Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today joined by my New England colleagues Senators Jeffords, Kerry, Snowe, Reed, Dodd, Gregg, Lieberman, Chafee, Collins, and Leahy to congratulate Robert J. Semler as he ends an impressive career as the Regional Administrator for the Department of Labor. Since 1985, Bob has been responsible for the administration of the Federal employment and training programs throughout New England. He has ensured that workers and employers in New England understood and took advantage of the opportunities in the Job Training Partnership Act, the School-to-Work Act, the Welfare-to- Work Act, and most recently in the Workforce Investment Act. He has taken federal programs from print to the people and made every program work for the particular needs of New England. During his 33-year career with the Department of Labor Bob has actively tried to meet the needs of employers and employees, understanding that economic development means investing in people. He has made the six New England States operate as a region, and with that collaboration has come a renewed commitment to the cross-State initiatives that have allowed our region to remain competitive in attracting new industries. Bob's commitment to people began with his time with the Peace Corps. From 1964 to 1970 he served as the Western Venezuela Regional Director overseeing Peace Corps volunteers and programs that worked with community development, health initiatives and agricultural cooperatives. He took the lessons learned in community building and imbedded those beliefs in the implementation of job training policy over the next 27 years. Countless New England workers have raised their skills and found better jobs because of the work of Bob Semler, and it is with great pride and genuine affection that we recognize his impressive contributions to our region and wish him all our best as he begins the next phase in his impressive career.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to pay a special tribute to a great public servant who is retiring later this month after nearly 25 years of tireless and effective service. Raymond J. Uhalde has served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training for the past 8 years. As the senior career professional in the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), he provided executive direction for its $11 billion annual budget and 1300 employees. Ray also served as acting Assistant Secretary from 1996 to 1998, and held other key policy positions during his tenure at the Department of Labor. As Deputy Assistant Secretary, he led important initiatives that improved the nationwide systems of job training, job placement, and income support that are administered by ETA. These public investments help millions of Americans increase their job skills, make smoother transitions between jobs, and improve their wage levels. They also help employers find the skilled workers they need. As a result, family incomes and our nation's prosperity have both improved. Ray has received many accolades for his leadership over his years of service, including recognition by President Clinton in awarding him with the rank of Meritorious Executive in the Senior Executive Service, as well as the Department of Labor's most prestigious career award, the Philip Arnow Award for excellence. But what stands above even these awards is Ray's unquestionable integrity and professionalism on a bipartisan basis. Ray enjoys a great deal of respect for his leadership and skill in shaping employment policy from Members of Congress and their staffs on both sides of the aisle, enabling him to be an effective representative for the Department of Labor through several different Administrations. His work has made a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans. His legislative and administrative skills have played critical roles in the enactment and implementation of many important bills including the Workforce Investment Act, a 5-year effort which fundamentally reformed the Nation's job training system; the Welfare to Work program, which has helped transition welfare recipients to gainful employment; and the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, which assists low income seniors earn a paycheck while providing important community services. The passage and administration of each of these acts was due in large part to Ray's personal skills and dedicated efforts to assist in the development of consensus bills that would reflect the Administration's priorities and help Americans in need. I am also grateful for his help and advice over the years on a range of immigration issues facing the Department of Labor. Ray embraced our immigrant heritage, but also understood the importance of strengthening our immigration laws to ensure they would not be misused by those who sought to bring in immigrants to abuse them with substandard wages and working conditions, and to displace U.S. workers. These efforts represent only a small fraction of the most recent accomplishments that mark Ray's career at the Department of Labor. His fellow workers in the Department of Labor and throughout the administration will sorely miss his wisdom and guidance, as will State and local workforce development leaders in every corner of the Nation. While I am sad to see Ray leave the civil service, I am happy to know that he is going to become Co-Director of the Workforce Program at the National Center on Education and the Economy, where I look forward to continuing to work with him in the years to come on issues involving workforce development--a crucial social policy area in helping all Americans to become full participants in the economic, social and political life of this great country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am proposing this amendment, along with Senators Kerry, Helms, Thompson, Edwards, Frist, Boxer and Feinstein, which will retain the Medical Free Electron Laser Program, (MFEL); in the Department of Defense. This program was initiated in 1985 and the benefit to military personnel and all Americans was realized immediately. This successful and visionary program has benefited the military in many ways. For example, new and innovative methods developed in the MFEL program to diagnose and treat burns, the number one combat casualty injury, are now in practical application. Current research involving tissue-welding and tissue-bonding is going to be of great value for treating battlefield injuries by allowing for the immediate repair of soft tissue and vascular wounds. This technology also has some special applications, such as for pilots with ocular injuries. Of particular interest to me, however, is its potential to help diagnose and deactivate other types of biological contamination and injury. This research has yielded very promising results. The Office of Management and Budget is attempting to move the program from the Department of Defense to the National Institutes of Health. Moving the program from DoD would be detrimental to the MFEL program and would jeopardize many promising research and development efforts. A proposed transfer of the MFEL program to the NIH is ill-advised since so much of the work centers around combat injury and specifically targets biological injury. The program has a track record of success, and moving it would disrupt, delay and possibly impede this crucial research. The Department of Defense is without question the best place for the MFEL program. Congressional intent is clear on this subject. This peer-reviewed, competitive MFEL program must remain in DoD, where it was originally included and funded. I am pleased to offer this amendment, along with my colleagues, on behalf of this most worthy program.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. That is exactly correct, Mr. President. If we have a troubled youth, for example, who is held in Massachusetts inside route 128, it is about $80,000 a year; it is anywhere from $35,000 to $45,000 outside of route 128. We need to make sure we are going to have programs that are going to encourage those children to stay in school, and work with them for supplementary services and develop programs that can be helpful to parents and members of their family to keep them motivated.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself another minute. I have not heard from the other side the answer to these questions. Why don't we have something other than just reading a letter from some people who are serving the interests of those contractors and explain to me why they cannot do it? We have not heard it. It is going to be difficult. It is going to be awkward. Yet we have the very important statements that have been made by people, even within the current administration, who say this can result in competition that can result in important savings. That is what we want to do. That is what this amendment is about. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself my remaining time. Mr. President, on September 11, the brave men and women who work in the Pentagon faced a great tragedy. When that airplane plowed into the Department of Defense, our fellow citizens working there lost coworkers and joined in the valiant effort to save the injured and tend to the Defense Department families shaken by this act of terrorism. This amendment is about giving these Americans a chance, a chance to show they can do a good job and deserve the work, if they can do it better and more efficiently than a defense contractor, a chance to embrace the American spirit of competition and free enterprise by competing for Government contracts on the same basis as private-sector companies. And this amendment is about our values as Americans. Our country was built upon our ingenuity, fueled by the spirit of free enterprise. If you can make a better product at a lower cost than the other guy, then you deserve the business. That is the American way. And it is that spirit of entrepreneurship that makes America the envy of the world. My amendment lets that American spirit thrive. It puts real competition into defense contracting and, in the process, gives a real boost to the taxpayers and to our own values as Americans. I urge the Senate to support my amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 7 minutes. Madam President, the record is clear. When there is real competition, public workers will show their strength. According to the DOD's numbers, when Government agencies have competed for contracts, they have won the bid 60 percent of the time fair and square. When public workers win these competitions, the taxpayers save money and good workers keep their jobs. This amendment is about competition--competition for the Defense Department. Our amendment will ensure that a framework is established for competition for various goods and services in the Defense Department. We provide a framework, where if there are national security items, they can be exempt. If there are requirements for emergency, they can be exempt. If there are certain needs in terms of the high-tech areas, they are exempt. But for the broad range of different contracts, this amendment will ensure that the American taxpayers' interests are going to be preserved. But, more importantly, we are going to get the best in terms of performance for the DOD. The public-private competitions that have taken place have saved, on average, over 30 percent, according to the Defense Department. The Republicans claim that this amendment is in conflict with the GAO Panel on Commercial Activities. In fact, this amendment is based on the principle unanimously articulated by that panel, which calls for greater public-private competition, which gives DOD the power to design the framework for that competition consistent with the sourcing principles laid out by the GAO panel. The Republicans claim this amendment takes away flexibility from the Department of Defense. Nothing could be further from the truth. When national security so demands, DOD is given the power to waive public- private competition. The amendment exempts many categories of work, including almost all high-tech work, from public-private competition. The amendment even provides a waiver to DOD for functions that must be performed urgently. It remains in the discretion of DOD to determine how many jobs should be subject to the public-private competition and which jobs are subject to this competition. The DOD retains enormous flexibility under this amendment. The Republicans claim this amendment will cost money. That is a sign of their shortsightedness when it comes to the value of competition. The DOD recognizes that public-private competition consistently yields savings of over 30 percent on contracts. Any short-term transition costs, which the CBO has estimated at one-tenth of what they are claiming for the substance of this amendment, will be more than made up for in long-term savings to the taxpayers. The Republicans claim that we are moving too quickly with this amendment and that the Senate should not act now to promote expanded competition. I only ask that my Republican opponents listen to the advice of Mitch Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, when it comes to these matters. Earlier this month, he said: We cannot afford to wait. . . . The objective is to get the taxpayers the best deal. While we wait, the administration is moving ahead with shifting 15 percent of all eligible jobs to the private sector without any adequate competition. The passage of this amendment will lead to a smarter and more efficient procurement policy for the Department of Defense. Just as no private company would reasonably outsource jobs without a hard-headed analysis showing cost savings, Government procurement should be based on what is best for taxpayers and our national defense. The consequences will be savings for taxpayers and improved dependability for our courageous men and women in uniform. We are surely facing great challenges in terms of our Nation's security in this new era. More than ever, we are relying on the Department of Defense and its dedicated employees. As we expand our Nation's military budget, we must ensure that taxpayers and our men and women in uniform are reaping all of the benefits possible. True competition is more critical today than ever before. Only if we give public workers the opportunity to compete in public- private competition will we have true competition. This is what the GAO has said on the question of the Commercial Activities Panel, which has been quoted yesterday: Competitions, including public-private competition, have shown to produce significant cost savings for the Government, regardless of whether a public or a private entity is selected. Angela Styles, senior officer at OMB, a procurement official, testified on the House Armed Services Military Readiness Subcommittee on March 13 2002: No one in this administration cares who wins a public- private competition. But we very much care that Government service is provided by those best able to do so. Every study on public-private competition that I have seen concludes that these competitions generate significant cost savings. What is it about our friends on the other side that they refuse to permit the competition to take place? Now, we heard estimates just yesterday that, according to DOD, the amendment will cost $200 million. The years of experience and the statements of the administration's officials clearly demonstrate that public-private competitions save money rather than cost. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics testified that the public-private competitions save the Government $11.2 billion, a savings of $11.2 billion. The administrator of OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy said the use of the public-private competition consistently reduces the cost of public performance by more than that. Even in the short term, the core of this amendment would cost about a tenth of what the critics and DOD claim. Those opposed to it say the amendment would prevent the implementation of the GAO panel recommendation. The amendment is based on the unanimous principles of the GAO panel that call for public- private competition. The GAO recommended: A process that, for activities that may be performed by either the public or private, would permit public-private sources to participate in competitions for work currently performed in house, work currently contracted in the private sector, and new work consistent with these guiding principles. That was a quote. The amendment also provides for a pilot program to test the effectiveness of the best value approach that is endorsed by the opponents of this amendment. Furthermore, arguments are made by the opponents that the amendment goes against the principle held for 50 years: The Government should not compete for noninherently Government functions. For the first time, the amendment would mandate that the Government compete with the private sector. The proponents of that statement left out a key clause in the longstanding U.S. procurement policy. According to OMB, ``the Government shall not start or carry on any activity and provide a commercial product or service if the product or service can be procured more economically from a commercial source.'' We are not asking that work be given to the private sector if indeed the Federal Government agency can do it more efficiently. The Government personnel system is not nimble enough to accommodate this amendment and move on short notice. That is an argument that is made against this amendment. There is no reason to believe the Government cannot adequately accommodate the need for qualified personnel. In the face of pending base closures, OMB outsourcing quotas, the DOD civilian workforce will continue to downsize. As a result of this process, over 300,000 DOD civilian personnel have lost their jobs due to outsourcing in recent years. There is an excess of potential qualified personnel.

Mr. KENNEDY. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am still waiting to hear the reason from the other side that competition does not work. We are told that we cannot have competition in the Defense Department because it is going to take time to set up a process and procedure; we cannot have it because it is going to work against small business. We have a million-dollar exemption so that anybody below a million dollars, a small business, can compete. Perhaps someone on the other side can tell us why competition cannot work. We have not heard the answer to that. What we have heard is all of the accountants, Mitch Daniels, the GAO, say that competition can work, and when it does work, we get the best in terms of our fighting men and women and we get the best in terms of taxpayers. I cannot understand the opponents saying we cannot set up a process and procedure in order to deal with this; it is going to be too complicated and costly. That is baloney. Competition can work, and I am so surprised, from the party that allegedly is for more competition, that they cannot support this amendment. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield a minute and a half.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains to the other side?

Mr. KENNEDY. On either side, then?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself the remaining time. We should not have to get into a discussion about the value of competition. But a year ago one of our colleagues offered a very similar amendment and then Senator Warner said: Let's wait until we have the Commercial Activities Panel report. That was to guide the Defense Department. In this report, on page 47, it says: Establishing a process that, for activities that may be performed by either the public or the private, would permit public and private sources to participate in competitions for work currently performed in-house, work currently contracted to the private sector, and new work, consistent with these guiding principles. Unanimous recommendation. That is what this amendment does. That is why we believe it is important. It will be in the interests of our national security, the Department of Defense, and the taxpayers. That is why we believe this amendment should be accepted. I believe all time has expired.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on the reauthorization of the Office of Education Research and Improvement during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 10 a.m. in SD-430.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Protecting the Homeland: The President's Proposal for Reorganizing Our Homeland Security Infrastructure'' on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 10 a.m. in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Agenda Tentative witness list Panel I: The Honorable Warren B. Rudman, Co-Chair, United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, Washington, DC; the Honorable James S. Gilmore III, Former Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia and Chairman, Advisory Panel to Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, Richmond, VA; and the Honorable David M. Walker, Comptroller General, General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Panel II: Paul C. Light, Vice President and Director, Governmental Studies, the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC; Ivo H. Daalder, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC; and Ivan Eland, Director, Defense Policy Studies, CATO Institute, Washington, DC.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space and the House Subcommittee on Science and Space be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 1 p.m. in 2318 Rayburn Building.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on the Peace Corps. Agenda Witnesses Panel 1: The Honorable Gaddi Vasquez, Director, The Peace Corps, Washington, DC. Panel 2: The Honorable Mark Schneider, Former Director of the Peace Corps, Vice President, International Crisis Group, Washington, DC. Panel 3--Returned Peace Corps Volunteers: Mr. Dane Smith, Peace Corps volunteer in Ethiopia 1963-65, President, National Peace Corps Association, Washington, DC; Mrs. Barbara Ferris, Volunteer in Morocco (1980-1982), Women in Development Coordinator (1987-1993), Peace Corps, Washington, DC; and Mr. John Coyne Pelham, Volunteer in Ethiopia/ Eritrea (1962-1964), NYC Regional Manager (1994-2000), Peace Corps, New York City, New York.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Submitted on Public Health, be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``The Crisis in Children's Dental Health: A Silent Epidemic'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. in SD-430.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 at 10:15 a.m. to hold a nominations hearing. Agenda Nominees: Mr. James Jeffrey, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Albania; Mr. Michael Klosson, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Cyprus; Mr. James Gadsden, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Iceland; and Mr. Randolph Bell, of Virginia, for the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service as Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing to conduct oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General's actions with respect to the Ombudsman and evaluate S. 606, a bill to provide additional authority to the Office of the Ombudsman of EPA. The hearing will be held in SD-406.