[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 144 (Wednesday, September 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12131-S12133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  CHIP

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, let me 
congratulate Senator Grassley for his very fine work on this 
legislation, and Senator Hatch as well. It has been a true bipartisan 
effort. I want to take this discussion in a little different direction. 
I strongly support the SCHIP program. I happen to believe it is a 
disgrace that the United States of America remains the only country in 
the industrialized world which today does not guarantee health care to 
all of its people. I just came back the other day from a trip to Costa 
Rica, and this small, poor country manages to cover all of its people. 
Yet, in our country, we have 47 million Americans who have no health 
insurance, and we have some 9 million children who have no health 
insurance.
  I always find it ironic that the American people seem to get from the 
White House what they don't want, and they don't get what they do want. 
The American people want to end the war in Iraq as soon as possible, a 
war which will soon be costing us, if you can believe it, $750 
billion--three-quarters of $1 trillion--which even in Washington is a 
lot of money. For the war in Iraq, for Halliburton contracts, we seem 
to have an endless supply of money. The American people don't want it, 
but that is what they are getting.
  On the other hand, the American people do want health insurance for 
their children. The American people strongly support--and the polls are 
very clear about this--the SCHIP program. The American people would 
like all of the children in this country to be covered. That is what 
they want, but that is what they are not getting.
  What this bill, in fact, does do, which is very good--and I mentioned 
a moment ago my congratulations to Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch 
for their efforts--is it takes us somewhere. It provides health 
insurance for 5 million more children, which is clearly a significant 
step forward, and I will strongly support this legislation.
  It is interesting to me that from the White House the main argument, 
it appears, for opposition to this particular piece of legislation, and 
the reason they are threatening to veto it, one of the key reasons is 
this is an expansion of ``government health care''--government health 
care. Let me read to my colleagues to whom it might be of interest, and 
to the American people, a poll on the economy done a few weeks ago by 
CBS News, from September 14 to September 16. This is the CBS poll.
  Question No. 1: Which do you think would be better for the country: 
Having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would 
be administered by the government--administered by this terrible 
government--and paid for by taxpayers, or keeping the current system 
where many people get their insurance from private employers and some 
have no insurance? So CBS asked: Do you want a government-administered 
program covering all people or do you want the current system? The 
response from the American people was 55 percent believe in one health 
insurance for all Americans administered by the government; 29 percent 
want to maintain the current system.
  We hear a lot of discussion from the White House about how terrible 
``government health care'' is, and yet what the polls show by an almost 
2-to-1 majority is that the American people would like a health 
insurance system guaranteeing health care to all people administered by 
the Government and paid for out of the tax base.
  When I go back to Vermont, I find strong support for the Medicare 
Program, I find strong support for the Medicaid Program. Veterans want 
to see a significant increase in VA health care, which is, in fact, a 
100-percent controlled Government program. In fact, Mr. Nicholson, who 
is head of the Veterans' Administration, former head of the Republican 
Party, says--and I think he is quite right--that the Veterans' 
Administration provides some of the very best quality health care in 
the United States of America, and they have been honored by national 
organizations who have looked at health care quality and have awarded 
distinction to the Veterans' Administration, which is, by the way, a 
100-percent Government-run health care system. We have federally 
qualified health systems, health care programs all over America which 
time and time again are acknowledged to be tremendously successful. 
They are supported in a very strong, bipartisan way here in the 
Congress. They provide health care to millions of Americans--Government 
health care. So I think we should perhaps end this bogeyman mentality 
of Government health care--how terrible an idea it is. In fact, the 
American people want more Government health care in this country.
  Our health care system has serious problems. In fact, it is in the 
midst of disintegrating. We have 47 million Americans today who have no 
health insurance, and that number, since President Bush has been in 
office, has gone up by over 7 million. The cost of health care is 
soaring. More and more people are not only uninsured, they are 
underinsured. Despite all of that, our country continues to spend twice 
as much per capita on health care as any other Nation on Earth. 
Meanwhile, despite all of that spending, despite all of the people who 
are uninsured, our health status measures--including infant mortality 
and life expectancy and the kind of work we do in disease prevention--
ranks very low compared to other developed countries. We spend more, we 
get less value, we have more and more people uninsured, our health care 
system is disintegrating, and it is high time, in my view, that the 
United States ends the national disgrace of being the only country in 
the industrialized world that does not provide health care to all 
people.

  Not only are more and more people uninsured; this system is even 
incapable of providing the doctors we need, especially in rural 
America. In cities we have doctors who are specialists earning millions 
of dollars a year, but somehow this system can't get doctors into rural 
America, into primary health care, into internal medicine. We lack 
dentists all over this country. We have a major nursing crisis, such 
that

[[Page S12132]]

we are depleting the health care systems of the Philippines and other 
countries, because we are not educating our own nurses. So we have some 
major problems.
  In terms of the SCHIP program, it is hard for me to understand--it is 
hard for me to begin to understand--how this President can be 
threatening to veto this legislation. We hear in the Congress a whole 
lot about family values. Well, if taking care of our children is not a 
family value, then I don't know what a family value is. It is clear 
also that providing health insurance to our children is what is cost 
effective. Forget the suffering involved. Forget the children who deal 
with illness they are not getting treated for because their parents 
don't have health insurance. Look at the cost-effective aspect of this. 
What kind of thinking is involved when we say: No, we can't provide 
health insurance for you, but when you get sick because you haven't 
gone to the doctor, oh, yes, we will operate on you and we will spend 
tens and tens of thousands of dollars to take care of you when you are 
in the hospital?
  Let me conclude by saying that the time is long overdue for this 
country to get its priorities right. We should not continue spending 
hundreds of billions of dollars on a war the American people don't 
want. We should not, as the President and some in this institution 
want, give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest three-tenths of 
1 percent by repealing the inheritance tax. One trillion dollars over 
20 years, we have money to do that, but we don't have, apparently, $35 
billion to provide health insurance to 4 million children in this 
country. This Congress has to reorder and change the priorities 
established in the White House, and I believe that passing this SCHIP 
program will be a good step forward, a first step forward to be 
followed by much more.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I won't take much time about SCHIP, only 
to say I hope our colleagues will vote for the SCHIP bill. It is a real 
bipartisan effort made by Democrats and Republicans over a long period 
of time with a lot of give by House Democrats and House Democratic 
leadership because they wanted a bill. I hope we pass that bill. I will 
identify my remarks to a large degree with the remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa who spoke earlier.


                           Amendment No. 3047

  Madam President, I wish to discuss an amendment addressing the 
subject of hate crimes that I have filed on this national defense bill. 
I do not think that hate crimes legislation should be attached to this 
defense bill. The issue of hate crimes has nothing to do with the 
matter before us, our national defense.
  Frankly, this Kennedy amendment has no relationship, as far as I am 
concerned, to this very important bill intended to help our military, 
and it should not be included on this legislation. Yet, as long as my 
colleagues insisted on filing a politically problematic hate crimes 
amendment to this legislation, it was important that we have a balanced 
debate.
  My amendment would provide Federal assistance to the States and 
localities in the prosecution and investigation of bias motivated 
violence. That is what we are talking about here: bias motivated 
violence.
  I want to be absolutely clear. No one--nobody in this entire body or 
institution--believes for one second that such crimes are ever 
acceptable. Nobody in this body believes that. So those who want to 
make political points by suggesting that are plain wrong, and they 
should stop.
  The question is: What is the proper role of the Federal Government in 
the prosecution of these crimes? This needs to be a matter that we keep 
in careful balance. Our States are the primary guarantors of our rights 
and liberties. As far as I can see, having watched it for years, the 
States have handled these crimes very well. In every case I can think 
of--there may be some exceptions, but I don't know of any--the State 
has handled these matters adequately and well and people have been 
prosecuted and convicted. Some have been put to death; others have been 
sentenced for life.
  The States are the primary guarantors of our rights and liberties. I 
think we must respect the hard and decent work of the States as they 
secure equal justice under the law for all of our citizens in the 
respective States.
  With due respect to my colleagues and good friends, Senators Kennedy 
and Smith, I do not think this amendment strikes the right balance. In 
fact, I think this amendment is not needed. It has plenty of 
difficulties. It is constitutionally very questionable.
  And frankly, it should not be on this bill. If they want to bring it 
up, they can do it separately. It should not be on the bill because the 
President indicated that he is not going to put up with this type of 
legislation on this bill. This is not because of a lack of dedication 
on his part in prohibiting hate crimes. He is as dedicated as anybody 
in this body to targeting these crimes, and that includes the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
  So I rise to oppose both hate crimes and the Kennedy hate crimes 
amendment. A conviction against bias-motivated violence does not 
justify supporting a proposal that is unwise, unnecessary, and 
unconstitutional.
  This amendment would create a new Federal criminal felony, punishable 
by up to 10 years in prison, for willfully causing bodily injury 
because of a person's perceived race, color, national origin, religion, 
gender, sexual orientation, disability, or--get this--gender identity.
  Senator Kennedy made a specific point earlier today that this new 
felony is not related to Federal jurisdiction. He said such a 
requirement would be ``outdated, unwise, and unnecessary,'' but that 
requirement is grounded in the Constitution itself. With all due 
respect to my friend from Massachusetts, the Constitution is not 
outdated, unwise or unnecessary.
  Not only does Congress lack authority to create such a freestanding 
hate crimes felony, the States are already handling this issue.
  The Kennedy proposal would end up treating the less serious bias 
crimes too harshly, putting people who committed misdemeanors under 
State law in Federal prison, and treating the most serious bias crimes 
too harshly, with no death penalty even for the most heinous murders as 
in the case of James Byrd in Texas.
  This bill goes further even than the Kennedy proposals of the past.
  Let me mention a number of problems that I perceive with Senator 
Kennedy's hate crimes amendment. First, as noted yesterday, the Kennedy 
amendment is different from the hate crimes bill offered in past 
Congresses. This amendment adds ``perceived . . . gender identity'' as 
a protected class. What does this concept mean? The Senate has held no 
hearings on the meaning of this phrase or how far this phrase would 
allow the courts to go. How far would some of the courts interpret this 
phrase? The bill's definition is vague; it raises more questions than 
it answers. Would this include wearing an earring? Would it include an 
assault of a man with long hair or a woman with short hair? What about 
a woman wearing long hair? Are all protected the same under Federal 
law? What about different kinds of clothing?
  Clearly, there would be cases that fall safely within the drafters' 
intent, but can Senators be confident of what this language means? I do 
not think so. Do they want to pass a law to put judges or juries in 
charge of interpreting the meaning of clothing and personal style? 
Again, there have been no hearings in the Senate to give any guidance 
to Senators for this vote.
  When the House passed this bill, the White House released a SAP 
promising a veto. To pass the Kennedy amendment is to jeopardize the 
Defense authorization bill altogether.
  The Justice Department has also indicated it supports the concepts 
found in my alternative proposal.
  There is no evidence that hate crimes go unprosecuted in the States. 
For example, as Dr. Coburn recently pointed out on the floor, the 
killers of Matthew Shepard--for whom this bill is named--were 
successfully prosecuted under State law. And recall that the killers of 
James Byrd in Texas several years ago were sentenced to death under 
State law. But there is no death penalty provided for in the Kennedy 
amendment. By the way, Senator Kennedy cannot make the case that the 
States are inadequate in their handling of these crimes. I don't think 
he can

[[Page S12133]]

make the case the States are not doing a good job of handling these 
crimes. These kind of crimes are intra-State crimes. I do not think he 
can make the case there is a sufficient nexus of interstate commerce to 
justify what I consider to be the unconstitutional Kennedy amendment.
  The Senator from Massachusetts stated earlier that ``all hate crimes 
will face a Federal prosecution.''
  If that is true, then prepare for a massive federalization of basic 
criminal law, which is handled well by the States. Maybe 100 years ago 
you could find States not enforcing hate crime laws, but I do not think 
you will find that today in any State in this Union. There is not a 
person in the Senate who wants those crimes to go unpunished. But the 
States are handling them well. Why would we bring the almighty arm of 
the Federal Government into these matters?

  There are also several reasons this bill is unconstitutional. 
Consider one: The Supreme Court held that certain of the criminal 
provisions of the Violence Against Women Act were unconstitutional 
because most crimes of violence against women were not interstate in 
nature. I have to admit I was a prime cosponsor, along with Senator 
Biden, of VAWA. I was somewhat disappointed in that decision, but that 
is the decision. That is our constitutional law. The Kennedy amendment 
would criminalize many physical and sexual assaults. The same 
constitutional issues are at stake.
  Again, I decry hate crimes. I do not believe there should be evil 
discrimination, bias discrimination, in any way, shape or form. I have 
always stood up for the rights of those who have been discriminated 
against. I may have differed on some bills, as I do on this one. But I 
decry these types of acts. But to federalize hate crimes legislation 
and to make it not only burdensome but very intrusive on the State's 
work in this area, I think, is the wrong thing to do.
  I hope my colleagues will consider some of these thoughts. I will 
speak in more detail tomorrow. But the fact of the matter is I think it 
is a real mistake, when the States are doing as good a job as they have 
been doing, when the very crimes they use to justify this bill were 
handled by the States and people were sentenced to long terms, or even 
to death, I think it is inadvisable for us to proceed on this 
amendment.
  Last but not least, the President said he is going to veto the bill 
if Senator Kennedy's amendment makes it in. I think it is wrong to put 
this amendment into this Defense Authorization Act. It has been wrong, 
as far as I am concerned, to have a lot of these amendments that have 
been brought up on the floor that have nothing to do with Defense 
authorization, or have everything to do with trying to score political 
points, at a time when we should have passed this bill 2 weeks ago and 
gotten it on its way to the House of Representatives and then to the 
President, so our soldiers will have the benefits this bill provides 
for.
  Adding hate crimes to it may lead to a veto of the whole bill. That 
would be just plain tragic, especially since we know of the President's 
suggestion that he will veto the hate crimes bill. So I am concerned 
about it. I understand Senator Kennedy's motivation on this. He wants 
to get it on a bill that has to pass both Houses of Congress. But it 
ought to be on a bill related to hate crimes or related to criminal 
law, not something that can scuttle this important Defense 
authorization bill. I personally feel badly that so many of these days 
have gone by with amendments that have nothing to do with the defense 
of our country or our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere 
around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Oregon is 
recognized.

                          ____________________