[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.
____________________