 
the Honor Guard one last time advance and say: ``General Pace, the 
Honor Guard of the United States is ready for your inspection.''
  And General Pace did just that, it appeared with pleasure and 
satisfaction. That he is admired within the military cannot be denied. 
I understand last week they planned a surprise for him in the Pentagon. 
He was invited to come to a meeting for some business, it was 
suggested, and the halls filled with over 1,200 people who appeared and 
applauded him for 20 minutes. It was a true expression of the 
admiration and affection in which he is held throughout the military. 
Such support is not a surprise for anyone who knows that wonderful man.
  He made a number of remarks at his retirement or change of command. 
He expressed his admiration for President Bush's willingness to listen 
to his advice the entire time of his tenure. He made clear President 
Bush did listen, and he was a regular briefer of the President; and 
General Pace's admiration for the President for standing by his 
commitments when he sent military men and women in uniform into harm's 
way was quite personal and strong. In other words, General Pace is 
there. General Pace has been part of this process. General Pace has 
seen this Congress and this President authorize soldiers and send 
soldiers into harm's way. He felt a sense of appreciation for President 
Bush, I would say, for his willingness to not give lightly and to be 
totally supportive of those troops once they had been sent in harm's 
way.
  He said the No. 1 question he is asked when he goes about with 
military personnel: Does Congress still support us?
  I remember not too many months ago, a gentleman right out there 
caught me. His son was about to go to Iraq. He told me: Senator, make 
no mistake, those soldiers over there and in training to go over there 
are watching what you do like a hawk.
  Secretary Gates, President Bush, Admiral Mullen were exceedingly 
complimentary of General Pace. They discussed his bravery as a young 
lieutenant at the battle of Hue in Vietnam. They lost quite a number of 
officers. He was moved up as a second lieutenant to be in command of 
the company they would have to have led. There was a bitter battle and 
he lost a number of marines.
  He said he felt a debt to those marines, that he had spent 40 years 
of his career in the military attempting to pay off.
  Several people made reference to that. He called those marines he 
served with, who lost their lives there, by names at that retirement 
ceremony. He indicated he still did not believe he had paid that debt 
that he owed those people who had given their full measure to our 
Nation's defense. But other speakers said he had, and they were most 
complimentary of him.
  Recently, at a hearing, he was encouraged--let me say it that way--to 
retreat from a statement he had made that reflected his personal moral 
and faith beliefs; but he admirably, I suggest, declined to pander or 
to retreat from what he honestly believed, and he restated his personal 
values. That is the kind of man you want leading us, I suggest.
  Our Nation is in the debt, I think, of GEN Peter Pace. He has given 
tirelessly of himself to support the policies of our country and to 
make those policies successful.
  I say: Well done, good marine, well done.
  Mr. President, on a different subject, I want to take a few minutes 
to note that on Friday, September 21, the Missile Defense Agency had a 
highly successful missile defense intercept. A target vehicle was 
launched from Kodiak, AK. It went into space. The interceptor missile 
was launched at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. It was, 
indeed, a realistic test of this capability. According to Rick Lehner, 
the spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, ``This was a very 
operationally realistic test.''
  In those tests we want to determine whether our missile defense 
capability will actually succeed in knocking down an intercontinental 
missile. These two missiles were launched, the target vehicle on a 
track not unlike what we would see if, for example, the North Koreans 
launched an attack. We launched our defensive missile out of

[[Page 26003]]

California. And they collided and destroyed one another over the 
Pacific, like we planned, a bullet to bullet. There were no explosives 
in the ``kill'' vehicle. Just speed, guided by computers and 
sophisticated guidance systems, allowed those two to collide and to 
destroy the incoming missile.
  The American people have a number of questions and misconceptions 
about missile defense. Some think we already have a complete missile 
defense system that can knock down incoming missiles. That is not so. 
Some think we do not have any capability, that this is a bunch of money 
being spent on programs that are never going to work. That is 
absolutely not so. We now have proven the technology. General Obering 
and his team at the Missile Defense Agency have continued to have 
success after success. We know we have the capability to knock down an 
incoming missile that threatens the people of the United States, who 
knows--with a nuclear weapon or biological or chemical munition 
contained within it.
  This is an important matter for the United States that the President 
can know. If he is negotiating with some extreme nation that threatens 
to attack us with a missile and tries to use that threat as leverage or 
bargaining power, he can say: We are not afraid of you. You send a 
missile off and we will knock it down.
  We are reaching that point in our capability. Intelligence tells us 
Iran also continues to build its systems and produces greater 
capability.
  I would say, we need a site in Europe. I hope we continue to work 
toward that. We need to maintain steady appropriations and 
authorizations in this Senate to make sure our missile system that we 
have committed so many years to, and so many dollars to, is now 
completed, since it has been proven to be a good investment from the 
beginning.
  I thank the Chair for giving me this opportunity and note I am 
excited about this test's success. I do believe it is important for all 
of us in Congress to note that and make sure about our funding--which I 
think this year is a bit tight. The President took some money down out 
of missile defense. The Congress has taken some more. But I believe we 
have enough funding to keep this program on track.
  I see my colleague, Senator Lieberman. I note there are few in the 
Senate who have studied the issue more or who have been engaged in it 
longer than he. I know he and Senator Thad Cochran offered the 
resolution, not long after I came to the Senate, to deploy a national 
missile defense system ``as soon as technologically feasible.'' That 
was the language, wasn't it, Senator Lieberman? Indeed, we are now 
deploying it. We are already deploying the system, and the American 
people took comfort last July 4, when the North Koreans launched 
missiles to demonstrate their power--they took comfort because of you 
and others, before I even came into the Senate--such as Senator Shelby, 
my colleague from Alabama--who were pioneers moving that forward. We 
can now take comfort that we do have ability. It means a lot for our 
people and for the safety of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my 
statement, which I will now offer for 10 minutes instead of 7; to be 
followed by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, for 10 minutes; 
followed by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, for 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I extend my time to respond to two 
things my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions--one of my two friends 
from Alabama, Senator Sessions, mentioned.
  The first is the good news from the Missile Defense Program of the 
successful test last Friday. We wish we did not have to spend money 
building a missile defense, but the truth is that the number of powers, 
including a lot of hostile anti-American countries that have the 
capacity to fire missiles at us and our allies, carrying both 
conventional weapons and potentially weapons of mass destruction, is 
increasing and has increased.
  The creation of this program has been controversial. The funding of 
it is controversial. But I believe, just as deeply as anyone can 
believe anything, that we will, particularly as we hear the success of 
the testing, look back on the investments we have made in this program 
and be very thankful we did it because it will protect the security of 
the United States from attack via a missile from the enemies that exist 
to our country and to our values.
  I wish to just briefly echo what Senator Sessions said about General 
Pace, who has just ended his time as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. I put an extensive statement in the Record last week without 
being on the floor. I just say now that this is a good man, a patriot 
who has served his country with a tremendous sense of excellence, of 
bravery, of honor, taking on risks and burdens to himself for the 
defense of America.
  When he was appointed and confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, there were two pieces of history, two firsts. We are a 
country that loves firsts because when people do something for the 
first time, it talks about the increasing openness, the reality of what 
we call the American dream. The one that was greatly commented on was 
Peter Pace was the first marine to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff. That was a historic first. The other--perhaps less commented 
on but a great story of America--Pete Pace was the first Italian 
American to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--yet another 
extraordinary accomplishment and act of service to our country from its 
Italian-American community.
  Pete Pace served during a difficult time. He served with honor and 
integrity. He was intensely devoted to the men and women who serve all 
of us, and their families. He has maintained the fighting edge of our 
military going through a very difficult time, oversaw two extraordinary 
victories in Afghanistan and Iraq and then the post-Saddam war 
increasingly against al-Qaida in Iran and Iraq--very difficult times. 
But he leaves office now at a moment when, obviously thanks to the 
skill and bravery of the American military, there are some reasons for 
encouragement in Iraq, good reasons.
  I thank General Pace, his wife, and his family for their service to 
America. We wish them well in the years ahead.


                           Amendment No. 3058

  Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment offered by 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Mikulski and others, including myself, 
which will be voted on later today. This amendment would bring some 
commonsense reforms to the process by which agencies decide whether to 
outsource Federal jobs to contractors.
  Sometimes, obviously, it makes a lot of sense for agencies to turn to 
contractors because they are able to perform certain functions more 
efficiently than the agencies could themselves. That is in everybody's 
interest, including the taxpayers'. However, in many cases, experience 
has shown Federal employees can perform the work just as efficiently or 
more efficiently than the contractors and deserve the right to bid when 
work is proposed to be outsourced. Additionally, agencies must ensure 
that inherently governmental work--in other words, work which is 
intimately related to the public interest--is performed by Federal 
employees and not by private contractors. That is why the Government 
was created.
  The process for deciding when to outsource jobs has to be a careful 
one, it has to be fair to contractors, and it has to be fair to Federal 
employees. Of course, it has to be fair, most of all, to America's 
taxpayers.
  The Kennedy amendment provides Federal employees the same right 
contractors currently possess to appeal outsourcing decisions. In other 
words, when a particular function is proposed for outsourcing, open to 
bidding by private contractors, there is a process--and a good one--
that has been created

[[Page 26004]]

where Federal employees themselves may bid against those contractors 
for that outsourcing work. What the Kennedy amendment says is Federal 
employees should have the same rights contractors have to appeal 
outsourcing decisions. Why just have one of the competitors for the 
outsourcing have the right to appeal and the other one does not? To me, 
that is simply a fundamental issue of fairness.
  The amendment also contains a provision to ensure that contractors 
competing for Department of Defense work do not receive an unfair 
advantage because they offer inferior health or retirement benefits to 
what we are offering to Federal employees. I do not think any Member of 
this Chamber would want employees of the Department of Defense to be at 
a disadvantage in competing for their jobs because they receive health 
and retirement benefits that we authorize and ordain from the Federal 
Government.
  This amendment also addresses a concern I have had for quite a long 
time; that is, it sometimes appears as if the Office of Management and 
Budget pushes agencies to meet arbitrary numerical targets for the 
outsourcing of jobs. Decisions on outsourcing should be made on a case-
by-case basis where it makes sense for agencies to outsource the jobs 
as opposed to giving them a quota of outsourcing and say they have to 
hit that quota.
  Arbitrary numerical targets, I am afraid, take agencies off the path 
of pursuing other means of cutting costs. They overtax agencies already 
struggling to monitor work performed by contractors. I believe they 
sometimes, without cause, undermine the civil service, which we ought 
to be elevating as it is elevated in so many of the other 
industrialized developed democracies. Those types of numerical targets 
were prohibited by Congress in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus 
appropriations bill, but the Office of Management and Budget seems to 
be continuing to pressure agencies to conduct competitions between 
Federal employees and contractors on a certain number of jobs each 
year. That is not right. The amendment before us makes clear that use 
of such quotas at the Department of Defense is impermissible.
  These are all, in my opinion, sensible, modest reforms. They do not 
and they are not intended to prohibit the outsourcing of Federal jobs, 
which I support when it makes sense, but, rather, ensure that the 
process is objective, fair. It essentially puts both parties here on a 
level playing field.
  The core provisions of this amendment have, in fact, received 
bipartisan support in the Senate over the last few years. I hope we can 
continue that support when the amendment comes to the vote today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 2905

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to say 
a few words about an amendment I have offered, No. 2905, that is 
cosponsored by Senators Sununu, Kerry, Harkin, and Brown. This 
amendment addresses a problem that is huge, that is going to continue 
to grow in coming years, and is something the Congress must address. 
All across our country, veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
going to come home with what we believe to be very high levels of post-
traumatic stress disorder as well as traumatic brain injury. These are 
the signature injuries of the war in Iraq. I worry very much that we 
are not yet prepared to address this serious problem which not only 
impacts the returning soldiers, it impacts their wives, their kids, and 
their communities.
  The amendment I have offered would develop a pilot program for State-
based outreach to assist servicemembers and their families. The concern 
I have is that those who return home with TBI or PTSD are not going to 
get the care they need unless somebody makes contact with them and 
makes them aware of services and help that might be available. We can 
have all of the money we want allocated to addressing TBI or PTSD, but 
unless somebody goes out and brings those people into the system, that 
money is not going to do any good. I worry about that, especially for 
those returning soldiers who are in the National Guard who are not part 
of the active duty, who do not have a military infrastructure in front 
of them. I worry about soldiers coming home to small towns in Vermont 
and all across this country who suddenly find that their world is very 
different than the world they left, that they have nightmares, cold 
sweats, panic attacks when they go through a tunnel, and they don't 
know how to address those very serious symptoms of post-traumatic 
stress disorder.
  What this amendment does uniquely is create an outreach effort by 
which trained personnel from the National Guard or elsewhere are 
literally going to knock on doors and chat with the individual 
returning soldier and his or her family and get a sense of what is 
going on in the family, letting those veterans understand that what 
they are experiencing is something being experienced by tens of 
thousands of other soldiers, and there is nothing to be ashamed of 
about the kinds of problems that individual is having.
  The essence of this program is its nature as an outreach effort, not 
to sit back but to aggressively go out, knock on doors, have dialog, 
and bring people into the system which might be able to help them.
  This amendment is supported by the National Guard Association of the 
United States. They have pointed out that this amendment, with its 
unique emphasis on outreach, is a perfect compliment to the 
reintegration and readjustment policies laid out by the Yellow Ribbon 
Program in the previously adopted Chambliss amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill.
  This is a very strong amendment. I look forward to having support on 
both sides of the aisle. If we are serious about addressing the 
problems of PTSD and TBI, we have to be aggressive in outreach. That is 
what this amendment does.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. KYL. 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.

                          ____________________