[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 144 (Wednesday, September 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12116-S12122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S12116]]
                                  CHIP

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise at this moment to speak in strong 
support for the renewal of the Children's Health Insurance Program. It 
is an issue that is fast upon us. The House of Representatives passed 
this legislation last evening. We will, I hope, do the same, and will 
send it to the President.
  This is an issue that is not just an economic issue; it is also a 
moral imperative. If we cannot ensure the children of this country have 
the opportunity to have access to good health care, then we cannot 
ensure that we keep pace with the basic notion of this country: 
opportunity for all of our citizens.
  Health care and education together are the engine that moves this 
country forward. They give children a chance to use their talents, 
develop their talents, and go on and contribute to this great country. 
But also it makes tremendous economic sense. As we invest in children's 
health care, we hopefully will ensure that throughout their lifetime 
they will not only have healthy lifestyles, but they will have the 
advantage of a good start, so that their efforts can be directed toward 
contributing toward their community, and contributing to this economy.
  We understand that the costs of health care are skyrocketing, and 
that for many families they have, unfortunately, had to make the choice 
of forgoing it, to leave their children vulnerable, without access to 
good primary care, without access to specialized care when they need 
it.
  We also understand that these children, when they get sick, 
ultimately find their way to an emergency room and we end up paying 
much more, because a child who can be seen on a regular basis could 
have access to preventive care. Arriving at the emergency room with a 
very serious condition requires a great deal more resources than seeing 
a child before that condition becomes serious, and becomes an 
emergency.
  So we should be, I think, smart, as well as morally responsive to the 
issue before us. And that directs me to my strong support for this 
legislation. The final bill which will be coming before us will invest 
$35 billion in our Nation's children and their future. It preserves 
coverage for 6.6 million children, but it will also reduce the number 
of uninsured children by 4 million.
  In fact, the final bill improves upon the Senate bill that I proudly 
supported weeks ago. It provides quality dental coverage to all 
children enrolled. That is critical. I can recall listening to a foster 
mother in Rhode Island. She had six different foster children. What was 
her biggest complaint? She could not get a dentist. They would not see 
her because she did not have dental coverage. Her complaint to me was a 
repetition of what her child said to her in so many words, which was: 
What do I do? How do I take care of a toothache? How do I go to school 
when I cannot bear to concentrate because of the pain?
  For most of us here in this room, that would be a simple call to the 
dentist, a trip there, and immediate relief, and for our children also. 
But for millions of Americans, that is not the case. Here we have a 
chance to give them what we too often take for granted.
  I think it is going to be an important step forward. I am 
particularly proud, because the architect of this program 10 years ago 
was Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island. He stood on a bipartisan 
basis with many in this Chamber and pushed for the adoption of the 
children's health care bill. It stands as a legacy to him. It is a 
vibrant legacy which we in Rhode Island cherish and we hope we can 
extend through this legislation.
  The final bill that will result we hope in passage and signature by 
the President will give Rhode Island an increase in Federal funding 
from $18 million to $93 million. It will prevent future shortfalls. 
Last November on the floor of the Senate before we went out, I insisted 
that we could not leave until we provided help to States that had 
already run out of their SCHIP funding. We were able to do that.
  But those stopgap measures at the eleventh hour do not provide for 
the kind of planning and predictability that are essential to keep the 
costs down and keep the program going. I do think, again, this is a 
bill that is worth all of our efforts and all of our support.
  If we can afford to spend $12 billion a month in Iraq, we must be 
able to afford to spend a fraction of that to give children health care 
in this country. I just left the Appropriations Committee hearing. 
Secretary Gates is urging $50 billion more funding for Iraq. That is 
quite a bit more than we are asking over 5 years for the children's 
health care program. That is just for several months in Iraq.
  The American people, I believe, will demand that we pass this 
legislation. If we can find the resources overseas, we have got to be 
able to find the resources here for this compelling issue.
  The other aspect of this is this legislation is fully paid for, 
unlike the spending in Iraq which is deficit spending, which we are 
literally sending forward to the next generation of Americans to deal 
with. This is fully paid for by an increase in the cigarette tax; sound 
fiscal policy as well as sound public policy.
  Now, we have heard a lot from the President, particularly about why 
he is proposing to veto this legislation. I find it hard to discover 
any logic at all. It is full of misrepresentations, frankly. The bill 
does not cover children up to 400 percent of poverty. In fact, about 80 
percent of the newly insured children are from families below 200 
percent of poverty. Those are the new children to be enrolled.
  This bill is well targeted, and provides incentives to ensure that 
the lowest-income children are insured first. This does not federalize 
health care or socialize it. In fact, in Rhode Island this children's 
health care program is run by private health insurance companies, and 
that is a very effective and efficient approach.
  What I have noticed over the last few years is not that private 
health insurance has expanded dramatically in this country and this 
legislation would constrain that. Quite the opposite. With private 
health insurance, the number of insured Americans has decreased. They 
are losing their private insurance. It is too expensive. So the idea 
that this somehow is going to throttle the attempts of the private 
insurance industry to insure those children is, on its face, 
preposterous.
  Those children will not be insured because their parents cannot 
afford to pay the coverage, and because private insurance companies 
operate at a profit, they do not extend coverage because they feel like 
it.
  This is the way to expand coverage. This is the way to protect 
children. This is the way to invest in our future. This is the way to 
do it in a fiscally responsive manner by increasing the cigarette tax. 
It makes sense on every ground.
  The President's suggestion that he is vetoing it has to be something 
other than common sense. In fact, it strikes me as slightly spiteful. 
This is something on a bipartisan basis we have done for 10 years; 
something on a bipartisan basis that we will continue to do. And to be 
frustrated by a Presidential veto, I think, would add insult to the 
injury of not having children insured in this country.
  I call on the President to reconsider his veto threat. I call on the 
President to join us in providing health insurance to the children of 
America, to provide them a foundation for their education, provide them 
the foundation to proceed forward as good citizens, good workers in the 
economy, and contributing members. I hope that will happen in the next 
few days with passage and signature by the President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today to speak briefly in 
connection with amendments we made to the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Specifically, I wish to comment 
on five amendments which have been accepted which are important to the 
future of our military and also important to the future of military 
installations we have within the State of Colorado.

[[Page S12117]]

  At the outset, let me say that as we have moved forward with this 
legislation, I have very much appreciated the leadership of the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Carl Levin, and all of his staff who 
have worked so hard with all of us on these amendments and the hundreds 
of amendments so many Members have filed. I also express my 
appreciation to Senator McCain and to his staff, Senator Warner and all 
of his staff, who have also worked with us on these amendments that are 
so important for our Nation's defense.
  The five amendments I wish to briefly review are related, in part, to 
Colorado but also in a larger sense related to the question of how we 
make sure we have the best national defense and homeland security we 
possibly can.
  The first of those amendments is an amendment relating to an effort 
we have underway with the Secretary of the Air Force to make sure we 
are protecting our Air Force bases from the kind of encroachment that 
will impair their military mission, unless we are proactive about 
making sure the appropriate buffer zones are, in fact, created.
  In my State of Colorado, there are three Air Force bases which are 
very important to our Nation's defense system. They are Peterson and 
Schriever Air Force Bases in El Paso County, in Colorado Springs, and 
Buckley Air Force in Aurora, in the Denver metropolitan area. In the 
case of each one of those installations, which I have frequented often 
in my time in the Senate, I have seen the development that is occurring 
from one end of the base to the other and the encroachment that occurs 
as the urbanization moves out. I have expressed often to local elected 
officials in that part of the State it is important that what we do is 
protect those military installations so that 10 years, 25 years, or 50 
years from now, we can make sure the military mission we have assigned 
to those bases is one that will not be compromised. Yet, as 
urbanization occurs and you see the subdivisions that sprout up around 
these bases, you have to wonder when that point in time will come where 
the encroachment itself will start having an impact on the mission of 
these military installations.
  We have noticed in the past--and studies have concluded, including a 
study from the RAND Corporation--that some branches of our Armed 
Services do a better job than others in terms of protecting their 
military installations from encroachment. The REPI program, which is a 
program that has now been in existence for some time, has been widely 
used by the U.S. Army. Indeed, in our State of Colorado, with Fort 
Carson, one of the things that has happened is we have seen much of the 
buffer-zone area that is needed to be acquired to assure that Fort 
Carson's military mission is not negatively impacted in the future. It 
is that same kind of proactiveness that we need to take on with our Air 
Force Bases.
  I recently met with Secretary Wynne to talk about the importance of 
us doing this not only in Colorado but around the Nation. He is in 
agreement that we ought to do that. He is in agreement that we ought to 
take a look at what more we can do to protect our Air Force 
installations.
  In my own view, in terms of what happens in my own State, we are not 
proactive enough. What happens is that whenever there is a developer 
who comes in with some kind of a program, the developer will go to the 
local land-use officials and seek the necessary land-use approvals to 
move forward, to try to get their development built. What the local 
government officials will do is they will look at whether the military 
mission is being impaired as only one factor. But it is being reactive 
to a force of development that is probably occurring in that entire 
area.
  It would be much better, from my point of view, if what we do with 
our Air Force installations is to be proactive and look out at what we 
can do to make sure we are protecting the mission of those Air Force 
Bases for the long term--for 10 years, for 25 years, for 50 years. It 
is my hope with this amendment, which has been agreed to, that we will 
be able to do that.
  The second amendment which I want to speak about briefly has to do 
with the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site. The Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site is 
some 237,000 acres of training facility located in the southeastern 
part of my State of Colorado. It is a very important part of the 
training capacities we have at Fort Carson. Over the last several 
years, the U.S. Army has indicated that what it wants to do is 
significantly expand Fort Carson and the training facility that is 
located at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.
  Because of rumors and the information flow, which is not always 
accurate, at one point in time the residents of my State in 
southeastern Colorado had the view that what, essentially, the Army was 
attempting to do was to condemn what was the entire southeastern part 
of the State of Colorado. If that, in fact, were to have happened or if 
that were to happen in the future, the ranching heritage of the 
southeastern part of my State would be destroyed.
  So what has happened over time is we have had a conversation with the 
Department of Defense and the Secretary of the Army about the future of 
Pinon Canyon. There are a number of very legitimate questions that have 
been raised.
  One of those questions is whether the 237,000 acres that already 
encompass the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site are sufficient to be able to 
provide the training capacity that is needed at Fort Carson. There is a 
possibility that the answer to that question will be, yes; that when 
you combine those 237,000 acres with the nearly 100,000 acres already 
on the Fort Carson main campus itself, there are sufficient land needs 
available for its future. It may be that the answer comes back that 
some additional land might be needed. But if so, then it is important 
for the Army to tell us what additional training capacities would be 
acquired if they acquire this additional land.

  There are many questions with respect to the expansion, from my point 
of view, that have not been answered. I place this in the context of 
what the BRAC Commission found in January of 2005, where the findings 
of the Commission were that additional brigades would be moved into 
Fort Carson which are now underway in terms of being moved into Fort 
Carson itself; that there was enough training ground at Fort Carson to 
be able to satisfy the needs of our soldiers at Fort Carson. So if that 
was, in fact, the conclusion that we reached in January of 2005, it 
raises the very legitimate question as to why it is that we need to 
have additional land for training today. So these important questions 
are set forth in legislation that my friend and colleague, Senator 
Allard from Colorado, and I offered together in an amendment, and it 
was an amendment that was accepted by the Senate last night. For that I 
want to say thank you once again to the floor managers of this 
legislation.
  The third amendment I want to speak about briefly this afternoon is 
an amendment that deals with the paralympic program for wounded 
warriors. Today, in my State, in part because of the fact that the U.S. 
Olympic Committee is hosted and housed in Colorado Springs and the fact 
that we have a major paralympic program that takes place in the State 
of Colorado, there is a desire to be able to do more. There is a desire 
to be able to do more in large part because many of the wounded 
warriors we see coming back from Iraq and from Afghanistan, those 
30,000 men and women who have been wounded, sometimes very grievously 
in this war, ought to be given every opportunity that we can possibly 
give them so they can live the best life they can, given the injuries 
they have sustained on behalf of a very grateful nation. So it is in 
that regard that our paralympic amendment would expand the authorities 
of the Department of Defense so that they, our wounded warriors, would 
have a greater opportunity to be involved in some of the paralympic 
programs that are hosted throughout the Nation. So, again, I thank my 
colleagues for accepting that amendment.
  The fourth amendment I want to briefly address this afternoon is the 
amendment relating to a hard deadline for the destruction of chemical 
weapons at the Pueblo Chemical Army depot, as well as at Blue Grass in 
Kentucky. This legislation is legislation that has been pushed hard on 
a bipartisan basis. It has been pushed hard by Senator McConnell and 
Senator Bunning, Senator Allard and myself. It is our hope that with 
the passage of

[[Page S12118]]

this legislation, the Army will, in fact, understand, and that the 
Department of Defense will, in fact, understand that 2017 sets a hard 
deadline for us to move forward and complete the destruction of these 
chemicals which today provide a hazard to the communities and people 
who live nearby, and provide a national security threat if these 
chemical weapons were ever to fall into the hands of terrorists and 
into the hands of those who want to do us wrong in this country. So it 
is our hope that with this legislation, we will be able to continue to 
push for a 2017 deadline for the completion of the destruction of these 
chemical weapons.
  Finally, the fifth amendment I want to refer to briefly is an 
amendment relating to the training of helicopter pilots at high 
altitudes. Today, in the mountains of Afghanistan, where many of us in 
our congressional delegation trips into either Iraq or Afghanistan have 
been in those helicopters, we know the kinds of conditions they have to 
fly in, at some of those very high altitudes, especially in the country 
of Afghanistan and those borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The 
only place where our pilots can receive the adequate training to be 
able to make sure they have the capacity to fly those helicopters at 
those high altitudes is at a site in Gypsum, CO. But today, whenever a 
helicopter pilot has to go into that area, into that training facility 
in order to be trained on how to fly their helicopters, what they have 
to do is they have to bring their own helicopters to the site.
  So what we are asking for here is for six helicopters to be stationed 
there at the site to be able to provide our pilots with the best kind 
of high altitude training for helicopter pilots that we can possibly 
provide as a nation. So I thank my colleagues. I thank Senator Levin, 
Senator McCain, Senator Warner, Senator Reid, and others who have been 
involved in pushing the Department of Defense authorization bill 
forward, and I thank them for supporting those amendments.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to 
speak on the Children's Health Insurance Program as in morning business 
for a period of up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  CHIP

  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, today I rise first to praise the 
bipartisan spirit in which the Children's Health Insurance Program came 
to this floor and was accepted by this Chamber on a positive vote of 68 
votes saying yes to providing health insurance to the young children of 
America. It was one of the finer moments, it seems to me, of the last 
year in this Chamber, where Democrats and Republicans came together and 
said: Yes, we can do this for all of the right reasons. It was a 
circumstance where, with the leadership of Senator Baucus and Senator 
Grassley of the Finance Committee and Senator Hatch and Senator 
Rockefeller, IV, who basically were the key movers and shakers in 
trying to move this package forward, they said: We are going to put 
aside our partisan differences, and we are going to put together a 
package that we can make sure receives bipartisan support on the floor 
of the Senate.
  At the end of the day, that package did, in fact pass, and today and 
over the next several days, hopefully, we will get that legislation to 
the President's desk for his signature. It is my hope the President 
does sign this bill. It is my imploration to the President that he sign 
the bill on behalf of our Nation's children. Covering our kids, 
providing them with the kind of preventive care, with the kind of 
doctors and nurses that they need, will ensure that they grow up 
healthy and that they grow up strong. These have been the goals of our 
bipartisan work in this Chamber over the last many months.
  The Finance Committee passed that plan by a vote of 17 to 4, and we 
then confirmed the bipartisan nature and the importance of children's 
health insurance with a 68-to-31 vote. Now, with 9 million kids without 
health insurance around the country, 180,000 of those kids in Colorado, 
the President has issued a veto threat of this legislation. In my view, 
and with all due respect to the President, I believe the President is 
wrong to issue a veto threat on such a fundamentally important issue.
  Earlier this year, as I was traveling through Colorado, I spoke with 
folks in my State about the need to reauthorize the children's health 
insurance plan. As I did so, a school nurse told me of a boy who was 
injured during a football game. His family wanted to have health 
insurance, but with premiums increasing up to 70 percent since 2000 and 
amounting to for that family about $10,000 a year, that family simply 
could not afford health insurance. They couldn't afford to take their 
injured son to a doctor. All they could do was to apply ice to their 
son's leg and pray that somehow it would get better. It did not get 
better. The boy's leg, which was then fractured, grew progressively 
worse. It swelled to twice its normal size. In the end, with no choice 
left, the parents took the child to the emergency room, the most 
expensive place for any of our children to get care.
  Beyond the pain and the anguish that the child or the parents felt 
that day, the most frustrating part is that with the coverage provided 
with the legislation that we are about to adopt in this body, the child 
would have been able to see his doctor within a couple of hours of the 
injury. He would have received better care at a lower cost and with a 
lot less pain and a lot less frustration for everybody involved.
  We have all heard the stories of how the health care system is 
failing our children. We hear of the colds that turn into pneumonia. We 
hear of the earaches that develop into ear infections. We hear of other 
illnesses that grew worse because parents could not afford to seek 
medical care for their children. Nine million kids--nine million kids--
in the United States have no health insurance today. It is 
unconscionable that in the strongest, most prosperous democracy in the 
world that we cannot give our kids that basic coverage of health that 
they need to have a fair chance in life. Our failure to extend health 
insurance coverage to more kids would not only be a moral failure, but 
it would be a massive liability for the education and well-being of our 
children and for our future economic security.
  This is why. Uninsured children miss more school than their peers. 
They are six times--six times--more likely to have unmet medical needs. 
They are 2\1/2\ times more likely to have unmet dental needs, and one-
third of all uninsured children go without any medical care for an 
entire year. I am proud of the work of the Senate. I am proud of the 
bipartisan work that went into writing this legislation to cover the 10 
million uninsured children in America. This legislation provides the 
coverage to an additional 3.3 million children who are currently 
uninsured, and it also maintains the coverage for all the 6.6 million 
low-income children currently enrolled in the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. The bill includes significant incentives for States 
to enroll more children into CHIP, particularly children in rural 
communities, many rural communities such as the ones in my State of 
Colorado, where geographic distances and the lack of health insurance 
create barriers to enrollment. Twenty percent of all low-income 
children live in rural areas, and a significant number of them are 
uninsured. This bill will help them get health insurance.
  The CHIP reauthorization also allows a State to cover pregnant women. 
Children, we know, who are born healthy have a far greater chance of a 
healthy life. Healthy children save Medicaid and CHIP significant 
resources in reduced health care costs. It is sensible that they 
receive this coverage under our program.
  Once again I want to thank the model of effectiveness and leadership 
in this Senate in Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley and 
Senators Rockefeller and Hatch for their strong leadership on this 
issue. They united the Finance Committee and much of this Chamber 
around our common goal. It is a very simple goal. It is a simple goal 
of helping our kids get to the doctor.
  This bill is a giant step forward in our Nation's steady march toward 
providing every child in America the chance to chase their dreams. I 
hope President Bush will change his mind and that he will support this 
bill.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S12119]]

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, it is without question that we are 
on a wrong course in Iraq. The Bush administration's failure to listen 
to the American people, failure to plan for the unexpected, and failure 
to learn from its mistakes has left our Nation less, not more, secure 
from terror and from the dangers our troops face in Iraq.
  The expenditure of hundreds of billions of American tax dollars has 
not only strained our Treasury, but cost us uncountable opportunities 
to improve the lives of American families and to strengthen our 
country's future.
  Every month, we are borrowing and spending over $10 billion to fund 
the war in Iraq--billions of dollars that we borrow and spend that 
could help deliver health coverage to children who need it; that could 
help improve the quality of elementary education and make college more 
affordable--things that are an essential investment in our Nation's 
economic strength into the future.
  In addition to the billions we are spending to continue our military 
involvement in Iraq--a policy that must change, and soon--we are also 
spending billions more on reconstruction efforts. In this area alone, 
between 2003 and 2006, we have spent more than $300 billion. The same 
President who thinks it is too much to spend $35 billion on American 
children's health care over the next 5 years had no problem pouring 
$300 billion into Iraq reconstruction, and I submit that there is very 
little to show for it.
  We have fought long and hard to keep pressure on President Bush to 
take a new direction in Iraq. At every turn, he and his allies in 
Congress have resisted. We will continue our fight, but as we do, we 
also have an obligation on behalf of the American people to ensure that 
these tax dollars are being used as they should be.
  As fighting the war and rebuilding Iraq have been privatized, too 
often we have seen evidence of fraud. According to a 2005 report by the 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, nearly $9 billion in 
funding intended for reconstruction efforts went unaccounted for--just 
gone. Investigations by the Special IG for Iraq Reconstruction of $32 
billion in funding for Iraq reconstruction have already led to $9.5 
million in recovered and seized assets and more than $3.6 million in 
restitution.
  Iraq is a target-rich environment for corruption, and monitoring the 
expenditure of U.S. resources there requires vigilance. We must ensure 
that our tax dollars are not squandered to corruption or other 
malfeasance, and we must ensure that we have the ability to audit U.S. 
tax dollars from the time our officials award contracts through their 
final expenditure. We must do all we can to prevent ``leakage'' of this 
reconstruction aid through every step in the contractor supply chain.
  We must give ourselves the chance to consider what effect all this 
graft and corruption may be having on the motivations of Iraqi leaders. 
When I visited in Iraq, we heard of just one official from Al Anbar 
Province--a police official--who had embezzled more than $50 million. 
With graft at that scale, one can only imagine how the motivations of 
Iraqi leaders might be warped.
  The measure before us today will help us find out. It will establish 
a new ``Truman Commission'' to restore the American people's faith that 
their tax dollars are being accounted for. The Truman Commission was 
formed during World War II, when then-Senator Harry S Truman created a 
special committee to investigate the National Defense Program to 
investigate defense-related contracts and expose corruption and 
mismanagement in the use of war-related funds.
  The commission we seek today will have the authority to audit U.S. 
funds used for U.S. projects or for U.S. efforts to support 
rehabilitation of Iraqi industries. The establishment of this 
commission will ensure that this cascade of billions of dollars for 
reconstruction in Iraq can be tracked, so that the hard-earned money 
U.S. taxpayers provide will serve the purposes--the legitimate 
purposes--of the American and the Iraqi people.
  I applaud Senator Webb and our Presiding Officer, Senator McCaskill, 
for their leadership in sponsoring this amendment. I am very pleased 
that my colleagues in the Democratic freshman class, every one of us 
has thrown our support behind it.
  Last November, the American people told us it was time for a change 
in Iraq, and we are working hard for a new direction. But as we fight 
to bring our troops home, this amendment will help make certain that 
our tax dollars are spent as we mean for them to be. It is wise 
legislation, it is needed legislation, and I urge its support.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3035

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, over the course of this morning, this 
afternoon, and yesterday, we have had some excellent comments in 
support of our hate crimes amendment which we will be voting on in the 
morning. Also, we will be voting on the SCHIP program as well. Over the 
course of the afternoon, a number of people have spoken on these 
issues. I am enormously grateful to many of my colleagues who have 
taken a great interest in these issues and wanted to be able to speak 
on them. Many of them have. Others will continue through the afternoon, 
probably into the evening, to express their support for this 
legislation.
  I wish to take a couple of moments on the issue of hate crimes. We 
have heard during this discussion that hate crimes are alive and well 
in the United States, tragically. Over the last few days, we have 
spoken about many people who have been impacted by hate crimes and 
described in some detail the horrific circumstances so many of these 
individuals, fellow citizens, have undergone because of their 
religious, ethnic, racial, and sexual orientation.
  I was moved--and I am sure many were--by the Southern Poverty Law 
Center and their very important study on estimates of hate crimes. The 
Southern Poverty Law Center was focused on crimes of race in the South 
for many years and developed enormous amounts of information about 
those horrific crimes and was very responsible in bringing people to 
justice in a number of circumstances. Their focus on these issues of 
hatred got them to expand their research.
  As I mentioned in an earlier presentation, they recorded their best 
judgment that hate crimes reach 50,000 people per year every year, 
which is an extraordinary amount.
  I wish to respond to a point or two that have been raised in 
questioning our approach on this issue.
  In the hate crimes legislation we have introduced, our bill fully 
respects the primary role of State and local law enforcement in 
responding to violent crimes. The vast majority of hate crimes will 
continue to be prosecuted at the State and local level.
  The bill authorizes the Justice Department to assist State and local 
authorities in hate crimes cases. It authorizes Federal prosecution 
only when a State does not have jurisdiction or when it asks the 
Federal Government to take jurisdiction or when it fails to act against 
hate-motivated violence.
  We have responded to these issues and gone into them in very careful 
detail. There are those who say this legislation is going to make every 
crime of violence a hate crime. We have heard that statement in 
opposition. We have heard it for a number of years. We have addressed 
it, and we have spelled out in the legislation exactly what is the 
jurisdiction.
  The bill protects State interests with a strict certification 
procedure that requires the Federal Government to consult with local 
officials before bringing a Federal case. It offers Federal assistance 
to help State and local law enforcement to investigate and prosecute 
hate crimes in any of the categories. It offers training grants for 
local law enforcement. It amends the Federal Hate Crimes Statistics Act 
to add gender to the existing categories of race, religion, ethnic 
background, sexual orientation, and disability. So a strong

[[Page S12120]]

Federal role in prosecuting hate crimes is essential for practical and 
symbolic reasons.
  In practical terms, the bill will have a real-world impact on actual 
criminal investigations and prosecutions by State and Federal 
officials. This legislation can send a strong message to the 
perpetrators of such crimes and to all others who think we are going to 
sit back and watch our fellow citizens being attacked so brutally.
  What we are basically saying on the issue of hate crimes is we are 
going to fight it with both hands. Now the Federal Government has one 
arm tied behind its back, unable to deal with the problems of hate 
crimes. Now we are saying: Yes, we are going to work with the locals; 
yes, we are going to work with the State; but, yes, we are going to 
insist that all of the resources at the Federal level can be utilized 
when called upon in these horrific crimes of hate.
  These are some of the points that have been raised. I wanted to 
respond to them this afternoon.


                                  CHIP

  Mr. President, I see others of my colleagues here. I had planned to 
speak briefly for a few moments on another issue we are going to vote 
on tomorrow, the SCHIP program. If any of our colleagues wanted to make 
a comment on this, I will be glad to welcome it.
  Moving to this issue about the vote we will have tomorrow on the 
Children's Health Insurance Program that was developed to provide 
health insurance to the children of working families--the very poor are 
covered by Medicaid, and CHIP is for the working families. It has been 
a great success. The greatest failure has been we have not provided the 
kind of assurance we should to all children who are in need of this 
program.
  This is the statement of the President:

       America's children must also have a healthy start in life. 
     In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll 
     millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up 
     for the Government's health insurance programs. We will not 
     allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between 
     these children and the health care they need.

  I hope the Senate will heed that comment and that commitment because 
that effectively is what we will be voting on tomorrow.
  It is difficult for many of us to understand, when the President made 
that comment and that commitment to the American people, that he would 
urge us to reject the excellent proposal that has been basically 
accepted by the House and the Senate.
  Quickly, this chart is the Center for Medicare Services, known as 
CMS, report on CHIP, September 19, 2007. Over the past 10 years, CHIP 
has improved overall access to care, reduced the level of unmet needs, 
and improved access to dental care, expanded access to preventive care, 
and reduced emergency department use. This is the Center for Medical 
Services. This is a part of the current administration.

  This is the current administration's assessment. We have the 
President's statement and now their assessment about the success of the 
program.
  We can understand why, when we look at this chart--this is National 
Health Interview Survey--CHIP has reduced the uninsured rate for 
children from when we started the program in 1997 to now, with the 
arrows going down, from 22 percent down to 13 percent. This side of the 
aisle would like to have it go all the way down. It shows remarkable 
progress in an area of important national need.
  This chart demonstrates the relationship between health and 
education. Enrollment in CHIP has helped children learn. We passed an 
important education program earlier this year. We are addressing now 
the K-through-12 challenge we are facing. Look at the difference in 
children's performance ratings before and after 1 year's enrollment in 
CHIP. We have before, and we are talking about paying attention in 
class, and after we find a dramatic increase in the interest of 
children, and before and after ``keeping up with school activities.''
  It is very understandable because the children are getting the health 
care they need, they are getting eyeglasses, they are getting the 
hearing assistance they need, they are getting the medical attention 
they need, and the results has been a dramatic increase in the 
performance of schools.
  We have great issues and questions about what works and what doesn't 
work in education. What we know is, if you have a healthy child, you 
have a child who is going to do better in education.
  We are concerned in the Senate about disparities that exist in our 
society, the dramatic difference between the haves and the have-nots. 
We are very much concerned about that disparity, in the fields of 
education as well as health care, in our committee.
  If we look at the disparities, the percentage of children with unmet 
health needs before CHIP and after CHIP--this is the Kaiser Family 
Foundation--we see the difference between Blacks, represented by 38 
percent, and Hispanics. If we look at it during CHIP, we see overall 
progress, and we see the disparities reduced. This means we are looking 
at all children. We are concerned about all children, and the success, 
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, has been dramatic.
  One of the areas--and this is a typical one--is asthma. It is one 
that has affected my family, and it is one in which there has been a 
dramatic increase over the last several years. Unquestionably, it is 
because of the administration's changes in environmental standards 
which put more poisons into the air, and I believe it is also because 
of an increase of poverty in our country. We have more children who are 
poor, more families who are poor than ever before.
  Rather than looking at the escalation of asthma, if we look at unmet 
health needs of children, we see the dramatic difference in emergency 
visits of children before CHIP and after CHIP, and this has had a 
dramatic impact on the wellness of children.
  As has been pointed out by many of my colleagues--and I do not intend 
to take a great deal more time--this is an issue of priorities. We know 
the program works. We know it is built on a delivery system which has 
been basically supported by the President. The Medicare prescription 
drug program--I didn't agree with that delivery system, but the 
President strongly supported it. It is the law. The same delivery 
system is used in the CHIP program. It is based on the private use of 
private insurance, and it is paid for by, as we all know, an increase 
in the tobacco tax, which is going to mean additional benefits in 
health for children. Here is the cost: $35 billion over 5 years, $120 
billion for the cost of Iraq. Stated differently, it is $333 million a 
day; CHIP is $19 million.

  Finally, this chart here really says it all. A quote from the mother 
of Alexiana Lewis:

       If I miss a single appointment, I know she could lose her 
     eyesight. If I can't buy her medication, I know she could 
     lose her eyesight. If I didn't have MASSHealth, my daughter 
     would be blind.

  This is one parent, and it is being replicated by parents all over 
the country, by 6 million children and their parents. I hope we are 
going to have a solid vote in support of that program on the morrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, there will be no more votes today. We have 
tried all day to have more votes, but it has been difficult to work 
that out. We hope in the morning, at about 10:30, we can have as many 
as five votes--three to five votes. We are going to finish our work on 
hate crimes and SCHIP. That will require three to five votes. We hope 
we can get that done with a unanimous consent request; otherwise, we 
will work our way through it and the procedure will take care of most 
of it. I think there is a general feeling that this should be done. As 
indicated, I thought we were going to be able to have the votes today, 
but for various reasons we were unable to do that. It has made it 
difficult for the two managers of the bill, but, in fact, we have been 
able to work out some amendments that have been offered. I just wish we 
could have done more.
  I respect so much the work of our manager on this side and Senator 
Warner on the other side. They are certainly experienced at this, and 
we are confident we will be able to draw to a close, hopefully in the 
not too distant future, the Defense authorization bill and, shortly 
thereafter, move to the Defense appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Michigan.

[[Page S12121]]

  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Illinois would yield for just a 
moment, I would only urge our colleagues--and I know Senator Warner 
joins me in this--we have over 300 amendments that have been filed. We 
are clearing some. We have cleared 10 more.
  Mr. WARNER. We are up to 150 cleared.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have about 300 still that need to be addressed one way 
or the other. Either they are going to be resolved, voted on, or 
dropped. We need the full cooperation of every Senator to address this 
very large number of amendments. We have made some progress in clearing 
amendments. We had two votes today on important amendments. We look 
forward to those three to five votes in the morning. But we still need 
the full cooperation of every Senator, and I would urge them to work 
with our staffs to see if we can clear as many additional amendments as 
possible.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, if we spent 3 more days 
on this bill, that means we would have to dispose of 100 amendments a 
day. If we spent 4 days on it, we would have to dispose of 75 
amendments a day. So these managers have done excellent work, and we 
know we can't get through all these amendments, but there are a lot we 
need to get through. It is important, and we will cooperate on this 
side in every way we can, and I am confident the minority will also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was not on the floor earlier, but I 
suspect the leader was discussing this bill as well as how we finish 
the week.
  Mr. REID. Yes. Basically, I said there would be no more votes today; 
that somewhere in the morning, around 10:30, we will have three to five 
votes, three or four on hate crimes--hopefully, only two--and one on 
SCHIP. When we finish that, we will find out where we are in relation 
to this bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I concur completely with what the 
majority leader has indicated. We have been working together to try to 
figure out how we can wrap up the week. We have a number of other 
items, as he suggests, including the CR, and we are hoping to be able 
to get all this processed at some point during the day tomorrow.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we do have a lot to do. There are a number 
of other issues in addition to the CR that we have to finish before 
Monday. We have no choice. We have a farm bill we have to extend, and 
we have a number of things we have to do. We are going to work together 
to see what we can do in that regard. It has been slow on this bill, 
but in spite of that, I think we have had one of the best debates we 
have had on this bill. On the two amendments we have dealt with, the 
Kyl-Lieberman amendment and the Webb amendment, I think that was very 
good debate. In addition, we had extremely good debate on the Biden-
Brownback amendment. I always joke about the House saying: We are going 
to do this much this week. And I say: Well, we will do this much this 
week and feel good about what we have done. We are getting to a point 
here where we have the ability to see the light at the end of the 
tunnel, and we are pushing toward that goal, and that goal is Monday as 
the drop-dead day on a number of things we have to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there are no others speaking on this 
Defense authorization bill, I would like to address my remarks to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, who is still on the floor and who spoke to 
us on the SCHIP proposal for the Children's Health Insurance Program, 
which has been in place for 10 years and works for so many children so 
effectively.
  I might correct the Senator's presentation in one regard. I just left 
a meeting of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The request of 
this administration for the next year for the war in Iraq is $189 
billion--$189 billion. That comes out to about $15 billion a month that 
they are asking for this war for the next year. It is my understanding 
that this bill we are going to present to the President to provide 
health insurance for somewhere in the range of an additional 5 million 
kids is going to cost us $6 billion or $7 billion a year. So the war in 
Iraq is costing us $15 billion a month; this program, which the 
President says we can't afford, to provide health insurance for our own 
children, will cost us about $7 billion a year--a year.
  It would seem to me that a strong America begins at home. It begins 
with our families, our kids, with our neighborhoods and communities, 
and I think the President has overlooked that. If we are going to be 
strong for the future, we have to help our kids have the kind of health 
insurance coverage that gives them a fighting chance. So I thank the 
Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The $35 billion will not be paid for by the taxpayers.
  Mr. DURBIN. That is right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Which is really extraordinary. We have done the 
education program, where we took some $20 billion from the lenders. 
This $35 billion is going to be paid for with the increase in the 
cigarette tax, which in and of itself will have an extraordinarily 
positive impact in the quality of health for children in this country 
and to the whole problem and challenge of childhood addiction to 
nicotine. So I think it is important.
  We hear a great deal about: Well, the figures the Senator mentioned 
are dramatic in terms of the choice which is before the Members 
tomorrow in terms of priorities. But you even add to that the fact that 
the taxpayer is going to be spared that kind of additional burden, and 
it is difficult for many of us to understand the strong opposition of 
the administration.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. I might say to the Senator from Massachusetts that two 
out of three Americans support an increase in the tobacco tax for this 
purpose. It is a clearly positive thing for us to do. So unlike the 
Iraq war, which we are not paying for at all in this instance, we are 
paying for children's health insurance with a tobacco tax, and I think 
that is a much more responsible approach.
  Mr. President, I have a statement here on the hate crime issue, but I 
see two other colleagues on the floor, and I don't know what their 
schedules are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before my friend and colleague from 
Illinois sits down, I have a question. I am going to speak on hate 
crimes, but that will be after the Senator from Vermont, who is 
waiting.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Illinois a question. We, the 
Democrats, have a reputation of, well, tax and spend, tax and spend. 
But just seeing my colleague from Massachusetts here, I realized that 
in the two major bills we have just done--and my friend from Illinois 
has mentioned one on higher education and one on children's health--A, 
we have paid for them. Unlike what has been done on the other side, 
say, with the prescription drug program, we paid for them. We are being 
fiscally responsible. And we didn't pay for them by hurting average 
folks in terms of their taxes. The tobacco tax, which the Senator from 
Massachusetts just mentioned, and on the college tuition, we are paying 
for that by making the banks pay a little more. Not a nickel of 
taxpayer money is coming for that.
  So I ask my colleague, how would he compare the record of the new 
majority on fiscal responsibility compared to the old majority?
  Mr. DURBIN. My colleague and friend from New York has served in both 
the House and Senate, and he knows that often promises are made on 
important things we do. But we have kept our promise that we would have 
a pay-as-you-go plan. As we came up with new ideas for legislation, we 
paid for them--much different from what we saw around here as we were 
driven deeply into debt under the leadership of the other party.

  The war in Iraq is a classic example. This President continues to 
wage this war and asks for money without any tax or cut in spending. He 
just adds to the deficit of this country--a deficit which, 
unfortunately, is out of control and makes us beholden, mortgaged, to 
some of the largest countries in the world.
  So I would say we have kept our promise. It is a pay-as-you-go 
promise.

[[Page S12122]]

                           Amendment No. 3035

  I would like to make this point on the hate crime amendment, and then 
I will defer to my colleagues, who may be speaking on the same subject.
  Mr. President, the Senate is about to consider a bipartisan amendment 
to the Defense Department authorization bill dealing with hate crimes 
which broadens the scope of the Federal hate crime law in significant 
ways. It is one of the most important pieces of civil rights 
legislation in our time, and I am proud to cosponsor it.
  Some people might ask: Haven't we moved beyond the need for this in 
this modern age of the 21st century? Do we still really need a hate 
crime law? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.
  As Senator Kennedy said on the Senate floor:

       At a time when our ideals are under attack by terrorists in 
     other lands, it is more important than ever to demonstrate 
     that we practice what we preach and that we are doing all we 
     can to root out bigotry and prejudice in our own country that 
     leads to violence here at home.

  Sadly, there is no shortage of bigotry and violence here at home. In 
the past week, there has been a national spotlight on Jena, LA, where 
White high school students put up nooses in a tree to intimidate 
African-American students--nooses--the ancient symbol of hatred and 
lynching.
  The problems with hate crimes and racial tension are not confined to 
the South. Take a look at today's Washington Post. An article entitled 
``Colleges See Flare in Racial Incidents'' said that a noose was found 
a few weeks ago at the University of Maryland outside the campus's 
African-American cultural center. This past weekend, a swastika was 
spray-painted onto a car parked on that same campus.
  My home State of Illinois is not immune to this same problem. Last 
month, a judge in Chicago awarded $1.3 million to two victims of 
vicious hate crimes that were committed a few months after September 11 
in Chicago's West Loop. The victims--Amer Zaveri and Toby Paulose are 
American-born citizens of Indian descent. The perpetrators yelled, 
``Are you Taliban?'' and ``Go back to your country'' before punching 
them, assaulting them, kicking them, and smashing a beer bottle on one 
of their heads, causing facial fractures and lacerations.
  Now, according to statistics compiled by the FBI, nearly 10,000 hate 
crimes are committed in America each year. Other estimates put the 
number closer to 50,000. An increasing number are committed against 
gays and lesbians, representing nearly 15 percent of all hate crimes.
  The response from some Republicans, not from all--Senator Gordon 
Smith of Oregon is a prominent cosponsor of the Kennedy bill on hate 
crimes--but from some others, is that we need to study this issue. The 
studies have been done over and over again. Sad to report, hate crimes 
are a reality in America today.
  The existing Federal hate crime law was enacted 40 years ago, in 
1968. It was passed at the time of Martin Luther King's assassination. 
It is an important law, but it is outdated. Its coverage is too narrow. 
Unless the hate crime falls within one of six very narrow areas, 
prosecutors can't use the law. For example, if it takes place in a 
public school, the Government can prosecute, but not in a private 
school.
  This hate crime law we are considering would expand the categories of 
people who would be covered and the incidents covered as well. The 
current Federal law provides no coverage for hate crimes based on a 
victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. Sadly, hate crimes 
data suggest that hate crimes based on sexual orientation are the third 
most prevalent, after race and religion. Our laws should not ignore 
reality.
  Some people have suggested that banning hate crimes is a violation of 
the first amendment and the right to free speech. The Supreme Court has 
been very clear that is not the case. In 2003, in the case of Virginia 
v. Black, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of laws banning cross 
burning, one of the ultimate hate crimes. In her opinion, Justice 
Sandra Day O'Connor wrote:

       To this day, regardless of whether the message is a 
     political one or whether the message is also meant to 
     intimidate, the burning of a cross is a symbol of hate.

  This week we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the integration of 
Little Rock Central High School. Arkansas at that time was the 
crucible, the laboratory for us to test whether America was an 
accepting, diverse nation. Those nine students and those who stood 
behind them had the courage to step through those classroom doors and 
face the intimidation on the way. It is important the Senate have the 
courage to confront the injustice of our time and pass the bipartisan 
Kennedy-Smith hate crime amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have been working with the majority 
leader in the hopes of helping us complete all these various items he 
and I would like to complete in short order. To us get to the end of 
the trail on the underlying bill, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring 
to a close debate on the pending substitute amendment to Calendar No. 
189, H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2008.
         Mitch McConnell, C.S. Bond, David Vitter, Lisa Murkowski, 
           R.F. Bennett, Tom Coburn, Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl, 
           Wayne Allard, John Thune, Norm Coleman, Richard Burr, 
           Ted Stevens, Jeff Sessions, J.M. Inhofe, Thad Cochran, 
           Michael B. Enzi.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished counterpart, the 
senior Senator from Kentucky, we have tried real hard. This is the 
third time we have taken up this Defense authorization bill. I 
understand the feelings Senator Levin, Senator Warner, and Senator 
McCain have regarding this bill. Is this a good time to file cloture? I 
don't think there is ever a good time. But I think that we have all had 
a pretty good picture of what is happening on this bill. I would have 
to acknowledge that at some time, if the distinguished Republican 
leader had not filed cloture, then we would have filed cloture. Whether 
it would have been today is something we can talk about later. But I 
don't feel in any way the Republican leader has surprised me. He has 
kept me posted about some of his feelings on this.
  We have had a number of very complicated issues in this last couple 
of weeks because of the fiscal year drawing to a close. As a result of 
that, we have procedural things that seem to always come up with the 
Senate. But in spite of having said all that, we have been able to 
accomplish a lot. It would have been much better had we not been 
interrupted so many different times for various reasons, but that is 
what happened.
  We have spent 15 days on this bill, 15 legislative days on this bill. 
Other than immigration, I don't think there is anything we have spent 
this amount of time on during this Congress.

                          ____________________