Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Feingold amendment builds on a time tested law, the Family Medical Leave Act, to allow family members flexibility to prepare to send their loved ones to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere abroad to fight on behalf of their Nation. The Family Medical Leave Act has helped more than 35 million Americans over the last 10 years. It will help even more under the Feingold amendment. The amendment will allow family members to take the time off they need to meet child care needs, care for elderly parents, and otherwise balance their family responsibilities as their loved ones prepare for active duty. The reason this laudable Feingold amendment is being withdrawn is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to give our military families a pay cut. Corporate profits are growing, while worker wages are not. Yet Republicans keep trying to implement more policies that are bad for workers. First, Republicans took away overtime protections from millions of Americans. Now, they want to give employers additional power to decide how workers are to be compensated for their overtime work. The Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, currently requires employers to pay workers time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. When workers put in overtime hours now, they have a right to time and half pay, and they have total control over how or when to use that pay. The Gregg amendment would allow employers to pay workers nothing for overtime work at the time the work is performed, in exchange for a promise of a new schedule. Under current law, employers are free to offer more flexible schedules. The only difference is that they have to pay workers for their overtime hours. For those who work overtime, overtime pay constitutes 25 percent of their pay. Middle class families, already squeezed in today's economy, rely on these added earnings for their children's college tuition, their own retirement, or even to meet their monthly bills. In fact, millions of workers depend on cash overtime to make ends meet and pay their housing, food and healthcare bills. The Gregg proposal has insufficient enforcement provisions to ensure that employees will not be forced to change their schedules instead of getting overtime pay. This will mean a pay cut for millions of Americans. Workers deserve a pay raise, not a pay cut.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the leader yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. One of the amendments we were considering yesterday was the Reid amendment, offered on behalf of the Senator from Vermont, myself, and other members of the Judiciary Committee, about getting certain reports we have not been able to receive yet. I am wondering, since it is still in order, whether we are going to have an opportunity to address that issue in a short time discussion or debate, or is it the position of the majority leader that we are not going to have an opportunity to have that amendment offered and considered and voted on and disposed of?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his willingness to move ahead. There are a number of us who are going to insist we at least have an opportunity to offer that amendment and address it at some time. I know I can speak for the Senator from Vermont, and he would be willing to enter into a short time agreement. It is a matter of enormous importance and consequence involving, we believe, the security of American troops because that is what the Geneva Conventions are all about: protecting American troops. It is important on an issue of this importance and consequence that we move toward final conclusion, that we have a resolution of that issue. As a matter of fact, it is, I believe, imperative. I thank the majority leader. We will find how we can deal with this issue over the course of the day. I thank our leader as well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on June 30, sovereignty in Iraq will be transferred to the interim government. For the sake of the Iraqi people and our nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq, we all hope that the interim government will succeed, that its appointment begins a new stage in Iraq in which the security situation will improve at long last for our troops, and that we will no longer see a continuation of the administration's flawed policy that has generated so much turmoil in the past year and so many casualties for our forces. Unfortunately, the violence continues. Twenty-two American soldiers have been killed in the 22 days since the announcement of the interim government. More than 450 American soldiers have been wounded in that period. Even with the transfer of sovereignty and the recent United Nations resolution on the Iraqi transition, the key question is, when will the violence stop? When will the international community join us in securing and reconstructing Iraq? Or will the bulls-eye remain on the back of every member of our armed forces in Iraq? The amendment I am offering today with Senators Levin, Byrd, Leahy, Dayton, and Feingold seeks answers to these questions. Our amendment requires the President to tell the American people whether or when the administration's policy will bring more international troops, police, and resources to Iraq. That's what we owe to our forces. That's what we owe to their families. And that's what we owe to the American people. The amendment requires the President to submit a report to Congress on the administration's plan for the security and reconstruction of Iraq no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of the bill. The report must address whether and when the administration's strategy of working with the United Nations and other nations will bring more international troops, police, and resources to Iraq and provide relief to the men and women of our armed forces. It must assess the administration's strategy for strengthening the Iraqi police and military, its reconstruction efforts, and its progress toward democratic elections. And it must provide an estimate--an estimate--of the number of American troops we anticipate will be in Iraq at the end of next year. Two subsequent reports will provide updated assessments--one 6 months after the bill becomes law and the other just before the end of 2005. This week, President Bush will travel to Ireland for a summit between the United States and the member nations of the European Union. He will also attend a NATO summit in Istanbul. We all hope he will succeed in persuading the international community to join us in a more significant way in Iraq. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that happening--even with the transfer of sovereignty and a new UN resolution--is far from clear. At best, the administration now expects that our allies in Iraq will not withdraw any of their current troops from the coalition. On June 7, just a day before the UN approved the resolution supporting the interim government in Iraq National Security Advisor Rice said: I don't expect that there will be a large infusion of more foreign forces. In fact, I think that what you will see, is that some of the countries that have had particularly difficult situations, some of our coalition partners, will find this resolution makes them capable of staying the course. On June 10, after the G-8 Summit, President Bush said that he didn't: . . . expect more troops from NATO to be offered up. That's an unrealistic expectation. nobody is suggesting that. Those were his words. On June 13, Secretary of State Powell said the same thing: We're not expecting major additional contributions of troops from our NATO allies beyond the 16 nations that are already involved. The message from the administration is loud and clear: We'll stay the course, but we don't expect any more international troops. America will continue to be the only major military presence on the ground in Iraq. American soldiers have been bearing a grossly disproportionate share of the burden for far too long. No policy in Iraq can be considered effective if it fails to bring in the international community in a way that reduces the burden on our men and women in uniform, and takes the American face off the military occupation in Iraq. As General Abizaid told the Armed Services Committee on May 19--there are not enough troops from other nations in Iraq. The ``effort needs to be not just American, but it needs to be international.'' The administration had a brilliant plan to win the war, but it had no plan to win the peace. That failure has been putting a severe strain on our military and their loved ones left behind in America. Mr. President, 830 American soldiers have paid the ultimate price in Iraq. More than 5,130 soldiers have been sounded. America has nearly 90 percent of the troops on the ground, and more than 95 percent of the killed and wounded have been Americans. The war is now costing us $4.7 billion every month. In fact, the burden on U.S. troops has been increasing, since first Spain, then Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador pulled their troops out of Iraq. More than a quarter of the current forces in Iraq are reservists, as are nearly half the current forces in Kuwait. Eighteen percent of our active duty Army is serving in Iraq, and 16 of our 33 combat brigades are serving there. The Army is now under a stop-loss order that prevents troops from leaving active duty while deployed to Iraq, and for another 90 days after returning to their home bases. The average tour of duty for a reservist recalled to active duty is now 320 days--ten months. According to the Department of Defense, the average tour of duty for a reservist during the first Gulf war was 156 days. In the deployments in Bosnia, and Kosovo, it was 200 days. An Army brigade commander recently spoke about the exasperation of our soldiers: ``A soldier just said to me, `what happened to the volunteer force? This is a draft.' '' Others in the military leadership have spoken out on the strain on the military. On January 21, LTG James R. Helmly, head of the Army Reserves, discussed the effect on reservists. He said, ``the 205,000 soldier force must guard against a potential crisis in its ability to retain troops.'' He said that serious problems are being masked temporarily because reservists are barred from leaving the military. The same day, LTG John Riggs also spoke of the strain. He said, ``I have been in the Army 39 years, and I've never seen the Army as stretched in that 39 years as I have today.'' On February 5, GEN Peter Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff said, ``There is no question that the Army is stressed.'' On June 2, GEN Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff in charge of human resources and personnel, said that the Army is ``stretched.'' These are the cold, hard facts. They cannot be glossed over. If we continue to go it alone, the mission is impossible. The need is urgent to bring in the international community in Iraq in a major way. It may well be that only a new President in the White House will be able to persuade other nations to trust us enough to participate in the difficult and dangerous mission. In fact, the need for international participation was abundantly clear before we went to war. As former Secretary of State James Baker wrote on August 25, 2002, ``The costs in all areas will be much greater, as will the political risks, both domestic and international, if we end up going it alone, or with only one or two other countries.'' Last July, by the unanimous vote of 97-0, the Senate approved an amendment urging the President to consider requesting formally and expeditiously that NATO organize a force for deployment in post-war Iraq similar to the NATO forces in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo. We also asked the President to consider calling on the United Nations to urge its member states to provide military forces and civilian police to promote stability and security in Iraq, and provide resources to help rebuild and administer Iraq. President Bush says that the administration is working with the international community. But what are the results? Are more nations sending troops, police, and resources? When will the American face be taken off the occupying force? When will Iraq be more secure? When will more American soldiers return home? How long, and how heavy will the burden be? Will the President obtain additional foreign commitments for troops and resources at the Summits with the European Union and NATO in the coming days or will he return empty-handed once again? The American people and our soldiers serving in Iraq deserve to know the results of the administration's efforts to work with the international community. All we are asking in this amendment is a progress report from the President on the administration's efforts to work with the international community. All we are asking is how many troops we expect to have in Iraq in coming months. Given the high stakes, the President should provide the information. Our troops deserve it, America deserves it, and the Iraqi people deserve it. I will mention past precedent for this proposal because we will hear from those opposed to it that we do not really have as much time as we should, 30 days after the bill is passed. We are going to be, hopefully, concluding this bill. It will take the better part of the month prior to the time we recess for the August break to be able to conclude, I expect, the conference. The President may sign that then.

Mr. KENNEDY. Can I get 5 more minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is just listed in the understanding on Iraq. I have talked both with the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee, and I was prepared to offer it and debate it during the course of the afternoon and to indicate a willingness to enter into a time agreement. It is a very important amendment. I will be glad to follow what the arrangements are between the chairman of our committee and the ranking member of the committee as a way to proceed. It is somewhat difficult with an amendment of this kind of importance to have only 15 minutes and others come during that 15 minutes. I guess we will get a chance to develop it further, but I want to speak to the amendment now and then follow the recommendations of the floor managers as to when we will come back and either debate this or work out a suitable time, because it is an important amendment. I will take a moment of the Senate's time to express, quite frankly, my appreciation to the Senator from Nevada in offering the amendment that he had, which he did a few moments ago as a member of the Judiciary Committee. We know there are four committees which are in one way or another looking at the prisoner abuse scandal and tragedy. We have the Intelligence Committee that is looking at it. They are very much tied up with the 9/11 Commission that has made its report. We had the Foreign Relations Committee that had not had hearings on it. We have the Armed Services Committee under the leadership of Senator Warner, which has done a first rate job trying to work through this whole dilemma. He is recognized by the members of the committee, and by others, as someone who has worked toward trying to find the facts on this situation. And there is the Judiciary Committee. We have seen in the published reports a number of memoranda were developed by the Justice Department as to the responsibility that the Executive has under these circumstances of recommending, roughly, under his ability as Commander in Chief, that he may very well be immune from any kind of rules, regulations, or orders that he might support in terms of the treatment of prisoners. That concept runs counter to the view of 500 constitutional lawyers who issued a press release raising very serious constitutional issues and questions. What the Judiciary Committee has been attempting to do is to review the various recommendations that have been developed by the Justice Department and the other agencies. It has been an interagency effort. This is not just the Justice Department advising the President on a matter of an Executive order. As a matter of fact, it was very clear during the hearing of the Judiciary Committee that the Attorney General did not claim executive privilege. But there was the incident where the Attorney General said that even though he is not claiming executive privilege, and even though he is not quoting a statute that might make him exempt from making these documents available, he still was refusing to make them available. We had a brief discussion during the course of the committee hearing as to whether that was contempt of Congress. We are not trying to get into that whole situation. We are just trying to find out what these documents said in the interagency agreements that were being developed. Now we are told this afternoon that approximately 3 of the documents of the 23 that were actually requested are available to the committee. Two of those are already on the Internet. This is a matter of enormous importance and consequence. The American people see on television and hear on the radio and read in the newspapers about prison policy over there. We have recommendations made by the Justice Department, and there is a refusal to cooperate with the Congress. It is entirely appropriate that this institution have access to that material. That was the purpose of the amendment that was offered by the Senator from Nevada. It was entirely appropriate. I find it very necessary. There are many important matters in this Defense authorization bill. But it certainly seems this is a matter of very important consequence. I believe the amendment still has great importance and relevance. I think the Senate ought to know what the Senator from Nevada was involved in is not only an honorable position but also a necessary one. But as he pointed out, we are now trying to move the process forward in terms of the Defense authorization bill. I ask if I can have the full amount of time now to address the substance. Do I understand we have 15 minutes? Could I ask for 15 minutes? I ask consent for that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, at an appropriate time I will call up amendment No. 3377. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand the Senator from Vermont is eager to talk. I will conclude and come back to this, if I can have 4 more minutes to conclude. I draw the attention of Members to the precedence in 1995; the Defense authorization bill required assessing the implication of the U.S. military readiness, the participation of ground forces in Bosnia. It had to include 11 estimates of the total number of forces required to carry out the operation, estimates of the duration of the operation, estimates of the cost, and how many Reserve units would be necessary for the operation. This was true in 1997; this was true in 1998; it was true in 1999. There are all kinds of precedents for this. We are entitled to this information. This amendment will make sure we will be able to receive it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator agree with me it is time for the administration to level with the American people on this issue?

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, if the Senator will yield, I remember our ranking member being at that hearing. The Attorney General was asked whether he was asserting executive privilege, and he said no. Then it was pointed out by members that there are times when the Attorney General does not have to respond because it is spelled out in statute that he does not have to respond. But that was not the case. So it is a circumstance that the Attorney General of the United States felt he would not respond to these requests on the basis of his own actions. Would the Senator not agree with me that there is no one who is above the law in the system of jurisprudence in the United States of America? The continued unwillingness to provide these documents is certainly going to prolong the agony of the administration in terms of its willingness to cooperate with the committee. And would he not agree with me it is better to get that material here and get the instance behind us? I remember--if the Senator will permit me to continue--I had the good opportunity to meet the new President of Iraq. I asked him about the prison scandal. I asked: What can the United States do in order to deal with this issue? He said: It is very clear. You have to complete the investigation for which your country is noted. You have to complete the review and hold those accountable who are responsible. When that happens, Iraqis will take a new look at this country. Would the Senator not agree with me that was good guidance and good advice, and that it ought to be followed, and that it is going to be impossible to follow as long as they refuse to cooperate with the committee?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Boston Celtics are heroes on the basketball court, and they are heroes off the court as well. In 1997, they established the ``Heroes Among Us'' Awards to honor outstanding persons in the area who have had an especially significant impact on the lives of others. The award pays tribute to men and women who have made a difference because of their unselfish commitment to their community. Their extraordinary achievements take place in a wide variety of fields, and are made by persons of all ages and in all walks of life. At each home game during the basketball season, the Celtics and their fans pay tribute to one of the honorees in a special presentation on the basketball court. So far, over 300 persons have received the ``Heroes Among Us'' award. All of us in the Kennedy family are proud that one of this year's awards was made to my nephew Tim Shriver. He was honored for his leadership of the Special Olympics, which provides training in sports and opportunities to participate in competitive sports for children and adults with mental retardation in many nations throughout the world. Tim was honored in Boston last December during a Celtics game against the Utah Jazz, and several Special Olympics athletes were part of the ceremony on center court. Massachusetts is proud of the Celtics and proud of this successful and inspiring awards program, which has become one of the most respected such initiatives in the Nation. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the names of the honorees for the 2003-2004 season.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the No Child Left Behind Fairness Act. Our goal is to achieve accurate and fair determinations of accountability in current law. The bill does not change the accountability provisions of the law, but it does require the Department of Education to play by its own rules in considering the progress of each school. The accountability provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act are critical to accomplishing the goal of closing the achievement gap. Before its enactment, many communities ignored the gaps between some children and others in school, even though some groups of students were consistently falling behind. Communities are now beginning to provide the help those schools need to meet higher standards for all students, such as better teacher training, better curriculums, and better support and attention. It makes sense to identify schools as needing improvement. There's nothing wrong with shining a light on areas that need improvement--even in the best schools. That doesn't mean they are failures. But for the accountability provisions in the law to be useful, they must be accurate. We need accurate determinations of whether schools are making progress. A full two years after passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Department of Education finally issued the regulations and guidance that schools need to accurately calculate accountability under the law. Those rules were a step in the right direction. They specifically addressed the achievement of children with disabilities and limited English proficient children. The Department's rules were effective immediately, but many schools had already made their evaluations for the year as best they could. They shouldn't have had to make these assessments and calculations without adequate guidance. They certainly shouldn't be penalized for the Department's delay in issuing this guidance. So far, 28,000 schools have been identified by States as failing to make adequate yearly progress. Many of those schools were identified in the 2002-2003 school year, before the new rule were released. A number of schools and districts identified as failing to make adequate yearly progress might have succeeded if the new rules had been in effect from the start. The Department's delay in issuing adequate rules and guidance has created unnecessary confusion, caused a potential mislabeling of schools, and misdirected resources from the schools and students who actually need them. Some States have asked the Department of Education for permission to review their scores from last year under the new rules, and submit a more accurate calculation of accountability. Many of us in Congress have urged the Secretary of Education to apply the new regulations retroactively, so that States, school districts, and schools can review last year's data On accountability and correct it if necessary. The Secretary of Education has refused, stating that he lacks the authority to do so. This bill provides that authority. It enables the new regulations to be applied retroactively, so that schools will be judged on the same standards for the past year as they will be in the future, not by different criteria for different years. Schools across the country are struggling to comply with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. If we want schools to be held accountable, we need to make the process fair. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation s soon as possible. Schools are waiting for our response. They don't deserve an unfair burden in complying with the act and improving their schools. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the No Child Left Behind Fairness Act. Our goal is to achieve accurate and fair determinations of accountability in current law. The bill does not change the accountability provisions of the law, but it does require the Department of Education to play by its own rules in considering the progress of each school. The accountability provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act are critical to accomplishing the goal of closing the achievement gap. Before its enactment, many communities ignored the gaps between some children and others in school, even though some groups of students were consistently falling behind. Communities are now beginning to provide the help those schools need to meet higher standards for all students, such as better teacher training, better curriculums, and better support and attention. It makes sense to identify schools as needing improvement. There's nothing wrong with shining a light on areas that need improvement--even in the best schools. That doesn't mean they are failures. But for the accountability provisions in the law to be useful, they must be accurate. We need accurate determinations of whether schools are making progress. A full two years after passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, the Department of Education finally issued the regulations and guidance that schools need to accurately calculate accountability under the law. Those rules were a step in the right direction. They specifically addressed the achievement of children with disabilities and limited English proficient children. The Department's rules were effective immediately, but many schools had already made their evaluations for the year as best they could. They shouldn't have had to make these assessments and calculations without adequate guidance. They certainly shouldn't be penalized for the Department's delay in issuing this guidance. So far, 28,000 schools have been identified by States as failing to make adequate yearly progress. Many of those schools were identified in the 2002-2003 school year, before the new rule were released. A number of schools and districts identified as failing to make adequate yearly progress might have succeeded if the new rules had been in effect from the start. The Department's delay in issuing adequate rules and guidance has created unnecessary confusion, caused a potential mislabeling of schools, and misdirected resources from the schools and students who actually need them. Some States have asked the Department of Education for permission to review their scores from last year under the new rules, and submit a more accurate calculation of accountability. Many of us in Congress have urged the Secretary of Education to apply the new regulations retroactively, so that States, school districts, and schools can review last year's data On accountability and correct it if necessary. The Secretary of Education has refused, stating that he lacks the authority to do so. This bill provides that authority. It enables the new regulations to be applied retroactively, so that schools will be judged on the same standards for the past year as they will be in the future, not by different criteria for different years. Schools across the country are struggling to comply with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. If we want schools to be held accountable, we need to make the process fair. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation s soon as possible. Schools are waiting for our response. They don't deserve an unfair burden in complying with the act and improving their schools. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam. President, I support Senator Bunning's amendment to improve the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. The program, for all its growing pains, is becoming a long-awaited success. It has now provided benefits to over ten thousand employees or their surviving family members. Four years ago, I joined my colleagues Senators Thompson, Bingaman, and Voinovich to pass this program to compensate workers for the dangers they have faced from chemicals and radioactivity in their work in producing nuclear weapons many years ago. Many of them suffered debilitating and often fatal illnesses directly related to their exposure. The health and safety hazards they faced were not as well known as they are today, but in many cases, the government decided that production of the weapons was more important than the safety and health of the workers. The compensation program was intended to right this wrong, and many of its goals have been achieved in the past 4 years. The Department of Labor has processed over 30,000 out of 55,000 claims, and made payments of over $870 million in compensation and medical bills. Unfortunately, not all parts of the program have been as successful. The part handled by the Department of Energy is not functioning as it should. The Department has moved very slowly. After four years and more than $90 million in administrative costs, 80 percent of the 24,000 claims the Department has received have still not been fully processed. Even workers who do make it through the system are not being paid. Because the payments are funneled through State workers' compensation systems, even persons who we acknowledge were made sick by their work have to fight for the compensation they are owed. At this point, we know of only four claims that have been paid. This is why this amendment is needed, and I commend Senator Bunning and Senator Bingaman for their leadership in developing this bi- partisan solution. I also commend the many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been working on this amendment for several months in order to guarantee that the relief the workers and their families deserve as soon as possible. The amendment will transfer the administration of claims from the Department of Energy to the Department of Labor, which will pay these claims directly. This step will make it substantially easier for thousands of deserving workers, retirees, and surviving family members to obtain the compensation and medical care they are owed. The amendment also expands eligibility to include workers exposed to residual contamination. I commend Senator Clinton for her work on this specific problem, which is critical to many workers in Western New York. The use of a State workers' compensation formula to calculate benefits should not be taken as a model in other cases. This was a unique compromise we reached in order to achieve timely payment of these claims, and is in no way an endorsement of a change in the benefit levels or structure of other Federal workers' compensation programs. Clearly, we should be using a uniform Federal compensation formula to compensate these workers, because they were performing work for the federal government. A uniform formula is in keeping with the structure of other federal workers' compensation programs. It would also be far easier for the Department of Labor to administer, and I know the Department shares my views on this point. In addition, other aspects of the compensation program deserve our concern. Thousands of workers are seeking entrance into a Special Exposure Cohort under another part of the program, and the rules for admission have just been issued by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Also, the dose reconstruction estimates still await processing for some workers in the building and construction trades. I urge the Institute to give high priority to this task so that further legislation will not be necessary. This amendment is a needed step to carry out the compensation program. I welcome this bipartisan compromise and I urge my colleagues to approve the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004. The attacks of September 11 changed this nation forever. Much has been done since then to combat the threat of terrorism and make America safer. But not every measure or policy adopted after 9/11 has been effective, legal, or fair. The strengthening of security has sometimes meant the weakening of civil liberties. Often, the Bush Administration has misused the fear of terrorism as an excuse to ignore basic rights in our society. Immigrants, especially Arabs and Muslims, became targets as the Administration carried out roundups of individuals based on national origin and religion, rather than any specific assessment of danger. Abusive detention practices took place. Registration programs have made criminal suspects out of legal immigrants. These changes were implemented without Congressional consultation or approval. They have swept much too broadly and eliminated necessary checks and balances that prevent abuse. They have squandered our limited resources and have been more successful in alienating immigrant communities than in apprehending terrorists. We cannot allow fear to trump and trample the values upon which our country was founded. Our Nation can be both secure and free. The Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004 will provide basic civil liberties protections, and restore balance and fairness to our laws in the treatment of immigrants. It will preserve fundamental rights without endangering national security. It will restore the confidence of immigrant communities, especially those unfairly targeted by recent and current policies. It will place reasonable limitations on closed immigration hearings. On September 21, 2001, the Attorney General ordered immigration judges to close all hearings on individuals detained in the 9/11 investigation. In a highly critical report issued by the Inspector General of the Justice Department in April 2003 we learned that many were arrested as a result of ``chance encounters or tenuous connections'' to the investigation, rather than ``any genuine indications of a possible connection with or possession of information about terrorist activity.'' Nevertheless, over 600 immigration hearings were held in secret. Visitors, the press and even family members of the detainees were excluded. Consistent with the First Amendment, our legislation authorizes the closing of immigration hearings only when the government can demonstrate a compelling privacy or national security interest. The bill will restore other due process protections weakened after 9/ 11. Before that, the INS was required to give notice to detained non- citizens within 24 hours of arrest, informing them of the charges against them. On September 20, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a regulation extending that period to 48 hours or ``an additional reasonable period of time'' in ``emergency or other extraordinary circumstances.'' This open-ended change led to serious abuses. As the Inspector General reported, some detainees were held for more than a month after their arrest, without being told of the charges against them. Often they were held in harsh and restrictive conditions and prevented from consulting with their attorneys. Our legislation will require a charging document to be served within 48 hours of an arrest or detention. Non-citizens held for more than 48 hours would have to be brought before an immigration judge within 72 hours of their arrest or detention, with an exception for non-citizens who are certified by the Attorney General, based on reasonable grounds, as having engaged in espionage or a terrorist offense. After 9/11, the Bush Administration also adopted policies that deny bond to many immigrants with no individual assessment of their danger or flight risk. Two examples of this policy were the ``hold until cleared'' policy criticized by the Inspector General's report, and the Attorney General's precedent decision declaring that all Haitians arriving by sea were a national security threat and must be detained. Unilateral executive branch decisions mandating detention violate fundamental rights. Blanket detentions of persons who pose no flight risk or harm to the community waste valuable resources that should be used to apprehend criminals and terrorists. Our legislation will require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide all detainees with individual assessments to determine whether they pose a flight risk or a threat to public safety, except those in categories specifically designated by Congress as posing a special threat. If the individual is eligible for release, the Secretary must set a reasonable bond or other conditions to guarantee the person's appearance at future proceedings, and this decision would be subject to review by an immigration judge. The authority of immigration judges was further weakened by an October 2001 regulation that authorizes the Attorney General to stay a decision by an immigration judge to release an individual if bond had originally been denied, or had been set at $10,000 or more. The current regulation goes too far. It allows the government's immigration attorneys to overrule a decision by an immigration judge that an individual does not pose a risk. The bill puts reasonable limitations on this automatic stay authority. The Board of Immigration Appeals could stay the immigration judge's bond decision for a limited time, only when the government is likely to prevail in appealing that decision and there is a risk of irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. In early 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a series of ``procedural reforms'' purportedly designed to eliminate the backlog of cases in the Board of Immigration Appeals. Altering its practices in accordance with the new mandates, the Board has issued thousands of single-member decisions affirming without written opinions the decisions of the immigration judges. Before the changes took effect, 1 in 4 appeals was granted, now only 1 in 10 is granted. Instead of eliminating the backlog, however, the cases have shifted to the federal courts. The number of Board decisions being appealed to the federal courts has increased dramatically. The Ninth Circuit has received over 4,200 immigration appeals, more than four times the usual number. These so-called reforms highlight the degree to which integrity and impartiality of the immigration courts have been compromised. To correct the problem, the bill establishes an independent regulatory agency within the Department of Justice to administer the immigration court system. Integrity would be restored by enabling Board Members and immigration judges to exercise independent judgment and discretion. The reforms will help ensure that individuals and families receive fair treatment in immigration decisions, which can have profound consequences for immigrants and refugees, such as permanent separation from loved ones, or deportation to countries where they may face persecution and even death. The Act will also end the infamous National Security Entry-Exit Registration System--the NSEERS program which was launched by Attorney General Ashcroft in August 2002 and which required men from predominately Muslim or Arab countries to be fingerprinted, photographed, and interrogated, based on the absurd notion that terrorists would present themselves for registration and be caught. As Vincent Cannistraro, former director of Counterterrorism Operations at the CIA, has said, policies like the NSEERS program caused fear and distrust and worked ``against intelligence-gathering by law enforcement, particularly the FBI.'' At a time when we needed vital intelligence information, members of these communities were unfairly stigmatized and discouraged from coming forward to help our law enforcement and counter-terrorism efforts. According to Department of Homeland Security officials, no one registered under the NSEERS program was ever charged with terrorism. Last December, significant parts of the NSEERS program were suspended. Our bill will terminate it completely, and it will also close removal proceedings for certain individuals targeted under it. A related issue is the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. More than 14,000 individuals who voluntarily complied with the NSEERS program were placed in removal proceedings for technical immigration violations, even though many of them had relief available to them or were in the process of applying for permanent residence. Immigration officers routinely refused to use their discretion not to arrest these individuals, or not to initiate removal proceedings against them, or not to release them from detention. The result was a massive diversion of resources away from investigations, prosecutions, and removals of criminals and terrorists. Our bill will codify an immigration memorandum which outlines the parameters for the responsible exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The legislation makes clear that such discretion is not an invitation to violate or ignore the law, but is intended to give the government the flexibility to maximize its allocation of resources. Exercise of such discretion is particularly appropriate in light of the complexity of the immigration laws, the harshness of the consequences of enforcement, and the importance of conserving limited enforcement resources so that they are available for use against individuals who threaten our safety and security. Given the problems inherent in the NSEERS program, the government should reconsider all pending NSEERS cases and determine whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. Family ties, humanitarian concerns, and eligibility for relief are positive factors that should be considered in assessing such cases. Our bill also protects the integrity of the National Crime Information Center database. For decades, in maintaining the database, the Department of Justice was required to obey the Privacy Act, which requires each agency to maintain its records ``with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individuals in the determination.'' In March 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a regulation stating that these requirements no longer applied to the NCIC database, and justified the exemption because ``in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete.'' Our legislation requires the Attorney General to comply with the Privacy Act in maintaining the database. Circumventing this statutory obligation poses significant risks not only for individuals whose files may be part of this data system, but also for communities that rely on law enforcement to employ effective, reliable methods for protecting public safety. This requirement is especially important today. The Attorney General announced last year that information on more than 400,000 persons with removal orders and an unknown number of alleged NSEERS violators would be included in the database. The error rate in immigration records has always been very high--a fact confirmed by numerous reports issued by the Inspector General. Requiring the Attorney General to comply with the Privacy Act will help prevent inaccurate and unreliable information from contaminating the database and harming individuals and communities. The bill also protects privacy by ensuring that constitutional limitations apply to secret surveillance. The Patriot Act amended the Foreign Intelligence Service Act to permit surveillance or searches when a ``significant purpose'', not just the ``primary purpose'', of the surveillance or search is foreign intelligence. Under current procedures, when such evidence is brought before a court, it is nearly impossible for a criminal defendant to contest its introduction, because the government's application for the search is kept secret. When such evidence is used in criminal cases, the court should disclose the application and related materials to the defendant, subject to the Classified Information Procedures Act, which offers a balanced and effective way to protect both national security information and the rights of defendants. In addition, the legislation provides that when such information from electronic surveillance and other sources is introduced in a criminal case, disclosure of the surveillance application, order, or other materials is permitted under the procedures in the Classified Information Procedures Act. Finally, the bill addresses the practice of data-mining. Through comprehensive data-mining, many records that people believe are private can be collected by computer, fed into a database and used by the government without their knowledge. Law enforcement must have the necessary means to protect our safety, but the use of data-mining technology should not be allowed to threaten privacy and civil liberties. The legislation will require all federal agencies to report to Congress within 90 days and annually in future years on data-mining programs used to find patterns indicating terrorist or other criminal activity and the effect of these programs on civil liberties and privacy, so that Congress can exercise its oversight authority over federal agencies using this technology. We know that we can protect our nation's security and still respect the basic rights of both citizens and immigrants. The Civil Liberties Restoration Act is a needed effort to end the abuse that has become all too common in the past three years, and Congress has a responsibility to end them. It has been said that our laws are the wise restraints that make us free. The restraints have been weakened in recent years, and we need to make them stronger. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004. The attacks of September 11 changed this nation forever. Much has been done since then to combat the threat of terrorism and make America safer. But not every measure or policy adopted after 9/11 has been effective, legal, or fair. The strengthening of security has sometimes meant the weakening of civil liberties. Often, the Bush Administration has misused the fear of terrorism as an excuse to ignore basic rights in our society. Immigrants, especially Arabs and Muslims, became targets as the Administration carried out roundups of individuals based on national origin and religion, rather than any specific assessment of danger. Abusive detention practices took place. Registration programs have made criminal suspects out of legal immigrants. These changes were implemented without Congressional consultation or approval. They have swept much too broadly and eliminated necessary checks and balances that prevent abuse. They have squandered our limited resources and have been more successful in alienating immigrant communities than in apprehending terrorists. We cannot allow fear to trump and trample the values upon which our country was founded. Our Nation can be both secure and free. The Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004 will provide basic civil liberties protections, and restore balance and fairness to our laws in the treatment of immigrants. It will preserve fundamental rights without endangering national security. It will restore the confidence of immigrant communities, especially those unfairly targeted by recent and current policies. It will place reasonable limitations on closed immigration hearings. On September 21, 2001, the Attorney General ordered immigration judges to close all hearings on individuals detained in the 9/11 investigation. In a highly critical report issued by the Inspector General of the Justice Department in April 2003 we learned that many were arrested as a result of ``chance encounters or tenuous connections'' to the investigation, rather than ``any genuine indications of a possible connection with or possession of information about terrorist activity.'' Nevertheless, over 600 immigration hearings were held in secret. Visitors, the press and even family members of the detainees were excluded. Consistent with the First Amendment, our legislation authorizes the closing of immigration hearings only when the government can demonstrate a compelling privacy or national security interest. The bill will restore other due process protections weakened after 9/ 11. Before that, the INS was required to give notice to detained non- citizens within 24 hours of arrest, informing them of the charges against them. On September 20, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a regulation extending that period to 48 hours or ``an additional reasonable period of time'' in ``emergency or other extraordinary circumstances.'' This open-ended change led to serious abuses. As the Inspector General reported, some detainees were held for more than a month after their arrest, without being told of the charges against them. Often they were held in harsh and restrictive conditions and prevented from consulting with their attorneys. Our legislation will require a charging document to be served within 48 hours of an arrest or detention. Non-citizens held for more than 48 hours would have to be brought before an immigration judge within 72 hours of their arrest or detention, with an exception for non-citizens who are certified by the Attorney General, based on reasonable grounds, as having engaged in espionage or a terrorist offense. After 9/11, the Bush Administration also adopted policies that deny bond to many immigrants with no individual assessment of their danger or flight risk. Two examples of this policy were the ``hold until cleared'' policy criticized by the Inspector General's report, and the Attorney General's precedent decision declaring that all Haitians arriving by sea were a national security threat and must be detained. Unilateral executive branch decisions mandating detention violate fundamental rights. Blanket detentions of persons who pose no flight risk or harm to the community waste valuable resources that should be used to apprehend criminals and terrorists. Our legislation will require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide all detainees with individual assessments to determine whether they pose a flight risk or a threat to public safety, except those in categories specifically designated by Congress as posing a special threat. If the individual is eligible for release, the Secretary must set a reasonable bond or other conditions to guarantee the person's appearance at future proceedings, and this decision would be subject to review by an immigration judge. The authority of immigration judges was further weakened by an October 2001 regulation that authorizes the Attorney General to stay a decision by an immigration judge to release an individual if bond had originally been denied, or had been set at $10,000 or more. The current regulation goes too far. It allows the government's immigration attorneys to overrule a decision by an immigration judge that an individual does not pose a risk. The bill puts reasonable limitations on this automatic stay authority. The Board of Immigration Appeals could stay the immigration judge's bond decision for a limited time, only when the government is likely to prevail in appealing that decision and there is a risk of irreparable harm in the absence of a stay. In early 2002, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a series of ``procedural reforms'' purportedly designed to eliminate the backlog of cases in the Board of Immigration Appeals. Altering its practices in accordance with the new mandates, the Board has issued thousands of single-member decisions affirming without written opinions the decisions of the immigration judges. Before the changes took effect, 1 in 4 appeals was granted, now only 1 in 10 is granted. Instead of eliminating the backlog, however, the cases have shifted to the federal courts. The number of Board decisions being appealed to the federal courts has increased dramatically. The Ninth Circuit has received over 4,200 immigration appeals, more than four times the usual number. These so-called reforms highlight the degree to which integrity and impartiality of the immigration courts have been compromised. To correct the problem, the bill establishes an independent regulatory agency within the Department of Justice to administer the immigration court system. Integrity would be restored by enabling Board Members and immigration judges to exercise independent judgment and discretion. The reforms will help ensure that individuals and families receive fair treatment in immigration decisions, which can have profound consequences for immigrants and refugees, such as permanent separation from loved ones, or deportation to countries where they may face persecution and even death. The Act will also end the infamous National Security Entry-Exit Registration System--the NSEERS program which was launched by Attorney General Ashcroft in August 2002 and which required men from predominately Muslim or Arab countries to be fingerprinted, photographed, and interrogated, based on the absurd notion that terrorists would present themselves for registration and be caught. As Vincent Cannistraro, former director of Counterterrorism Operations at the CIA, has said, policies like the NSEERS program caused fear and distrust and worked ``against intelligence-gathering by law enforcement, particularly the FBI.'' At a time when we needed vital intelligence information, members of these communities were unfairly stigmatized and discouraged from coming forward to help our law enforcement and counter-terrorism efforts. According to Department of Homeland Security officials, no one registered under the NSEERS program was ever charged with terrorism. Last December, significant parts of the NSEERS program were suspended. Our bill will terminate it completely, and it will also close removal proceedings for certain individuals targeted under it. A related issue is the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. More than 14,000 individuals who voluntarily complied with the NSEERS program were placed in removal proceedings for technical immigration violations, even though many of them had relief available to them or were in the process of applying for permanent residence. Immigration officers routinely refused to use their discretion not to arrest these individuals, or not to initiate removal proceedings against them, or not to release them from detention. The result was a massive diversion of resources away from investigations, prosecutions, and removals of criminals and terrorists. Our bill will codify an immigration memorandum which outlines the parameters for the responsible exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The legislation makes clear that such discretion is not an invitation to violate or ignore the law, but is intended to give the government the flexibility to maximize its allocation of resources. Exercise of such discretion is particularly appropriate in light of the complexity of the immigration laws, the harshness of the consequences of enforcement, and the importance of conserving limited enforcement resources so that they are available for use against individuals who threaten our safety and security. Given the problems inherent in the NSEERS program, the government should reconsider all pending NSEERS cases and determine whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. Family ties, humanitarian concerns, and eligibility for relief are positive factors that should be considered in assessing such cases. Our bill also protects the integrity of the National Crime Information Center database. For decades, in maintaining the database, the Department of Justice was required to obey the Privacy Act, which requires each agency to maintain its records ``with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individuals in the determination.'' In March 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a regulation stating that these requirements no longer applied to the NCIC database, and justified the exemption because ``in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete.'' Our legislation requires the Attorney General to comply with the Privacy Act in maintaining the database. Circumventing this statutory obligation poses significant risks not only for individuals whose files may be part of this data system, but also for communities that rely on law enforcement to employ effective, reliable methods for protecting public safety. This requirement is especially important today. The Attorney General announced last year that information on more than 400,000 persons with removal orders and an unknown number of alleged NSEERS violators would be included in the database. The error rate in immigration records has always been very high--a fact confirmed by numerous reports issued by the Inspector General. Requiring the Attorney General to comply with the Privacy Act will help prevent inaccurate and unreliable information from contaminating the database and harming individuals and communities. The bill also protects privacy by ensuring that constitutional limitations apply to secret surveillance. The Patriot Act amended the Foreign Intelligence Service Act to permit surveillance or searches when a ``significant purpose'', not just the ``primary purpose'', of the surveillance or search is foreign intelligence. Under current procedures, when such evidence is brought before a court, it is nearly impossible for a criminal defendant to contest its introduction, because the government's application for the search is kept secret. When such evidence is used in criminal cases, the court should disclose the application and related materials to the defendant, subject to the Classified Information Procedures Act, which offers a balanced and effective way to protect both national security information and the rights of defendants. In addition, the legislation provides that when such information from electronic surveillance and other sources is introduced in a criminal case, disclosure of the surveillance application, order, or other materials is permitted under the procedures in the Classified Information Procedures Act. Finally, the bill addresses the practice of data-mining. Through comprehensive data-mining, many records that people believe are private can be collected by computer, fed into a database and used by the government without their knowledge. Law enforcement must have the necessary means to protect our safety, but the use of data-mining technology should not be allowed to threaten privacy and civil liberties. The legislation will require all federal agencies to report to Congress within 90 days and annually in future years on data-mining programs used to find patterns indicating terrorist or other criminal activity and the effect of these programs on civil liberties and privacy, so that Congress can exercise its oversight authority over federal agencies using this technology. We know that we can protect our nation's security and still respect the basic rights of both citizens and immigrants. The Civil Liberties Restoration Act is a needed effort to end the abuse that has become all too common in the past three years, and Congress has a responsibility to end them. It has been said that our laws are the wise restraints that make us free. The restraints have been weakened in recent years, and we need to make them stronger. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes on the legislation. I want the history of this legislation to understand what a very important and significant role my friend and colleague, the principal sponsor of this legislation, the Senator from Oregon, Gordon Smith, has played in giving us the opportunity on the floor of the Senate to vote on an issue of enormous importance and consequence in terms of justice in our country, and to be able to express what this Nation is really about; that is, that when we are going to be facing hate crimes, we are going to use every possible tool we have to deal with these crimes. We are not going to battle them with one hand tied behind our back. I have enjoyed the chance to work with Senator Smith on this legislation over a number of years. We have had some successes in trying to get it through the Senate, but we have failed. However, I admire my friend and colleague's perseverance. As Shakespeare says, perseverance, Lord, make honor bright, and the Senator from Oregon has enhanced the honor in the Senate by giving us an opportunity to address this issue. For those listening to these remarks, they may not understand how complicated it is to get a real vote on some matters which are basic and of fundamental importance. On many occasions when they have opposed the legislation, Members try to undermine the central thrust of the legislation, divert it with parliamentary tactics. The Senator, because of the respect Members have for him, has been able to ensure that the Senate will address this issue frontally, and it should, because it is a defining issue in terms of our country and our society about what this country represents. On the issues dealing with hate crimes, we find them to be completely unacceptable in this country. We have learned from past experience, in other hate crimes legislation, where the gaps in the legislation have been. This legislation is very targeted, limited, but an important legislative effort to try to address those serious loopholes in a way which is both constitutional, is limited, but also effective and can make an important difference in terms of reducing the incidence of hate crimes. I am sure my friend remembers a number of years ago we had the proliferation of church burnings in this country, primarily focused in the southern part of this Nation. After a good deal of deliberation, we were able to get the FBI involved in church burnings. The difference we saw was virtually almost overnight. Once America understood in different places of the country that we were serious about making sure we would use the full resources of our National Government to halt church burnings, it is amazing how they were effectively halted. There are still a scattering of them in some communities but effectively the epidemic we were seeing at that time has halted. The Senator from Oregon and I believe we can make the similar type of progress on the issues of hate crimes. That is why this is such an opportunity. I will take a few moments later to describe the appropriateness of this amendment on this legislation and the particular challenges we have been faced with in the military. As an Armed Services Committee member who has reviewed and watched that closely, I will come back to this issue. However, let me point out this is entirely relevant to this legislation. We have seen that hate crimes have taken place in the military. A number of occasions I will describe or place in the Record. On one particular occasion it was based upon race. We saw a commanding general perform in an extraordinarily exemplary way, and on another occasion, when dealing with a young gay man, the performance was abysmal. The fact is, we ought to make sure that certainly the Armed Forces are going to understand we are not going to tolerate the issues of hate crimes in the military or in any other place in our society. It has been argued that our bill is discriminatory because it singles out hate crimes from other crimes when, in fact, all crimes are hate crimes. That is not true. It is not supported by the history or the law. Every crime is tragic and harmful and has its consequences because not all crime is based on hate. Hate crimes are based on bigotry or prejudice. A hate crime occurs when the perpetrator intentionally selects the victim because of who the victim is.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we had 42 minutes, and we divided that up formally. May I ask, of the 21 minutes, how much time have I used?

Mr. KENNEDY. Twelve minutes. That is all that remains between both of us, Senator Smith and I?

Mr. KENNEDY. We are both proponents.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will come back to that in a moment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for working with Senator Chambliss and me to reach a worthwhile bipartisan agreement on this amendment to produce greater fairness in public-private competitions. We face great challenges on national security and national defense in these times. We are doing all we can to meet the needs of our armed forces, and we are proud of their service to our country. The Federal civilian employees of the Department of Defense deserve our strong support, too. The rules put in place last May by the Office of Management and Budget to implement public-private competition reforms in the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense, are the most sweeping changes in half a century. These rules have been controversial, and Congress has passed important protections over the last year to ensure that competitions to privatize Federal work are fair. Last year, in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, a bipartisan Congress guaranteed Federal employees the opportunity to demonstrate that they can do the work better and for a lower cost than private contractors. The fair competition amendment will make these provisions permanent, guaranteeing the use of the most efficient organizations in both streamlined competitions and other A-76 competitions at the Department of Defense. The amendment also reduces the incentive for private contractors to deny health benefits or provide inadequate benefits. Forty-four million Americans are uninsured today, and the cost of health insurance premiums have soared by 43 percent over the last 3 years. Under this amendment, if contractors offer inferior health benefits, comparative savings in health costs will not be counted in assessing their bids. The amendment corrects a major defect in the OMB rules, which prevent Federal employees form competing effectively for a new work or work conducted by private contractors. The administration opposed a similar amendment in the House that established a pilot program. This amendment addresses the administration's specific concerns about the pilot project, while establishing a process for allowing and encouraging Federal employees to compete for new work and work currently performed by contractors. The amendment also requires the inspector general to determine whether the Department of Defense has the infrastructure necessary to conduct public-private competitions and administer service contracts. This amendment deals primarily with competitions in the Department of Defense. We know there is also more work to be done with respect to other Federal agencies. Given the importance of this issue to my colleagues and me, we will be closely monitoring public-private competitions at the Department of Defense to ensure compliance with the current rules, to improve the law, and to pursue further legislative solutions to ensure fair competition. As we expand the Nation's military budget, we must see that taxpayers and our men and women in uniform are obtaining all of the benefits possible, and I hope very much that Chairman Warner and Senator Levin will retain this important amendment in the conference report.