Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Mr. President, as was described earlier on the floor with the chairman of the committee, on last Friday, there are important provisions dealing with refugees, particularly the select refugees who have been the ones who have been so associated with the American effort in Iraq. We have differences in this body on the overall policy in Iraq, but I think all of us admire those extraordinary individuals who worked, in many instances, as translators for the American servicemen and risked their lives. Many of them lost their lives in this effort. A number of others who had worked with American forces now have their lives threatened, for which there is a sense of urgency. The amendment was accepted by both Senator Levin and Senator Warner. We are hopeful it will result in saving lives. Also, there are individuals who, by their religious beliefs, were being persecuted as well. So this was a small amendment, but it will make a big difference. I thank them for their help and assistance on that amendment and a number of other items on our hate crimes legislation, and others. Amendment No. 3058 Mr. President, one of the pending amendments is the amendment offered by Senator Mikulski and myself, and that is an amendment that affects workers. In this case, we are talking about Defense Department workers. Of those 640,000 Defense Department workers, we are talking about a third of those workers who have proudly served in the Armed Forces of our country. They have worn the uniform of our country, acquired various skills, and then have come back and now are serving in the Defense Department in a wide variety of areas--in information and information technologies, in supplies, in technology and safety equipment--a wide variety of areas. They are using their skills--which they had--their patriotism, their dedication to service to this country and are doing so with great skill and determination. It means a lot to those who are in the Armed Forces to know they have a backup, first of all by their families, but secondly by skilled men and women who are going to make sure they have the best in technology, the best in terms of equipment, and that they are going to be able to do their job in the way they were trained. Those are the Defense Department employees. Now, we have found in recent times as to those employees that their futures have been put at risk. They have been put at risk because of a change in the rules and regulations for what they call outsourcing, the bidding for various contracts. These workers are highly skilled, highly professional, and they are prepared to compete on a level playing field with any group of workers--public or private sector--and do so, and do so well, do it skillfully, and also do it in a way that is going to save the American taxpayer resources. But what is added to the bid in various contracts is the fact that these Federal employees have health insurance and also have some retirement benefits. In this country now we are facing a health care crisis. We hear Democratic candidates for President talk about it, Republican candidates talk about it, business leaders, leaders of the trade union movement talk about it. We were spending $1.3 trillion 6 years ago; we are now spending $2.3 trillion. We have increased the spending by $1 trillion, and 8 million Americans have lost their health insurance--8 million. It would be more than that if we didn't have the SCHIP program. That is another issue for another time, when it will be more than that. So we are in real danger of seeing middle-class families lose both their retirement in terms of their pensions, as well as their health insurance. Now we have the regulations of the Department of Defense that are accelerating that. Effectively, what they are saying is, if we have good competition between the government bid and the private bid, the fact that we have health insurance and retirement, it is going to make the total cost somewhat higher and therefore the award will go to the private bid. This is sending a powerful message to these private contractors: Don't even think of providing any services, health care, for the families of your workers. Don't think about retirement. Don't think about anything because you can win contracts against those who are working in the Defense Department who are providing those benefits. That is basically unfair. This competition ought to be for the cost of providing the services. Who can do that more efficiently? We don't want to rush to the bottom-- a race to the bottom--and that is what we are having at this time, and that is wrong. That is wrong, and it is unfair. If we continue that, we are going to find out we are going to have not tens of thousands, but we are going to have hundreds of thousands of people who are going to see that their insurance is lost. This isn't just the employees. If we look at the private contractor, one private contractor was going for a bid, another was bidding for it, and at the present time, if that were the circumstance today, the responsible contractor who is looking out for their employees with health insurance for the families and with a retirement program, they would be somewhat higher than the cost of providing service by the irresponsible contractor, and they would lose out. So it isn't only the workers who are working in the Defense Department but also responsible contractors who are providing services for their employees and who respect their employees. If we don't accept this amendment, we are going to see a continuing rush to the bottom where it is going to be virtually impossible to get these independent contractors to provide any of the kinds of services to these families who are working in this country. That isn't what we ought to have in terms of the Defense Department rules. Finally, as I pointed out earlier, but it is worth mentioning again, some of the other provisions that basically work for the unfairness of those who are working in the Defense Department. If there is an unfair decision, the private contractors can appeal that, but the workers over here cannot. That isn't fair. This amendment is about fairness, treating people fairly. Renew a contract without recompetition, they can do that. Private contractors can do it, but if the Federal workers have that contract, they can't do it. We find out for the most competitive bid, there are administrative rules and regulations that prohibit Federal employees from getting the lowest competitive bid. They know how to do it, they want to do it; nonetheless, they are denied the opportunity to do it. Then we have these quotas that are set by OMB, which is not right. They establish so many contractors and so much is virtually prohibited, but it has grown into a practice at the present time. So this amendment is very much about fairness. It is about how we are going to treat people who are part of the whole Defense establishment. And they are these workers, and they are indispensable. A great percentage of them have been a part of the military and have served with great distinction for many years. They want to continue that sense of patriotism, continue that sense of service, continue that sense of giving. The men and women who are in the Armed Forces know they can rely on the quality of the work that the individuals do because these individuals are highly motivated, highly trained, have been in the service, many of them have served for many years, come out of the service, have skills, and say: What I would like to do for the rest of my career is to be able to continue to give support to those who are on the front lines, and they do it. They do it with great distinction, and they do it with great expertise and with extraordinary patriotism. All they are asking for is to have a fair system, to give them a fair shake. Give them some respect. Give them the respect they deserve, that they should have. Give some respect for their families as well. So I hope very much we will have good support for this amendment. As I mentioned earlier in those particular provisions that we put up about disparities between the private contractors and the employees, we have had strong bipartisan support for just about every one of those provisions, but they have been put on appropriations in the past, and therefore at the time the appropriation expires, these provisions expire. Now we are back to try to revisit this once again. So there is a strong and compelling reason for this amendment. I thank Senator Lieberman and so many of our cosponsors, including Senator Mikulski who has spoken so well and who has been such a strong advocate, and so many of our colleagues who have supported the different provisions on both sides of the aisle. Hopefully, we will have a strong vote in an hour from now for those workers. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Gregg today in reintroducing the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, to guarantee that all firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel, and other first responders across the country have fundamental collective bargaining rights. The issue is one of basic respect for this valuable workforce, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. The first responders of our State and local governments are on the front lines of the effort to keep America safe. They perform difficult, exhausting work, day and night, to preserve and protect our communities. In this post-9/11 era, they have an indispensable role in homeland security as well. It is vital to our national interest to ensure that these essential public services are carried out as effectively as possible. Strong partnerships between first responders and the cities and States they serve are vital to public safety. Studies show that cooperation between public safety employers and employees improves the quality of services communities receive and reduces worker fatalities. These strong, cooperative partnerships are built on bargaining relationships. Every New York City firefighter, emergency medical technician, and police officer who responded to the disaster at the World Trade Center on 9/11 was a union member under a collective bargaining agreement, and those agreements strengthened their ability to respond in that time of crisis. Unfortunately, many first responders across the country do not have basic workplace protections. Twenty-nine States and the District of Columbia guarantee all public safety workers the right to bargain collectively, but 21 States deny some or all of their public safety workers this fundamental right. Our Nation's first responders have earned the right to be treated with respect. The Cooperation Act will ensure that they receive that respect and will benefit from the same protections enjoyed by many other workers across the country. The bill gives public safety officers the right to bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions, and ensures that these rights are enforceable in State court. It also provides an efficient and effective means to resolve disputes in labor- management conflicts. The Cooperation Act accomplishes these important goals in reasonable, moderate ways. States that already have collective bargaining in place for public safety workers are not affected by the bill. States that do not currently provide these protections may establish their own collective bargaining systems or ask the assistance of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in doing so. This approach respects existing State laws and gives each State full authority to decide how it will comply with the basic standards. America's public safety workers are prepared to put their lives on the line for their community each and every day. They deserve a voice at the table in the life-and-death decisions about their work. It is essential for their safety, the safety of our communities, and the safety of our entire Nation. It is a matter of basic fairness for these courageous men and women to have the same rights that have long benefited so many other Americans. I urge Congress to act quickly to provide these fundamental protections.

Mr. KENNEDY

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?

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?

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. 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 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.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Gregg today in reintroducing the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, to guarantee that all firefighters, police officers, emergency medical personnel, and other first responders across the country have fundamental collective bargaining rights. The issue is one of basic respect for this valuable workforce, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. The first responders of our State and local governments are on the front lines of the effort to keep America safe. They perform difficult, exhausting work, day and night, to preserve and protect our communities. In this post-9/11 era, they have an indispensable role in homeland security as well. It is vital to our national interest to ensure that these essential public services are carried out as effectively as possible. Strong partnerships between first responders and the cities and States they serve are vital to public safety. Studies show that cooperation between public safety employers and employees improves the quality of services communities receive and reduces worker fatalities. These strong, cooperative partnerships are built on bargaining relationships. Every New York City firefighter, emergency medical technician, and police officer who responded to the disaster at the World Trade Center on 9/11 was a union member under a collective bargaining agreement, and those agreements strengthened their ability to respond in that time of crisis. Unfortunately, many first responders across the country do not have basic workplace protections. Twenty-nine States and the District of Columbia guarantee all public safety workers the right to bargain collectively, but 21 States deny some or all of their public safety workers this fundamental right. Our Nation's first responders have earned the right to be treated with respect. The Cooperation Act will ensure that they receive that respect and will benefit from the same protections enjoyed by many other workers across the country. The bill gives public safety officers the right to bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions, and ensures that these rights are enforceable in State court. It also provides an efficient and effective means to resolve disputes in labor- management conflicts. The Cooperation Act accomplishes these important goals in reasonable, moderate ways. States that already have collective bargaining in place for public safety workers are not affected by the bill. States that do not currently provide these protections may establish their own collective bargaining systems or ask the assistance of the Federal Labor Relations Authority in doing so. This approach respects existing State laws and gives each State full authority to decide how it will comply with the basic standards. America's public safety workers are prepared to put their lives on the line for their community each and every day. They deserve a voice at the table in the life-and-death decisions about their work. It is essential for their safety, the safety of our communities, and the safety of our entire Nation. It is a matter of basic fairness for these courageous men and women to have the same rights that have long benefited so many other Americans. I urge Congress to act quickly to provide these fundamental protections.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the late Arthur Helton, perhaps our country's greatest advocate for the rights of refugees, wrote: Refugees matter . . . for a wide variety of reasons. . . . Refugees are a product of humanity's worst instincts, the willingness of some persons to oppress others, as well as some of its best instincts, the willingness of many to assist and protect the helpless. . . . A year after he wrote those words, Arthur Helton was killed in Baghdad in 2003 when a bomb destroyed the U.N. headquarters in Iraq. His words still resonate today, especially when we consider the immense human cost of the war in Iraq and its tragic effect on the millions of Iraqis--men, women, and children--who have fled their homes, their country, to escape the violence of a nation at war with itself. These brave and heroic Iraqis work with the American military, staff our embassy, and work with American organizations to support our mission in Iraq. They are among the 4 million Iraqi refugees who have been forced from their homes. They are the people we have an obligation to help. Instead of protection, we have offered them bureaucracy and doublespeak, false words and dubious hopes. Despite the overwhelming need, the U.S. has resettled less than 2,000 Iraqis this fiscal year. Last night, the Senate acted and stood up to help Iraqi refugees. I thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for adopting our amendment, the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007. I thank Senator Warner as well. This was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators: Senators Smith, Levin, Hagel, Biden, Brownback, Lieberman, Leahy, Snowe, Durbin, Voinovich, Feinstein, Collins, Obama, Dole, Menendez, Mikulski, and Clinton. The need is especially urgent for those whose work for the United States has put them in danger. Because they supported us, insurgents have repeatedly threatened to kill them. Many have lost their homes, their property, their livelihoods. They face ongoing threats every single day. Some have fled the country and are waiting in refugee camps, and others are in hiding. All of them hope the United States will not forget their sacrifices. Still others have tried to flee, only to be stopped at the border, trapped in a country that cannot protect them, abandoned by a country, our country, that they believed would set them free. Others continue their work, living in fear of the day that the insurgents punish them for working for Americans. They are women such as Sarah, whose husband worked as an interpreter for the coalition forces in a combat hospital. Although he kept his job secret, insurgents discovered his identity. They broke into his family home, kidnapped her and released her only after torturing and raping her. The family fled to a neighboring country where they have waited for almost a year in the hopes of qualifying for refugee status. Sarah's husband has been forced to return to Iraq. Each day that passes without assistance brings the rest of the family closer to an involuntary return to Iraq. She wrote: Dear gentlemen: I put my suffering between your hands as my hope in you is great that you will hear our calling. And there are men such as Sami who worked for USAID. He received several death threats, one in the form of a blood-soaked bullet sealed in an envelope. Sami pressed on, despite the threats, in order to help improve local governments and strengthen civil society. In June 2006, a group of men armed with machine guns attempted to kidnap his pregnant wife and 2-year-old son outside their home. The attack was thwarted, but his wife nearly miscarried and his son suffered prolonged shock. Sami and his family fled to Jordan where they live day to day waiting for the labyrinthine process to rule on their refugee case. Our Government owes these Iraqis an immense debt of gratitude. Many American employees owe their lives to those Iraqis. Despite the clear and present danger many Iraqis face based on their ties to the United States, their religious affiliation, or their work with media, nongovernmental and humanitarian organizations, the vast majority of Iraqi refugees must go through a long and complicated referral process of approximately 8 to 10 months, in which the United Nations serves as an intermediary. There are no provisions for conducting refugee screenings within Iraq as there should be. In a recent cable, Ambassador Crocker asked the administration to reconsider its practices. He estimates that under the current practices it would take more than 2 years to process the over 10,000 referrals made by the United Nations. As Ambassador Crocker noted: Clearly, this is too long. Refugees who have fled Iraq continue to be a vulnerable population while living in Jordan and Syria. Ambassador Crocker asked for the authority to process refugees in Iraq. He asked for the authority to provide special immigrant visas for those who have worked in good faith with our Government in Iraq. He asked to expedite the processing of refugee claims to save lives. Surely, we can all agree with Ambassador Crocker that delay is unacceptable. But we must clearly do better by these Iraqis who have sacrificed so much for the United States. The amendment approved by the Senate last night will cut through the redtape. It requires the Secretary of State to establish a refugee processing program in Iraq and in countries in the region for Iraqis threatened because of their association with the U.S. Government. Those Iraqis who worked with our Government will be able to apply directly to the United States in Iraq, rather than going through the United Nations referral system outside Iraq. It authorizes 5,000 special immigrant visas yearly for 5 years for Iraqis who have worked for the U.S. Government in Iraq and are threatened as a result. It also allows Iraqis in the United States who have been denied asylum because conditions in Iraq changed after Saddam Hussein's government fell to have cases reheard. Surely, we cannot resettle all of Iraq's refugees in the United States, but we need to do our part. America has a special obligation to keep faith with the Iraqis who now have a bull's eye on their back because of their association with our Government. I had the honor of meeting SGT Joseph Seemiller, a young man who is haunted by the military motto: Leave no man behind. Sergeant Seemiller is dedicated to helping the translator he was forced to leave behind in Iraq. On countless occasions, his translator helped to avoid several American and Iraqi casualties. He braved innumerable death threats and the horrific murder of his brother, finally fleeing to Syria where he has waited for more than 2 years for a chance to be resettled in the United States. Those words haunt us all. I am delighted the Senate has taken this important step to honor our commitment to the brave men and women whose lives are at risk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we wouldn't be able to have made progress unless we had the strong support of both the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I am very grateful to them. This has been a strong bipartisan effort. It is important. We want to work with the Department and the agencies to make sure it is implemented correctly. I am appreciative of their continuing involvement in caring about these individuals. You could hear both of them speak about this measure and know they are involved, and they care very deeply about our responsibilities. We are enormously grateful to them for including this in the legislation. Amendment No. 3058 I wanted to address the Senate for a few minutes on the underlying and pending amendment. At this critical time, when we face major challenges in our national security, America relies more than ever on the Department of Defense and its dedicated employees at home and abroad. More than 675,000 civilian workers serve our country every day repairing planes, ships, tanks or overseeing the storage and distribution of vital weapons and supplies. These hard-working Americans are the backbone of our commitment to keep our troops safe and protect our Nation. But these vital civilian employees of the Department of Defense have been under sustained attack from the Bush administration. Instead of honoring and fairly rewarding their patriotic service, the administration has gone on a binge of outsourcing, forcing Federal workers to fight to keep their jobs in a competition where the deck is stacked against them. The Department of Defense has been an aggressive accomplice to the administration's effort. More than 121,000 civilian Defense employees could lose their jobs in the next 3 years. In fact, these employees are more likely to lose their jobs than employees of any other Federal agencies. Ill-advised outsourcing has not only hurt the DOD employees who are deprived of their jobs and benefits; it also has a massive impact on our brave men and women in uniform. Our Armed Forces deserve the very best workers supporting them. They also deserve the opportunity to continue serving their country after they come home from the battlefield. Thirty-five percent of civilian Defense employees are veterans. These loyal Americans deserve to be commended and cheered for choosing to continue to serve their country when they return home. Yet the administration is bent on taking their opportunity away from them, and from Americans currently serving overseas as well, by outsourcing their jobs. At the very least, we owe these patriotic Americans a fair chance to compete for important work. But the administration's irresponsible outsourcing rules are heavily biased against Federal employees. The point, it is insidious. The rules are different for contractors than for Federal workers. Private companies get advantages that dedicated Federal workers do not. The current system is designed to promote outsourcing, even when it doesn't save money. One of the most appalling roadblocks preventing fair competition is the unjust advantage contractors gain by shortchanging workers' health and retirement benefits. At a time when 47 million Americans don't have health insurance and only one in five Americans has a secure retirement plan, we should be doing all we can to encourage more companies to provide fair benefits to their employees. But current Federal contracting rules actually discourage private companies from providing health coverage or helping employees to save for retirement. Firms that provide no benefits or inadequate benefits win bids to perform Government work, even when the cost savings from their bid are attributed solely to the fact that they are shortchanging workers. We understand that. These veterans have served in the Armed Forces. They come back, are working in the Defense Department. More than a third of all workers have served, been in the military, served our country. Now they are working. Because they are working for the Defense Department, they get health insurance and some retirement benefits. Now a contractor comes in and says they want to bid for a particular job. In the bidding process, the Government has to add the cost of retirement and their health insurance, while the private contractor provides no health insurance and no security for these workers in terms of pensions. They have some obvious advantage in what is now a rush to the bottom, constantly outsourcing and winning contracts. This is unfair. Our amendment, spoken to brilliantly last evening by Senator Mikulski, says, let's exclude those and have real competition. Let's take the fact that they have health insurance and have retirement benefits off. Let them compete and have real competition for this work. We know in circumstances where they have that real competition, these workers will win the jobs. The unfair practice creates a dangerous race to the bottom in which the private sector companies compete against each other to see who can provide the fewest benefits to their workers. It penalizes companies that want to do the right thing. As a result, the bidding process is actually increasing the number of Americans whose health and future security are in jeopardy. That is irrational and unconscionable. It is patently unfair to the thousands of Federal employees who lose their jobs every year because of irresponsible contractors. Workers should not be unfairly disadvantaged and lose contracts simply because they receive decent benefits. Each and every Member of Congress has good health insurance. Each and every Member of Congress has a secure retirement. Americans who serve our country in the Defense Department deserve the same. One of the key protections in the fair competition amendment corrects this injustice. It prevents contractors from winning bids to perform Government contracts solely because they provide inadequate benefits or no benefits at all. The Department is instructed not to consider health care and retirement costs in comparing contract bids. The winners of competition should be employers who operate more efficiently, not employers who provide the fewest benefits. The amendment does not dictate the benefits that employers must provide. It does not state the benefits employers have to provide or require contractors to modify their existing benefits. All it does is eliminate the perverse incentive that discourages contractors from providing fair benefits and give Federal employees a fair chance to prove they are the best workers for the job. It is a realistic solution to improve the process of public-private competition, and it has bipartisan support. The health care provisions have been a part of the appropriations legislation for years and a bipartisan Kennedy-Hatch amendment, providing the same treatment for retirement costs, was accepted on the Defense appropriations bill last year. Members on both sides of the aisle recognized it is not good policy for the Government to shift work from the public sector employees to private sector employees solely because it is cheaper to deny health and retirement benefits to employees. The fair competition amendment contains other important protections to level the playing field for civilian Defense employees in public-private competition. It allows Federal employees to appeal unfair privatization decisions, as contractors can do now. We are making sure those employees have the right to appeal. It allows managers to extend a contract when Federal employees perform well, as they can for private contractors under law. It prohibits the use of outsourcing quotas so agencies aren't forced to such privatization against their will. It ensures that outsourcing will occur only when it produces real savings to taxpayers. Shouldn't that be the criteria? Shouldn't that be the test, real savings, quality work for the taxpayers? It calls on the Department of Defense to stop dragging its feet and issue long overdue guidelines so civilian employees have a fair opportunity to compete for new work or work that has been outsourced incorrectly or unfairly in the past. This amendment is about fairness. Americans understand fairness--fairness to the taxpayer, fairness to civilians, fairness to Government workers, fairness to our men and women in uniform who deserve the very best possible support for their missions at home and abroad. I urge my colleagues to support the fair competition amendment. I will take a moment to demonstrate what the challenge has been. Competition: in 2004, 10 percent of the jobs were lost; 29 percent in 2005. This is the projection for 2006 and 2007. It is a real crisis for many workers. This says thousands of veterans could lose their jobs under the Bush outsourcing rules. Thirty-four percent of civilian Defense employees are veterans. Our amendment ensures that these 226,000 dedicated Americans who have served our country will not lose their jobs because of unfair outsourcing. That is what this amendment is basically about. This is the issue. We are looking at fairness-- fairness for the taxpayer, fairness to those who have served our country as men and women in uniform and now are serving in the Defense Department, fairness to them, fairness to the civilian employees, and, most of all, fairness to the men and women in the services who deserve to have the best trained, highly skilled, highly motivated workers working on the various products that are necessary to keep our Nation secure. They deserve the best. We want the best. This decision ought to be based upon the best and not about who can provide the least health benefits to workers in this country. That is the issue. The issue is fairness. Hopefully, this amendment will be accepted. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and one of the principal architects of this CHIP program on the floor. I know he desires to speak for some time. I am glad to accommodate him. I think I am going to speak on both of the measures that are before the Senate, both the CHIP program as well as the hate crimes. So I do not know what the desire of the Senator from Utah would be. But I will be glad to yield to him.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator let me proceed for 2 minutes? I see the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from Utah. I want to say that the 6 million children who today are covered in all parts of the country, including my State of Massachusetts, would not be if it was not for the Senator from Utah. There was a very important insistence that has been sort of lost in this whole discussion and debate. At the time we had talked about this program, I was very interested in expanding the Medicaid Program and moving that up. Medicaid deals with the very poor. The real question was the working poor for these programs. Senator Hatch insisted we should not expand the Government program, that we have to let the States participate and involve themselves in it. This was a very contentious discussion in the debate which, eventually, Senator Hatch was successful in winning. Then we would establish the criteria, at least, of the kinds of services that were going to be provided within that kind of a program. That was a very contentious debate, but again Senator Hatch insisted the States should make the judgments on this program. Then we had the issues about trying to make sure about the inclusion, having it be more sweeping, and Senator Hatch stuck by his guns to make sure the States were going to be the ones that were going to do the outreach and set up this program. So those issues--in terms of when we are talking about these cliches of socialized medicine or Cuban-type of medicine--for those who are really interested in the philosophical underpinnings of this program, of why it is different from other programs, if they go back and look and carefully read the bill, I must say Senator Hatch's position of insisting that the States be the full partner and be the ones that are going to have the prime responsibilities has been the fact. I think to the credit of the Senator from Utah is the fact that so many of the Governors are in such support of this legislation--not only Democratic Governors but Republican Governors--because they have seen, they have both the responsibility and the opportunity to make a difference for their constituents. So that is just a small ``factoid'' about the history of the development of this legislation but one that should not be lost when people are thinking about whether this is just another kind of a governmental program. The Senator insisted on principle on a number of these important philosophical issues, and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, came together to support the recommendations that eventually were worked out with members of the Finance Committee and Senator Baucus, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Chafee, and many other colleagues. But the underpinnings were from the Senator from Utah. I think history ought to reflect that. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. On each side. Good. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes, and the Chair will notify me when that time has expired.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we mentioned at the opening this morning, there are going to be two major decisions by the Senate this morning: one on dealing with the children's health issue, which we have had a good discussion of here this morning, and the other issue on the hate crimes legislation, which we have been attempting to realize for a period of some 10 years. This is not a new issue to the Defense authorization legislation. We have passed it by more than 60 votes on the last occasion we had it. We passed it by a majority on other occasions. So for those who sort of suggest it is not appropriate that we deal with this, the majority-- Republicans and Democrats alike--have overwhelmingly supported the legislation. But it has been a strong minority that has resisted it and refused to let it move on into law. We finally are at a time and a place and a judgment where the House of Representatives now has moved in favor of the legislation. We have an opportunity today to do it. We haven't taken an unreasonable period of time. The application of this legislation and why it should be here is a very simple and basic and fundamental one; that is, what the Defense authorization bill is about--dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas and the support that our men and women ought to get in dealing with terrorism overseas. This is about terrorism in our neighborhoods-- terrorism in our neighborhoods--and making sure we are going to fight it. We can talk about having the MRAP, which I support, in the Defense authorization bill. We are fighting overseas with all of our weapons. We want to fight terrorism at home with all of our weapons. We want to be able to have a value system that is worthy for our brave men and women to defend. They are fighting overseas for our values. One of the values is that you should not, in this country, in this democracy, permit the kind of hatred and bigotry that has stained the history of this Nation over a very considerable period of time. We should not tolerate it. We keep faith with those men and women who are serving overseas when we battle that hatred and bigotry and prejudice at home. So we are taking a few minutes in the morning to have this debate and discussion. I urge my colleagues to join me, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Senator Smith, and 31 cosponsors of the Matthew Shepard Act by voting in favor of cloture and our underlying amendment today. Hate crimes are domestic terrorism. Like all terrorist acts, they seek to bring fear to whole communities through violence on a few. Just as we have committed ourselves to fighting terrorists who strike from abroad, we must make the same commitment to swift and strong justice against homegrown terrorists. We have worked hard to ensure that all of our citizens can live without fear of victimization because of their race, religion, and their national origin. We have made progress over the years, but we need stronger tools to ensure that all Americans--all Americans--are protected under the law. Hate crimes challenge us to recognize the dignity of each individual at the most basic level. When victims are selected for violence because of who they are--because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation--it is a crime that wounds all of us. Each person's life is valuable, and even one life lost is too many. No member of our society--no one--should be the victim of hate crimes. Today we can send a message that no one--no one--should be a victim of a hate crime because of their disability, their sexual orientation, their gender, or gender identity. Hate crimes are especially heinous because they deny the dignity, the humanity, and the worth of whole segments of our society. They inflict terror not only on the immediate victims but on all their families, their societies, and, in some cases, an entire Nation. A hate crime against one member of another group shouts to the other members: You are next. You better watch your step when you leave your home, when you go to work, when you travel. This is domestic terrorism, plain and simple, and it is unacceptable as an assault from our enemies abroad who hate us just as irrationally. At bottom, hate crimes strike out at our most fundamental, moral values. They deny the teaching that we are all--even those viewed as outcasts among us--members of the human family. They seek to divide that family by labeling some so unworthy that they should become objects of violence. They reject our great national motto, ``E pluribus unum''--out of many, one. Instead, hate crimes seek to divide us, to reject whole communities by terrorizing their members. Centuries ago, Blackstone wrote: It is but reasonable that among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness. Hate-motivated crimes are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness and should be punished more severely than other crimes. That is why over 1,400--1,400--clergy from across the spectrum of religious traditions have come together to support the Matthew Shepherd Act. They write: Although we come from diverse faith backgrounds, our traditions and our sacred texts are united in condemning hate and violence. As religious leaders, we are on the front lines dealing with the devastating effects of hate-motivated violence. Our faith traditions teach us to love our neighbor, and while we cannot legislate love, it is our moral duty to protect one another from hatred and violence. These leaders of America's religious communities have called on Congress to stand united against the oppression imposed by violence based on personal characteristics and to work together to create a society in which diverse people are safe as well as free.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, The Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan advocacy organization representing 75 different religions, said hate crimes are an assault upon ``the belief that lies at the core of our diverse faith traditions--that every human being is endowed with dignity and worth.'' This is what The Interfaith Alliance said: Hate crimes are an assault upon the belief that lies at the core of our diverse faith traditions--that every human being is endowed with dignity and worth. Dignity and worth. The simple fact is, hate crimes are different and more destructive than other crimes. As my friend, Senator Hatch, stated during our debate in 2000: Crimes of animus are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes; they inflict deep, lasting and distinct injuries-- some of which never heal--on victims and their family members; they incite community unrest and, ultimately, they are downright un-American. The Federal Government has a responsibility to send a clear and unambiguous message that hate-motivated violence in any form, from any source, will not be tolerated. Hate crime perpetrators use violence to dehumanize and diminish their victims. This legislation fights back by reinforcing this country's founding ideals of liberty and justice for all. In Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are fighting for freedom and liberty. They are on the front lines fighting against hate. We are united in our effort to root out the cells of hatred around the world. We should not turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism at home. We owe it to our troops to uphold those same principles at home. We should not shrink now from our role as a beacon of liberty to the rest of the world. When the Senate approves this amendment, we will send a message about freedom and equality that will resonate around the world. If America is to live up to its founding ideals of liberty and justice for all, combating hate crimes must be a national priority. Now is the time for Congress to speak with one voice, insisting that all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. We must pay more than lipservice to this core principle of our democracy, and we must give those words practical meaning in our modern society. No American should feel they are second-class citizens because Congress refuses to protect them against hate crimes. Far too many times, hate crimes have shocked the conscience of the country. Tolerance in America still faces a serious challenge, and we must have the courage to act. As the Reverend Sockman said: The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. Most of us in this Chamber have lived our lives in the majority, and it is time for us to recognize the courage of those who have lived their lives in the minority and stand up for tolerance. When bigotry exists in America, each of us is diminished. Injustice inflicted on any among us is injustice against us all. As Leviticus commands us: You may not stand idly by when your neighbor's blood is being shed. For too long, the Federal Government has been forced to fight this injustice with one hand tied behind its back. We know some crimes are motivated by a desire to harm whole communities. It is time those crimes were punished in a manner that is equal to their destructiveness. The President has threatened to veto this legislation if it comes to his desk, but I urge my fellow Senators to display the same kind of courage that came from David Ritcheson, the victim of a brutal hate crime that scarred him both physically and mentally. Rather than living in fear, David bravely came before the House Judiciary Committee and courageously--courageously--described the horrific attack against him the year before. We should fight to protect the rights of our fellow citizens such as David and not let a veto threat stop us from doing the right thing. With both the Senate and the House moving forward on this legislation, I hope the President will hear our call and that he, too, will support this much-needed measure. Nobel Prize laureate Elie Wiesel said: Indifference is always the friend of the enemy-- Indifference is always the friend of the enemy--for it benefits the aggressor, never the victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she is forgotten. Today, we can take a strong stand against indifference and intolerance. Dr. King reminded us all that ``our lives begin to end the day we become silent against the things that matter.'' Today, this body has a chance to break the silence. It has the chance to speak with one voice in support of the value of every individual in our society. Join me and my colleagues in breaking the silence. Make the fight to end violence driven by bigotry the high national priority that it should be. Now is the time because, as Reverend Martin Luther King reminded us: The time is always right to do what is right. Now is the time for Congress to speak with one voice and insist that all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protections of the law. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to my friend from Texas. We have spent more time in quorum calls around here over these last few days. We spent a good deal of time on a poster--expressing the will of the Senate on various posters. We spent hours on those issues. Talk about delaying paying for the troops. I didn't hear those arguments when we were trying to uparmor HMMWVs last year. So I have difficulty in giving a lot of focus and attention to it. Quite frankly, I imagine the Senator is talking about the DREAM Act, which will permit children who have been in this country for 5 years-- brought in by their parents through no fault of their own--that we either permit them to go through an education or join the military-- join the military. That has something to do with the Defense authorization bill--when we find out that many units are not being kept up to speed. So we will move ahead. How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. KENNEDY. This is from the religious community. So we have on that standard above the Presiding Officer ``E pluribus unum''--``out of many, one.'' We have a responsibility, to the extent we can, to eliminate division, to eliminate the hatred, to eliminate the bigotry, and to become one Nation with one history and one destiny. This amendment moves us on that road to the kind of country this Nation deserves to be. I hope our colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the leadership, we would be glad to have a voice vote, if that is acceptable, satisfactory. We would vitiate the need for the yeas and nays and move to a voice vote, if that is satisfactory.

Mr. KENNEDY. As a result of this vote, we would be glad to vitiate the need for the yeas and nays on this amendment and have a voice vote, if that is acceptable.

Mr. KENNEDY. Then, Mr. President, if I could just have everyone's attention for a minute, we are prepared to accept the Hatch amendment, if that is satisfactory.

Mr. KENNEDY. Then, Mr. President, I would like to see if we could have a voice vote now on the underlying amendment.