[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 145 (Thursday, September 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12189-S12206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1585, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2008 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Nelson (NE) (for Levin) amendment No. 2011, in the nature
of a substitute.
Warner (for Graham-Kyl) amendment No. 2064 (to amendment
No. 2011), to strike section 1023, relating to the granting
of civil rights to terror suspects.
Reid (for Kennedy-Smith) amendment No. 3035 (to the
language proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 2064), to
provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions,
and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes.
Motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Armed
Services, with instructions to report back forthwith, with
Reid amendment No. 3038, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 3039 (to the instructions of the motion
to recommit), of a technical nature.
Reid amendment No. 3040 (to amendment No. 3039), of a
technical nature.
Casey (for Hatch) amendment No. 3047 (to amendment No.
2011), to require comprehensive study and support for
criminal investigations and prosecutions by State and local
law enforcement officials.
Coburn amendment No. 2196 (to amendment No. 2011), to
eliminate wasteful spending and improve the management of
counter-drug intelligence.
McCaskill (for Webb) modified amendment No. 2999 (to
amendment No. 2011), to provide for the study and
investigation of wartime contracts and contracting processes
in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders prior
to the cloture vote on amendment No. 3035 offered by the Senator from
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Schedule
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, briefly, let me outline the schedule for
this morning. Under an order entered last night, there are 2 hours of
debate equally divided prior to votes on pending cloture motions on the
two hate crimes amendments.
Once the votes begin, around 11 this morning, there will be very
brief debate between the votes, so Members
[[Page S12190]]
should remain close to the floor during that time.
Once action has concluded on the hate crime amendments, the Senate
will then have a brief debate prior to the cloture vote on the motion
to concur to the House amendments to the Senate amendments to the CHIP
legislation.
Therefore, Members can expect five rollcall votes starting around 11
this morning.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes
immediately prior to the first vote be controlled equally between the
two leaders, with the majority leader controlling the last 5 minutes,
and that after the first vote, the remaining votes be limited to 10
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if there are
quorum calls during this time, they be evenly divided.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and one of the principal
architects of this CHIP program on the floor. I know he desires to
speak for some time. I am glad to accommodate him. I think I am going
to speak on both of the measures that are before the Senate, both the
CHIP program as well as the hate crimes. So I do not know what the
desire of the Senator from Utah would be. But I will be glad to yield
to him.
CHIP
Mr. President, as the instructions to the Senate said, later in the
morning, we are going to have an opportunity for the Senate to express
itself on what is commonly known as the Children's Health Insurance
Program, a program that has effectively been in place now for some 10
years and has made a very significant and important difference in the
quality of life for children.
It has been said, and I certainly agree, that the great test of a
nation and a civilization is how it cares about its children. Some 10
years ago, the Senator from Utah, myself, others, were very much
involved in the fashioning, the shaping of this legislation.
It has made a very important difference, which we will come to in a
moment, to the quality of health care for children in this country. The
Senate, later this morning, is going to make a judgment whether we are
going to continue that march for progress for children and expand that
opportunity or whether we are going to take a different course and say
that is not a national priority.
Being in the Senate and voting is about priorities. Priorities.
Members in this body express themselves in votes by indicating our
priorities, both our priorities in the allocation of resources, our
priorities in views with regard to foreign policy.
This morning, we are going to be making a judgment whether we think
it is appropriate that we continue this real march for progress for
children in this country with this Children's Health Insurance Program
that has proved to be so successful.
First, I wish to show what President Bush himself has stated about
the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is the quote of President
Bush from the 2004 Republican Convention, not all that long ago, when
he said:
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.
That is what we are talking about, the CHIP program. Here is the
President saying:
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.
Well, that is the issue. This is the place where that promise and
pledge is going to be tested later this morning. Many of us are going
to say: President Bush was absolutely right when he made that
statement. But since he has made that statement, he has come to a
different position where he is urging opposition to that position
today.
We can understand why the President came to that position because we
can look at the record of the last 10 years. In the evaluation of the
CHIP program, this is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, it
is an administration department, effectively known as CMS, the Center
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, this is in the Department of Health
and Human Services. This is their evaluation as of September 19, 2007:
Over the past 10 years, the CHIP program has improved
overall access to care.
Improved overall access to care.
Reduced the level of unmet need.
Reduced the level of unmet need.
And improved access to dental care, expanded access to
preventive care.
Expanded access to preventive care. Imagine the parents who may have
taken a little time this morning and said: This is going to be an
important vote in the Senate today. I think I will listen to it. What
is this program all about?
Well, here we have the President of the United States, who has
endorsed this, said it ought to be expanded, and then we have the
evaluation of the program, not by those of us who were there at the
very beginning and who supported the program but by the
administration's own evaluation. This is what they say--and who can
differ with that? Those who have been opposed to it have been unable to
challenge this: Improved the access to care, reduced the level of unmet
need, improved access to dental care, expanded access to preventive
care.
Every parent knows the importance of preventive care for their
children. Anyone who cares about health care policy knows that it is
enormously important at any time and particularly in a child's life.
And ``reduced emergency department use.'' That is the final item that
is mentioned in this chart.
But this has importance in a number of different ways. It means they
are taking care of children before they need the emergency care,
because their illness, their throat infections, ear infections, other
infections have been addressed in preventive care, so they do not have
to go to the emergency room.
What is the result of the emergency room visit when the child gets a
great deal sicker? More often than not, the parents cannot afford to
pay the bills. Or if the bills are there, they are out of sight. So the
costs, in terms of the health care system, are dramatically enhanced
when the children go to the emergency room. The costs, in terms of the
parents' anxiety, are dramatically enhanced when the children have to
go to the emergency room.
Last night, there were millions of parents who were wondering, when
they were listening to their child cry in the night, whether that child
was $150 or $250 sick, because that is what the cost was going to be in
an emergency room. Maybe I will wait it out. Maybe I am making the
minimum wage. Can I afford to dig deeper and pay those $250? So I am
going to let my child remain without being taken care of during the
night, to see if that child gets better, rather than having the
preventive care. It is a moral issue, a defining moral issue, a
priority issue, a moral issue for this country.
So that is the evaluation of the administration, the statement of the
President. We can understand why the administration has come up with
that kind of--those results, because of the extraordinary reduction in
the uninsured rate for children.
If you look, going back to 1997, almost 25 percent of all children
had no coverage. Look at this red line going down over the years as the
CHIP program is reaching out through the States. This was worked out in
these careful negotiations, which Senator Hatch was also involved in,
to make sure it was going to be a State program, State-run, State
priorities, States establishing the deductibles, the copays, States
making the judgments about those items, States setting up the whole
program. It is going to be effectively a private insurance program.
That is what confuses me about the administration talking about a
Government-run program. This is effectively a State-run program built
upon private insurance.
The delivery system is very much like the administration favored with
the prescription drug program. So we see this dramatic reduction in
terms of children.
Now, what has been the reaction? This, for example, is one of the
blessings of this program. Not only are the
[[Page S12191]]
children healthier with the CHIP program--this is an evaluation of how
the child does in class. Not only are we getting a healthier child. We
are getting a more attentive child. We are all challenged here, and
certainly we are in our education committee, as we are looking out
across at the various education programs how we are going to try to
deal with children improving in terms of their attention and also
keeping up with the school activities.
This last week, the Secretary of Education announced the improvement
of children in what they call the NAPE test, children are improving. I
am so proud of Massachusetts being the No. 1 State, in terms of the
results. That is basically because the State got started on many of
these reforms before the Congress did.
But there is no question in my mind that a principal part of the
improvement of children doing well academically is as a result of the
CHIP program.
This is the proof: paying attention in class, from 34 percent to 57
percent; keeping up with school activities, from 36 to 61 percent. It
is understandable. If children can't see the blackboard, if they can't
hear the teacher, if they are sick, they are not going to learn. If
they are healthy, they can learn. It is pretty fundamental, but
evidently there are some who haven't learned the lesson.
We are constantly challenged, if we are going to be one country with
one history and one destiny, about moving along together, moving all
the children--White, Black, Hispanic--together. Before CHIP, you had
important unmet health care needs reflected in disparities between the
different races. Once we had the CHIP program put in place for the
children, we effectively saw an important improvement in the health of
children, and all the children moved along together.
This is for a typical disease. We chose asthma because it has been a
disease which has been expanding over time, unquestionably, because of
the relaxation of a variety of different environmental requirements and
standards. In other illnesses and diseases, it is going down. The
challenge with children with asthma is it has actually been going up.
But even if the totality is going up, look what happens with these
children with asthma as a result of the CHIP program. The number of
children who are getting their health needs taken care of dramatically
increased. Emergency visits were dramatically down, and
hospitalizations were dramatically down. This reflects itself in not
only healthier children but in savings.
This is basically a matter of priorities. This is a sound program. It
is an effective program. It is one the President endorsed a few years
ago. It has been tested, tried. The evaluation of the program has been
that it is a great success. Now we have the opportunity to express once
again the issue of priorities here in the Senate. What are going to be
the priorities for this body? What do they think is really important in
this country at this time? The CHIP program reauthorization, $35
billion? That isn't being paid by taxpayers or middle-income families
or working families unless they smoke because this is going to be
offset completely by those who are going to smoke. As we have pointed
out earlier, that has a double positive value. We are not going to put
an additional burden on ordinary taxpayers. But with the increased cost
of cigarettes and tobacco, it is going to mean less use of tobacco by
children and children are going to be healthier. So not only is the
fundamental legislation a demonstration in improving health care, but
the remedy and how we do that is also adding an additional dimension to
the quality of health for children. More than 3,000 children start
smoking every single day, and 1,200 of them become effectively addicted
every single day. We can do something about this and, eventually, when
we pass this legislation and we pass our other tobacco legislation that
we have reported out of our committee, we will get a handle on
protecting children from addiction to nicotine.
This is over a 5-year period, $35 billion; 1 year in Iraq, $120
billion--almost four times in 1 year what this is in 5 years. Don't we
think we ought to be looking after the children in the United States?
This is where it is, Mr. President. We have a choice to express
ourselves. The President says: No, we are not going to have this for
the children; yes, we are going to have this. Many of us believe that
investing in the children in this country is where we ought to be
invested and we ought to end the conflict and end this war.
That chart could be expressed in another way of what we are spending
as, again, a matter of priorities, what we are spending per day--$333
million in Iraq versus $19 million nationwide on the children. So when
the time comes, we have a very clear choice in terms of the Nation's
priority.
Finally, this is a statement by Dedra Lewis, mother of Alexsiana, a
child covered by CHIP from my State:
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.
One parent, one child, one piece of legislation that can make all the
difference in the world.
When we have a chance to vote, we will be voting for this
legislation, and we will be asking ourselves, why aren't we doing more
to help the children?
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is
recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as usual, I appreciate the comments of the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, when we are on the same
wavelength. On this one, we are. I have to say that the original CHIP
bill that virtually everybody acclaims as an excellent piece of
legislation that has helped millions of children from working poor
families, the only children left out of the process, wouldn't have come
to pass except for the support of the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts. We both took a lot of flak during those early months
when we were trying to solve this problem of the working-poor children.
I had two Provo, UT, families come in to see me. Both parents in each
family worked. Each family had six children. Neither family, with both
incomes, had more than $20,000 a year in total gross income. They
clearly could not afford child health insurance. CHIP was the only
answer to their plight. They were the only people left out of the
process. They worked. They did the best they could.
I remember when the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and I
sat down together. We are from two opposite poles in many respects,
although he doesn't realize that he is a lot more conservative than he
thinks. He thinks I may be a lot more liberal than I think. But when
Kennedy and Hatch can get together, people around here say: Well, if
they can get together, anybody can. People tend to get out of the way
because they know it took a lot of effort for us to come together.
But the original CHIP bill could not have occurred but for my
distinguished friend from Massachusetts and the work he did. Even
though that hasn't been broadcast very much in the current debate, it
is true. In the current debate, we wouldn't be as far along if it had
not been for the efforts of the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts.
There are two sides to this. Yes, there is a legitimate side in
opposition to having CHIP be $35 billion above the baseline of $25
billion. That argument is that we are growing this program too fast and
we are putting too many people in it who were not originally supposed
to be in it. The fact is, when we wrote the original CHIP bill, we
provided for a system of waivers because we were afraid we didn't cover
some things that should be covered. What really bothers me is that the
people complaining about CHIP costing so much today in this
administration, my administration, are the ones who gave 14--well, the
tail end of the Clinton administration but primarily this
administration--waivers to allow this program to go to many more people
than we had originally intended. In fact, two States have more adults
on the program than they do children. That has caused a lot of angst. A
several States are way over the 200 percent of poverty--one state even
covers families with incomes up to 350% of poverty.
Let's put it this way: The opponents seem to ignore the fact that
this bill covers 92 percent of kids who are under 200 percent of
poverty. Yes, there is 8 or 9 percent who may be above but the
[[Page S12192]]
vast majority of them have lived with this program. We found that even
with the moneys that we had in the original CHIP bill, which happened
to be $40 billion over the last 10 years--that it wasn't enough to put
all of the kids who were eligible on the program.
One of the higher costs we found has been documented by CBO. We rely
on CBO around here. CBO said that the high costs come from trying to
locate the kids to get them in the program so they have a shot at being
healthy, so that they are not liabilities for society as a whole when
they get older.
This program is very important. We fought hard to keep the program
within the $60 billion--$25 billion baseline and $35 billion above the
baseline, for a total of $60 billion. At first, those in the House
wanted $100 billion. Then they came down to $75 billion. Finally, to
their credit, they acknowledged that we were not going to do any better
than $35 billion over the baseline, and Senator Grassley and I had to
stick with that, with the hope that the administration would recognize
how hard we had worked, how important this program is, this program
which they themselves would like to reauthorize, and how difficult it
is to get the additional 6 million eligible kids on CHIP. To be honest
with you, it proved to not be enough as far as federal funding was
concerned. And, we lost out on a lot of kids who should have had
coverage through this program.
Through this bill, what we are trying to do is cover the kids who
should be on the program. They are basically kids of the working poor.
We did add pregnant women because we thought that since this involves
children and it is so important to have good prenatal care and
postnatal care for the health and well-being of those children, that is
a logical thing to do.
Really what bothers me about the arguments on the other side--there
are legitimate arguments, there always are on both sides--is that we
spend about $1.9 trillion on health care in our society today each
year. About $1 trillion of it is in the private sector, and about $900
billion is in the public sector. We are asking for $60 billion out of
$1.9 trillion to help the kids who are left out of the program. The CBO
says even at that, we will not put enough money into this program.
Then we have the argument: This is leading to one-size-fits-all
Government-mandated, socialized medicine health care. I think you could
make that argument on anything we do in health care around here that
involves Government. But on the other hand, I don't want to leave these
kids high and dry, either. So it is very important that we get this
straight and do what is right.
I have appreciated the remarks of the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts. Many on his side don't care to ever ask where is the
money going to come from to pay for these things. On the other hand, in
a $1.9 trillion budget, it seems to me $60 billion is not too much,
especially since we are covering kids who should be covered who weren't
covered in a program that virtually everybody says is important,
virtually everybody says we ought to have, just not as much. And even
with the $60 billion, it is my understanding, according to CBO, we will
not really cover all of the kids we should, but we will cover most,
which is a big improvement over the current program.
I join with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts hoping that
the administration will listen and maybe change its perception. There
are good arguments on both sides. The better argument is to try to do
what we can for these kids; that is, work on an overall comprehensive
health care bill that will save money, have less Government intrusion,
have more private sector development, give people more opportunities of
choice, and give them the choice to bring costs down in the current
system. People of good will on both sides could probably do that if we
really set our minds, if we just don't make this one big political
battle all the time. Unfortunately, it is a political battle over CHIP.
According to some in the administration, I am on the wrong side. I
don't think so. I am on the right side. I believe this has to be done.
Does that mean that I am not willing to modify and work and do what we
can to come up with a comprehensive health care approach that
emphasizes competition and opportunity, that will cover everybody? Of
course not! I would like to get there. This is a bill which does not
necessarily take us away from getting there, but I think some of these
arguments which have been offered have been not very good and not very
accurate.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator let me proceed for 2
minutes? I see the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. HATCH. Of course, and then I think we ought to get in this debate
on hate crimes. I would want to yield to Senator Isakson, and then I
will have my remarks a little later.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from
Utah. I want to say that the 6 million children who today are covered
in all parts of the country, including my State of Massachusetts, would
not be if it was not for the Senator from Utah. There was a very
important insistence that has been sort of lost in this whole
discussion and debate.
At the time we had talked about this program, I was very interested
in expanding the Medicaid Program and moving that up. Medicaid deals
with the very poor. The real question was the working poor for these
programs. Senator Hatch insisted we should not expand the Government
program, that we have to let the States participate and involve
themselves in it. This was a very contentious discussion in the debate
which, eventually, Senator Hatch was successful in winning. Then we
would establish the criteria, at least, of the kinds of services that
were going to be provided within that kind of a program. That was a
very contentious debate, but again Senator Hatch insisted the States
should make the judgments on this program. Then we had the issues about
trying to make sure about the inclusion, having it be more sweeping,
and Senator Hatch stuck by his guns to make sure the States were going
to be the ones that were going to do the outreach and set up this
program.
So those issues--in terms of when we are talking about these cliches
of socialized medicine or Cuban-type of medicine--for those who are
really interested in the philosophical underpinnings of this program,
of why it is different from other programs, if they go back and look
and carefully read the bill, I must say Senator Hatch's position of
insisting that the States be the full partner and be the ones that are
going to have the prime responsibilities has been the fact.
I think to the credit of the Senator from Utah is the fact that so
many of the Governors are in such support of this legislation--not only
Democratic Governors but Republican Governors--because they have seen,
they have both the responsibility and the opportunity to make a
difference for their constituents.
So that is just a small ``factoid'' about the history of the
development of this legislation but one that should not be lost when
people are thinking about whether this is just another kind of a
governmental program. The Senator insisted on principle on a number of
these important philosophical issues, and the Senate, in a bipartisan
way, came together to support the recommendations that eventually were
worked out with members of the Finance Committee and Senator Baucus,
Senator Rockefeller, Senator Chafee, and many other colleagues. But the
underpinnings were from the Senator from Utah. I think history ought to
reflect that. I thank the Senator.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He is accurate on
everything except one thing; that is, the 6 million children whom we
were supposed to cover, we did on an annualized basis, but really only
about 4.5 million were covered fully. I wanted to add that little bit
because it is apparent this program has worked. It is apparent it has
worked well under this administration as well as under the Clinton
administration. It is apparent it has helped millions of kids who
otherwise would not have been helped. It is apparent it has helped the
children of the working poor. But it has not helped all of those who
deserve that help. And, over the long run, if we help them today, it
will save us money and problems in the future.
[[Page S12193]]
Frankly, this is an important debate. I acknowledge there are people
who disagree. There were back then when we first created CHIP. But the
fact is, this is a program which has worked. The administration has
admitted it has worked. The Governors have admitted it has worked.
Maybe it is mired in politics that I wish we were not mired in. My
attitude is, let's think of the kids. If there is a way of improving
it, I am certainly open to that, but we have come a long way, in a
bipartisan way, to get where we are. That is not an easy accomplishment
in a Congress that has been pretty partisan in many respects.
I do not think some have really recognized how difficult it was to
get to where we are and how many concessions both sides have made, in
particular the House. So I think this has been an important part,
maybe, of the debate this morning.
But at this point, how much time would the distinguished Senator from
Georgia want?
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Utah and appreciate the time.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, can I ask how much time the Senator would
desire?
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I would like to speak as in morning
business for about 8 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. No objection.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may I ask a question? I have no
objection, but is this going to be within the time as expressed by the
leader?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It would be time yielded by the
Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Eight minutes, was it?
Mr. ISAKSON. Eight minutes, yes.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from
Georgia.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is
recognized for 8 minutes.
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise today based on an occurrence that took place
last evening that caused me to think a little bit about this body and
our priorities right now at this time.
Two gentlemen from my home community of Cobb County, GA, invited me
to go to dinner with them and about 25 other members of the Cobb
Chamber of Commerce--Mr. Don Beavers, a distinguished retired marine
who now works at the Chamber; and the chairman-elect, Sam Kelly. The
invitation was to talk about their issues. But they did an amazing
thing last night: They called Walter Reed, they called the Army, and
they said they would like to entertain a couple of our wounded warriors
who are being treated as outpatients at Walter Reed hospital.
So last night, I sat at a table at Old Ebbets Grill with citizens
from my community and two distinguished wounded warriors from the 82nd
Airborne Division of the U.S. Army. One had served in Iraq as a sniper
and was injured when an IED exploded on his humvee as he was coming
back from deployment near Baghdad. Since that hit, he has had 12
surgeries, with substantial reconstruction on the entire left side of
his body, from his head to his toe. The other, a special operations
soldier of the 82nd Airborne Division, lost his leg. Both--some time
now, a year after their initial treatment--still take pain killers,
still are in therapy, and still show the scars from their tragic
injuries suffered at the hands of an IED in the case of one, and in the
case of the other, an RPG, a rocket-propelled grenade.
As we sat at the table, I thanked them so much, as all of us do, for
their service to our country and listened to their concerns and
listened to their thoughts and listened to their prayers for the
soldiers they left when they were injured in Iraq.
It occurred to me as we were talking that we are now in the third
week in the Senate--over the third week--of debating the
reauthorization of the Defense bill. Think about that. You sit at
dinner one night with two soldiers who sacrificed limbs and pain and
suffering for you and for me, and we continue to dawdle and get off
track on authorizing or reauthorizing probably the single most
important thing we ought to be doing. I am concerned that the
leadership has decided to take ancillary issues unrelated to defense,
unrelated to our men in the field, unrelated to what is going on in the
world today, and protracting the debate on what is absolutely essential
and needed.
As I sat there and listened to these two wounded warriors, both of
whom suffered from explosive devices that hit their humvee or their
armored personnel carrier, I realized we were still dawdling on the
debate on the authorization of the MRAP; I realized we are dawdling on
the debate in terms of the pay raise for our soldiers; I realized, as
meritorious as some of the amendments we are discussing may well be,
they all pale in comparison to the 170,000 men and women deployed right
now in Iraq fighting on our behalf.
Now, there are differences of opinion on the war in the Senate, and I
respect that. This is the body and this is the place where those
differences should be debated and be debated thoroughly. But I want to
jog everybody's memory for a second. It was May when we did the
emergency supplemental that we spent not 1 week but 2 weeks on, not
debating the supplemental but debating whether we should withdraw or
set dates certain or leave Iraq. We had numerous votes--none of them
successful--on setting a date certain. Finally, as Memorial Day
approached, we decided to pass on the money so needed to support our
troops. Then, 60 days later, in the middle of July, pressing before the
August break, another bill came up, and once again we redebated all the
same issues with regard to dates certain, with regard to withdrawal,
even one with regard to defunding the military operations in the war on
terror and the battle in Iraq.
Now here we are, 2 months later, in the third week of a Defense
authorization bill, and we have already had these same debates once
again, and the votes have not changed except they have lost by a little
bit more than they lost in July. Yet, all over the country, and last
night at Old Ebbets Grill, Americans are sitting down with their sons
and daughters, who fought in harm's way and have come back, many of
them wounded and harmed, and how do you explain to them it takes 3
weeks to debate the reauthorization of their pay or 3 weeks to debate
the reauthorization of MRAP that just might have prevented the very
injuries those two soldiers I sat with last night incurred?
So I think it is important that we set priorities. It is very
important, I am sure, to the Senator from Massachusetts to discuss hate
crimes legislation. I understand that. But in setting priorities, is it
right to take something such as hate crimes--which already exists in 45
States, already exists in the Federal law in terms of race and
religion--and get all off track on MRAP and reauthorizing the pay of
our troops and an increase? Is that right? Is that setting the right
priority? Is it important for us to do that?
Is it important for us to do some of the things that have happened
over the last 3 weeks? In fact, to give a little report card, because I
have been intimately involved in amendments on this bill, this Senate,
in 3 weeks of debate, has passed en bloc 34 amendments to this bill--
all technical, none requiring debate, one of them mine. It would seem
that instead of having all the debate about ancillary subjects or about
recirculating amendments that twice before on the floor of the Senate,
within 6 months, have failed, it is about time we got our priorities
straight. It is about time we authorize the Department of Defense. It
is about time we get to the pay raise for our soldiers. It is about
time we get to the MRAP that Republicans and Democrats--the Senator
from Delaware, Mr. Biden, and all of us--have worked so hard on.
It is about time we set our priorities and get them straight.
Whatever the merit of other issues may be, if they are unrelated to the
Department of Defense reauthorization, they can wait until another day
because every day our sons and our daughters are deployed for you and
for me in harm's way. We can differ on the war, and I respect that, but
there should not be a difference on the funding of our men and women
deployed in the Middle East.
I, for one, call on the leadership for us to get back to the business
we are called on to do. Let's complete the DOD authorization without
any other dilatory tactics or any other ancillary amendments, other
than those that relate to the Department of Defense.
[[Page S12194]]
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Forty minutes on each side.
Mr. KENNEDY. On each side. Good.
Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes, and the Chair will notify me
when that time has expired.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we mentioned at the opening this
morning, there are going to be two major decisions by the Senate this
morning: one on dealing with the children's health issue, which we have
had a good discussion of here this morning, and the other issue on the
hate crimes legislation, which we have been attempting to realize for a
period of some 10 years.
This is not a new issue to the Defense authorization legislation. We
have passed it by more than 60 votes on the last occasion we had it. We
passed it by a majority on other occasions. So for those who sort of
suggest it is not appropriate that we deal with this, the majority--
Republicans and Democrats alike--have overwhelmingly supported the
legislation. But it has been a strong minority that has resisted it and
refused to let it move on into law. We finally are at a time and a
place and a judgment where the House of Representatives now has moved
in favor of the legislation. We have an opportunity today to do it. We
haven't taken an unreasonable period of time.
The application of this legislation and why it should be here is a
very simple and basic and fundamental one; that is, what the Defense
authorization bill is about--dealing with the challenges of terrorism
overseas and the support that our men and women ought to get in dealing
with terrorism overseas. This is about terrorism in our neighborhoods--
terrorism in our neighborhoods--and making sure we are going to fight
it. We can talk about having the MRAP, which I support, in the Defense
authorization bill. We are fighting overseas with all of our weapons.
We want to fight terrorism at home with all of our weapons.
We want to be able to have a value system that is worthy for our
brave men and women to defend. They are fighting overseas for our
values. One of the values is that you should not, in this country, in
this democracy, permit the kind of hatred and bigotry that has stained
the history of this Nation over a very considerable period of time. We
should not tolerate it. We keep faith with those men and women who are
serving overseas when we battle that hatred and bigotry and prejudice
at home. So we are taking a few minutes in the morning to have this
debate and discussion.
I urge my colleagues to join me, Senate majority leader Harry Reid,
Senator Smith, and 31 cosponsors of the Matthew Shepard Act by voting
in favor of cloture and our underlying amendment today. Hate crimes are
domestic terrorism. Like all terrorist acts, they seek to bring fear to
whole communities through violence on a few. Just as we have committed
ourselves to fighting terrorists who strike from abroad, we must make
the same commitment to swift and strong justice against homegrown
terrorists. We have worked hard to ensure that all of our citizens can
live without fear of victimization because of their race, religion, and
their national origin. We have made progress over the years, but we
need stronger tools to ensure that all Americans--all Americans--are
protected under the law.
Hate crimes challenge us to recognize the dignity of each individual
at the most basic level. When victims are selected for violence because
of who they are--because of the color of their skin or sexual
orientation--it is a crime that wounds all of us. Each person's life is
valuable, and even one life lost is too many. No member of our
society--no one--should be the victim of hate crimes. Today we can send
a message that no one--no one--should be a victim of a hate crime
because of their disability, their sexual orientation, their gender, or
gender identity.
Hate crimes are especially heinous because they deny the dignity, the
humanity, and the worth of whole segments of our society. They inflict
terror not only on the immediate victims but on all their families,
their societies, and, in some cases, an entire Nation. A hate crime
against one member of another group shouts to the other members: You
are next. You better watch your step when you leave your home, when you
go to work, when you travel. This is domestic terrorism, plain and
simple, and it is unacceptable as an assault from our enemies abroad
who hate us just as irrationally.
At bottom, hate crimes strike out at our most fundamental, moral
values. They deny the teaching that we are all--even those viewed as
outcasts among us--members of the human family. They seek to divide
that family by labeling some so unworthy that they should become
objects of violence. They reject our great national motto, ``E pluribus
unum''--out of many, one. Instead, hate crimes seek to divide us, to
reject whole communities by terrorizing their members.
Centuries ago, Blackstone wrote:
It is but reasonable that among crimes of different
natures, those should be most severely punished which are the
most destructive of the public safety and happiness.
Hate-motivated crimes are the most destructive of the public safety
and happiness and should be punished more severely than other crimes.
That is why over 1,400--1,400--clergy from across the spectrum of
religious traditions have come together to support the Matthew Shepherd
Act. They write:
Although we come from diverse faith backgrounds, our
traditions and our sacred texts are united in condemning hate
and violence. As religious leaders, we are on the front lines
dealing with the devastating effects of hate-motivated
violence. Our faith traditions teach us to love our neighbor,
and while we cannot legislate love, it is our moral duty to
protect one another from hatred and violence.
These leaders of America's religious communities have called on
Congress to stand united against the oppression imposed by violence
based on personal characteristics and to work together to create a
society in which diverse people are safe as well as free.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 more minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, The Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan
advocacy organization representing 75 different religions, said hate
crimes are an assault upon ``the belief that lies at the core of our
diverse faith traditions--that every human being is endowed with
dignity and worth.''
This is what The Interfaith Alliance said:
Hate crimes are an assault upon the belief that lies at the
core of our diverse faith traditions--that every human being
is endowed with dignity and worth.
Dignity and worth.
The simple fact is, hate crimes are different and more destructive
than other crimes. As my friend, Senator Hatch, stated during our
debate in 2000:
Crimes of animus are more likely to provoke retaliatory
crimes; they inflict deep, lasting and distinct injuries--
some of which never heal--on victims and their family
members; they incite community unrest and, ultimately, they
are downright un-American.
The Federal Government has a responsibility to send a clear and
unambiguous message that hate-motivated violence in any form, from any
source, will not be tolerated. Hate crime perpetrators use violence to
dehumanize and diminish their victims. This legislation fights back by
reinforcing this country's founding ideals of liberty and justice
for all.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are fighting for freedom and
liberty. They are on the front lines fighting against hate. We are
united in our effort to root out the cells of hatred around the world.
We should not turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism at home.
We owe it to our troops to uphold those same principles at home. We
should not shrink now from our role as a beacon of liberty to the rest
of the world. When the Senate approves this amendment, we will send a
message about freedom and equality that will resonate around the world.
If America is to live up to its founding ideals of liberty and
justice for all, combating hate crimes must be a national priority. Now
is the time for
[[Page S12195]]
Congress to speak with one voice, insisting that all Americans will be
guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. We must pay more than
lipservice to this core principle of our democracy, and we must give
those words practical meaning in our modern society. No American should
feel they are second-class citizens because Congress refuses to protect
them against hate crimes.
Far too many times, hate crimes have shocked the conscience of the
country. Tolerance in America still faces a serious challenge, and we
must have the courage to act. As the Reverend Sockman said:
The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The
test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.
Most of us in this Chamber have lived our lives in the majority, and
it is time for us to recognize the courage of those who have lived
their lives in the minority and stand up for tolerance. When bigotry
exists in America, each of us is diminished. Injustice inflicted on any
among us is injustice against us all.
As Leviticus commands us:
You may not stand idly by when your neighbor's blood is
being shed.
For too long, the Federal Government has been forced to fight this
injustice with one hand tied behind its back. We know some crimes are
motivated by a desire to harm whole communities. It is time those
crimes were punished in a manner that is equal to their
destructiveness.
The President has threatened to veto this legislation if it comes to
his desk, but I urge my fellow Senators to display the same kind of
courage that came from David Ritcheson, the victim of a brutal hate
crime that scarred him both physically and mentally. Rather than living
in fear, David bravely came before the House Judiciary Committee and
courageously--courageously--described the horrific attack against him
the year before.
We should fight to protect the rights of our fellow citizens such as
David and not let a veto threat stop us from doing the right thing.
With both the Senate and the House moving forward on this legislation,
I hope the President will hear our call and that he, too, will support
this much-needed measure.
Nobel Prize laureate Elie Wiesel said:
Indifference is always the friend of the enemy--
Indifference is always the friend of the enemy--for it
benefits the aggressor, never the victim, whose pain is
magnified when he or she is forgotten.
Today, we can take a strong stand against indifference and
intolerance.
Dr. King reminded us all that ``our lives begin to end the day we
become silent against the things that matter.'' Today, this body has a
chance to break the silence. It has the chance to speak with one voice
in support of the value of every individual in our society. Join me and
my colleagues in breaking the silence. Make the fight to end violence
driven by bigotry the high national priority that it should be. Now is
the time because, as Reverend Martin Luther King reminded us:
The time is always right to do what is right.
Now is the time for Congress to speak with one voice and insist that
all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protections of the law. I
urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time does each side have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 40 minutes the Senator
from Utah controls and about 25\1/2\ minutes for the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to
the distinguished Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the great passion and sincerity
with which our colleague from Massachusetts brings to this subject, but
there is a time and a place for everything, and this is not the time--
16 days into the Defense authorization bill which should have been
finished a long time ago--to inject extraneous matters and matters
which, as I will explain, have been poorly thought out and not
completely aired by the Members of Congress.
A few blocks from here is the United States Supreme Court building,
and above the entry to that building reads the motto ``Equal Justice
Under The Law.'' Equal justice under the law. Too many people have
sacrificed too much for too long to make sure that guarantee of equal
justice under the law is a reality for Congress to continue down the
path to treat some crimes unequal from others.
Every civilized Nation recognizes that all people deserve equal
protection from criminal attacks. Unfortunately, there are some who
reject that notion. But they are brought before the bar of justice,
tried, many convicted, and many punished according to the laws we have
on our books at the State level and, yes, even at the Federal level. I
fear by trying to inject this extraneous matter on to a Defense
authorization bill without adequate time for deliberation and
discussion and inquiry, that Congress and the Senate in particular are
being asked to pass on legislation without full knowledge of the
consequences of the legislation.
For example, under current Federal law, an individual who violates
current Federal hate crimes law can be given the death penalty by a
jury in appropriate circumstances. Under this legislation the Senate is
being asked to vote on today, the death penalty is not available for
violating this particular amendment or this particular legislative
language.
Thus, James Byrd's killers were convicted under State law, and
according to a jury verdict, after exhausting all appellate remedies,
were ultimately executed. If the same individuals committing those
heinous acts back then were charged by a Federal prosecutor under this
bill, they could not be given the death penalty by the jury. That is
only one example of how this particular provision has not been
thoroughly thought out or the consequences thoroughly vetted.
I will be very clear. I don't support this legislation on the merits
because I do believe in equal justice under the law. I believe
individuals ought to be treated as individuals and not as members of
groups, and that all human beings are entitled to the dignity God gave
them by creating them, and they all ought to come equally before the
bar of justice when they are accused of crimes and be given equal
justice under the law. It is a mistake, in my judgment, to begin to
treat people unequally based on the same conduct because of notions
that some crimes are simply more despicable than others based upon the
individual against whom they are perpetrated.
All crimes of violence are crimes of hate. All ought to be judged
according to the same criteria. All ought to be subject to the same
range of punishments given to juries able to convict people based on
evidence in court, not based on a politically correct notion that some
crimes are more heinous than others. All crimes of violence are heinous
and all ought to be punished equally under the law.
The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has alluded to the
threat of a Presidential veto of this legislation if this amendment is
passed, thus, making one of my points, that by introducing this
amendment on the Defense authorization bill, the sponsors of this
amendment are jeopardizing our ability to pass a Defense authorization
bill.
It is worth recounting what it is the Defense authorization bill
provides and what they are putting in jeopardy by insisting on this
extraneous amendment at this time: a pay raise of 3 percent; the
authority to pay bonuses as special pay for enlistment and
reenlistment; flight pay; various medical and dental benefits; nuclear
incentive pay; an authorization for an additional 13,000 active-duty
soldiers and 9,000 active-duty marines.
In the Boston Globe of September 27, 2007, the Army's top officer,
General Casey, said what we all know, which is that the military has
been stretched too thin. We know, based on the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator from Virginia, Senator Webb, these are concerns
we all share about the lengthy deployments of our troops because we
don't have enough men and women in uniform, particularly in the Marines
and members of the U.S. Army; and this bill, which this amendment puts
in jeopardy, expands the end strength of the Army to reduce that stress
and strain on our volunteer military and their families. We should not
put it in jeopardy.
This bill also authorizes an additional $4 billion for the MRAPs. To
recall, the MRAPs are the mine resistant ambush protected vehicles that
are specially constructed vehicles devised
[[Page S12196]]
to defeat IEDs and save the lives and limbs of U.S. soldiers. Why in
the world, in order to add extraneous legislation that has nothing to
do with national security, would the advocates of this amendment
jeopardize the ability to pass this Defense authorization bill, which
is so important to our men and women in uniform? It is one thing to
claim we support our military members; it is another thing to act on
that stated conviction.
Have no doubt about it, this amendment has nothing to do with our
military. There are remedies in place under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice if, in fact, there is an attempt to link this to the
military somehow. I think that is a spurious claim. There are a myriad
of laws, since 1968 under the Federal United States Code itself,
dealing with hate crimes. As I mentioned, this bill, because it has
been brought in haste on this legislation without an opportunity for
calm deliberation and investigation and understanding by Members,
actually dilutes some of the penalties currently available under
Federal law if, in fact, the same conduct were indicted or charged
under this amendment if it were to become law. Why in the world would
the advocates of this legislation want to dilute the punishment that is
potentially available to the jury in admittedly heinous crimes?
It would be a mistake, and a mistake made out of haste. We should not
indulge the desire to pass this legislation, no matter how sincere it
is, in haste and without the kind of calm deliberation that will allow
the Members of the Senate to understand what they are voting on and
what we are doing. We should not jeopardize passing the Defense
authorization bill, which contains the essential protections and
benefits for our military members by loading it down with this
extraneous amendment; or as the Senator from Illinois said, he wants to
add an amendment relating to immigration. We know that will only spawn
other amendments and burden this bill down so it will never pass. That
would be a travesty.
Instead of engaging in these ill-considered attempts to burden this
important legislation with extraneous amendments, we ought to be doing
the rest of our work. Why are we going to have to pass a continuing
resolution to keep the Federal Government open before we leave this
week? It is because none of the appropriation bills that are to pay for
the Federal Government to keep the Federal Government open have cleared
the Congress and gone to the President to be signed. We are simply not
taking care of the people's business when we engage in rabbit trails
such as this amendment calls for.
I don't doubt the sincerity of the sponsors of this amendment. I
disagree with them on adding this amendment to this important
legislation for the reasons I have stated. I even disagree with them
that some crimes ought to be treated or punished unequally than others
based upon a membership in a particular group that can be identified,
as I have described. So I don't doubt their sincerity; I just disagree
with them. But we ought to have this debate at a time when we can focus
our efforts, after a hearing and due deliberation, and after adequate
consideration about the merits of the particular proposal, as we
ordinarily do--not add it on 16 days after we have started the Defense
authorization bill that has taken too long, jeopardizing our ability to
add to the end strength and relieve the stress of our men and women in
uniform and their families, and make sure they get the dignified
treatment of the Wounded Warriors Act, which is part of this underlying
Defense authorization bill, so we can deal with the concerns expressed
again in the GAO report, which said the reforms we all want to come
quickly are coming far too slowly when it comes to cutting the redtape
and making sure our wounded warriors not only get the medical care they
deserve, but get to move through the Department of Defense health care
system and Veterans Affairs system in a way that lightens their load
and not burdens them further.
I think it is a mistake to consider this amendment at this time and
in this way--a way that jeopardizes this important legislation. It has
nothing--zero--to do with the Defense authorization bill.
Whatever the merits of the amendment may be, I encourage the majority
leader to give the proponents of this amendment an opportunity to
present it at another time when we don't place in jeopardy these
important benefits and relief designed to help our men and women in
uniform during a time of war. We are at war. Why in the world would we
be engaged in these rabbit trails on extraneous topics when we ought to
be providing our men and women in uniform the relief they deserve and
so urgently need.
I hope my colleagues will vote against cloture on this amendment, no
matter how good the intentions may be. I disagree that it belongs on
this bill. I disagree that we should jeopardize this important
legislation with extraneous matters such as immigration amendments, or
hate crimes amendments, or anything else that doesn't have to do with
helping our men and women in uniform during a time of war.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to my friend from
Texas. We have spent more time in quorum calls around here over these
last few days. We spent a good deal of time on a poster--expressing the
will of the Senate on various posters. We spent hours on those issues.
Talk about delaying paying for the troops. I didn't hear those
arguments when we were trying to uparmor HMMWVs last year. So I have
difficulty in giving a lot of focus and attention to it.
Quite frankly, I imagine the Senator is talking about the DREAM Act,
which will permit children who have been in this country for 5 years--
brought in by their parents through no fault of their own--that we
either permit them to go through an education or join the military--
join the military. That has something to do with the Defense
authorization bill--when we find out that many units are not being kept
up to speed. So we will move ahead.
How much time do I have, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator has 24 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, like Senator Kennedy, I feel it appropriate
to respond very respectfully to a dear friend of mine from Texas. I
have great affection for him. I have only been in this body for 11
years. For 11 years, I have been working on this piece of legislation.
For 11 years, it has often been put on the Defense authorization bill--
passed several times by the Senate. You might wonder why is it
appropriate to put on the Defense authorization bill. Let me put a
human face on it. This photo depicts a Navy seaman who was a gay man
serving lawfully under ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Somehow it was
discovered that he was a gay man. He was beaten to death so brutally
that his mother was only able to recognize his body because of a tattoo
that she was able to recognize.
The U.S. military is not immune from hate crimes. It is utterly and
entirely appropriate that this be on the Defense authorization bill--if
not for this man's reason, for the fact that we are engaged in a war on
terrorism, utilizing our U.S. military. They are fighting terrorism
abroad. Surely we have the stuff in the Senate to fight terrorism at
home and within the military. If you need a human face for why this is
entirely appropriate, look at Allen Schindler, whose mother was only
able to identify him because of a tattoo she knew he had.
In terms of doing this in haste, I am not on the Judiciary Committee,
but I know there have been many hearings in Congress after Congress and
debates in the past 11 years in which I have participated. This is not
done in haste. This is done thoughtfully and deliberately in Senate
fashion. I don't think that charge sticks, and I think it is high time
we pass this legislation and that we fight terrorism at home and abroad
and even within the military.
I have made it a practice, since becoming aware that the Federal
Government did not have a backstop law to State law, of a need to have
the Federal Government to have authority to show up to work, to be able
to be a backstop to State and local law--not preempt them but to help
them and to let Americans know that at every level
[[Page S12197]]
of their Government, we care about public safety, we care about
fighting terrorism.
Some will say this law is symbolism, it will not do anything. Ever
since the Ten Commandments came down off Mount Sinai, the law has also
been a teacher. We all fall short of the law. But the truth of the
matter is, it does set a societal standard. I believe the Federal
Government should join the States in setting this standard so this law
can go from symbol to substance because it can, over time, change
hearts and minds.
When one does what I have done, and that is enter into the
Congressional Record a hate crime committed in the United States almost
every day I have served in the Senate, I think it is apparent we have a
problem, and I think it is apparent the Federal Government ought to
have a role.
This law, symbolic as it is, can change hearts and minds and can be
real substance. We are neglecting our role in this fight against hatred
at home in living up to our national motto: ``E Pluribus Unum''; out of
many one.
So irrespective of one's race, religion, sexual orientation, gender,
we get equal protection under the law, and this is a glaring omission
in the standard of equal protection, as I see it.
When I went to law school, I learned that to establish a crime, one
of the first elements you have to determine is motive and intent. Some
have said this is thought speech. The truth is, no thoughts are
punished here. There is nothing in this amendment that prevents one
from saying and thinking anything. The first amendment is unaffected by
this legislation. But what this says is, if you think it, you speak it,
and you act on it, you come under the jurisdiction of local, State, and
I hope Federal hate crimes laws.
It is an element in a crime. Some argue it is unconstitutional. This
very issue, as it related to sexual orientation in a Wisconsin case,
was tried all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. A unanimous decision
was written affirming the inclusion of sexual orientation and the
constitutionality of the Wisconsin State law. I have it in my hand. It
is called Wisconsin v. Mitchell. It was written by William Rehnquist,
not exactly a liberal, who made it very clear that hate crimes laws are
constitutional because it goes to action, criminal behavior, and the
speech, the thought, all of those are mere elements in proving a crime.
Many of my brothers and sisters in the religious community are now
saying on national television even that this will limit the free
exercise of religion, it will limit their ability to preach and
interpret the Bible any way they want. If it did that, I would not be
here. But if it did that, they would already be in jail because most
States in the United States already have these laws. They are
constitutional. They go to the elements of establishing the commission
of a crime.
It is high time we passed this legislation. We have passed it as a
Senate many times. We now have an opportunity to get it to the next
step. I hope and pray the President does not veto it. We are not doing
this in haste. We are not doing this because it is inappropriate on the
Defense authorization bill. We are doing it because it is high time the
Federal Government be able to show up to work in rural places such as
Laramie, WY, where this young man was brutally beaten to death. This is
Matthew Shepard. Matthew's mother Judy is a friend of mine. The sheriff
in Laramie, WY, is one of the individuals who persuaded me they needed
the help of the Federal Government. They were overwhelmed with what
happened in the case of this young man, a 21-year-old college student
whose life was taken on this lonely fence.
His life was taken not because they wanted his money or they wanted
something else from him. They knew he was gay, and they beat him and
left him to die on this fence in Wyoming.
With Matthew's mother's permission, Senator Kennedy and I have named
this amendment the Matthew Shepard Act. What happened to Matthew should
happen to no one, no matter their religion, no matter their race, no
matter their ethnicity, no matter their sexual orientation, because in
the public square, we are all imperfect people. In the public square,
we have a duty to provide public safety for all Americans, no matter
their transgressions or whatever we think of their lifestyles.
This is a glaring omission in Federal law. I hope we are about to
right it, and I hope as we do, we will remember the sacrifice and the
commitment and the advocacy of Judy Shepard on behalf of her son and
his memory. Let us enshrine this act in his name in our law because it
is the right thing to do, and it is about time we do it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Who yields time?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will take a few seconds, and then I will
yield to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
To be honest with you, I don't think anybody differs with about 90
percent of what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts or the
distinguished Senator from Oregon have said, but it needs to be pointed
out that in every case they have cited, State law took care of it and
took care of it stronger than this bill will take care of it.
Frankly, whether it is Matthew Shepard or whether it is Byrd or
whether it is the other case the distinguished Senator from Oregon
mentioned, there is no need to federalize these crimes because they are
being taken care of.
I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, before my colleague from Oregon leaves, I
don't think there is anybody in this body who is more respected than
Senator Gordon Smith. He is a very sincere, thoughtful guy who tries to
personalize issues that affect people throughout this country. I know
he is motivated by all the right reasons, but somebody needs to talk
about the politics.
This legislation has been placed on the Defense authorization bill in
the past. It never made it out of conference because we knew, with the
makeup of the conference, the amendment would fall. Given the makeup of
this conference, the amendment will be part of the bill and it is going
to be vetoed. That is the politics. Whether one agrees with President
Bush, he said he is going to veto this bill, and if I were him, I would
as Commander in Chief. I would not buy into this way of legislating.
Another reason for this amendment, if you think there is a gap in
military law that without this kind of amendment the military is not
going to prosecute people who act on their prejudices, you are wrong.
If someone in uniform commits a crime against a civilian or another
person in uniform, I don't care why they did it; if they beat somebody
up, hurt somebody, they are going to get prosecuted. That is the way
the military law works.
We are not doing the military a favor by passing this legislation
because there is no problem in the military in terms of how justice is
administered. Whatever motivates you to hurt someone or to take the law
in your own hands or act on your prejudices, you are going to be dealt
with because we cannot have good order and discipline in the military
when people can hurt someone based on their individual prejudice
because the whole unit falls apart. This is nothing the military needs.
They are going to take care of violence in the ranks based on the law
they already have.
I can assure my colleagues that no one in the military gets a pass
because of the status of their victim. If you engage in violent
conduct, inappropriate behavior, illegal behavior, the law is going to
come down on your head because we need good order and discipline.
The politics of this amendment is that this bill will get vetoed. The
President is not going to agree to this social legislation on the
Defense authorization bill, and we have to take responsibility for that
action. Whether one agrees with him or not, we are going to put in
jeopardy items the military does need. They don't need a hate crimes
bill to make it an effective fighting force. We already have
disciplinary tools to discipline people. They need pay raises and MRAP
protection, and this bill provides those items.
Members of this body have different views about hate crimes
legislation. We can argue those differences any time, anywhere, on any
other piece of
[[Page S12198]]
legislation. It can be brought up as a freestanding bill. But to put it
on this bill is going to put in jeopardy items our men and women who
are in combat and being shot at need. When I go to Iraq, I don't have a
lot of people coming up to me saying we need to pass a hate crimes
bill. They do need better body armor. They do need pay raises. They do
need better MRAPs.
I think this is a very poor use of the legislative process knowing
the end game. The end game is, we are going to hijack the Defense
authorization bill by legislation not needed in the military, that is
contentious, and that has an opportunity to be debated somewhere else.
I hope reason prevails eventually.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 14
minutes, and the Senator from Utah controls 22 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 5 minutes from the
time of the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering an
amendment to the Department of Defense bill to address crimes that
terrorize entire communities. Violent crimes motivated by prejudice and
hate are tragedies that haunt American history. From the lynchings that
plagued race relations for more than a century to the well-publicized
slayings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., in the 1990s, this is
a story we have heard too often in this country. Unfortunately, in my
home state of Vermont, there have been two recent attacks that appear
to have been motivated by the victims' religion or sexual orientation.
A well-respected State representative in the Vermont Legislature has
not been immune to threats of violence based solely on his sexual
orientation.
I am proud to once again be a cosponsor of this legislation. I would
like to express my appreciation to the Senator from Massachusetts and
the Senator from Oregon for their work on this. I hope that this time
Congress will have the courage to pass it. Six years ago, I made this
bill one of the first major bills to move through the Judiciary
Committee after I became chairman. It passed the Senate in the 106th
Congress and again in the 108th Congress, but Republicans in the House
blocked this important bill each time. In the Democratically led House
of Representatives, the companion bill this year passed by a wide
bipartisan margin. So I am hopeful that this time, Democrats and
Republicans in the Senate will join together finally to enact this
civil rights measure into law.
This hate crimes legislation improves current law by making it easier
for Federal authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes based on
race, color, religion, and national origin. Victims will no longer have
to be engaged in a narrow range of activities, such as serving as a
juror, to be protected under Federal law. This bill also focuses the
attention and resources of the Federal Government on the problem of
hate crimes committed against people because of their sexual
orientation, gender, or disability, which is an important and long
overdue expansion of protection. Finally, this bill provides assistance
and resources to State, local, and tribal law enforcement to address
hate crimes.
The crimes targeted in this bill are particularly pernicious crimes
that affect more than just their victims and their victims' families--
they inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim other
than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. When
James Byrd, Jr., was dragged behind a pickup truck and killed by bigots
in Texas in 1998 for no reason other than his race, many African
Americans throughout our Nation surely felt diminished as citizens.
When Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in Wyoming the same year
because of his sexual orientation, many in the gay and lesbian
community felt less safe on our streets and in their homes. These
crimes promote fear and insecurity that are distinct from the reactions
to other crimes, and we need to take action to enhance their
prosecution.
All Americans have the right to live, travel and gather where they
choose. In the past, we have responded as a Nation to deter and to
punish violent denials of civil rights. We have enacted Federal laws to
protect the civil rights of all of our citizens for nearly 150 years.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act continues that
great and honorable tradition.
This bill will strengthen Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes as a
backup, but not a substitute, for State and local law enforcement.
States will still bear primary responsibility for prosecuting most hate
crimes, which is important to me as a former State prosecutor. In a
sign that this legislation respects the proper balance between Federal
and local authority, it has received strong bipartisan support from
State and local law enforcement organizations across the country.
Moreover, this bill accomplishes a critically important goal--
protecting all of our citizens--without compromising our constitutional
responsibilities. It is a tool for combating acts and threats of
violence motivated by hatred and bigotry. But it does not target pure
speech, however offensive or disagreeable. The Constitution does not
permit us in Congress to prohibit the expression of an idea simply
because we disagree with it. As Justice Holmes wrote, the Constitution
protects not just freedom for the thought and expression we agree with,
but freedom for the thought that we hate. I am devoted to that
principle, and I am confident that this bill does not contradict it.
We have been trying for years to pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate
Crimes Prevention Act. It is appropriate to attach this important
legislation to the pending Department of Defense authorization bill, as
we have done twice in recent memory, because this is a pressing issue.
I hope that we will not see another Republican-led filibuster on what
should be a bipartisan measure.
Adoption of this amendment will show once again that America values
tolerance and protects all of its people. I urge the opponents of this
measure to consider the message it sends when year after year, we are
prevented from enacting this broadly supported bill. The victims of
hate deserve better. Let us join together and adopt these provisions
without further obstruction and delay.
Children's Health Insurance Program
Mr. President, I wish to express again my strong support for the
reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. When we
talk about the work of this Congress, I believe the extension of CHIP
will stand out as one of the great accomplishments of this body. The
bill is a clear statement of the priority of the majority in the
Congress.
In passing this legislation, we state clearly that the health of our
Nation's children is an issue too important to be dealt with in a
``business as usual'' fashion. This is a program that represents the
best of what can happen when Members of both sides of the aisle come
together to forge a consensus, with Democrats and Republicans working
together for that consensus.
The outcome is a solid compromise on a vital issue: more health
insurance coverage for millions of children. The choice is clear.
Either you support children's health care or you do not. Either it
deserves to be a high priority on our agenda or it does not. Frankly,
as a parent, as a grandparent, I don't see this as a choice at all. It
is a matter of priority. Few issues are as important as caring for our
children.
Instead of helping more families who are struggling to afford basic
health care for their children, the President would cut thousands in
Vermont who have coverage right now. He is failing to lead, so Congress
again is stepping in to realign our priorities.
If we can find the money to fund the war in Iraq for 41 days, the
same amount that would pay for 10 million children to have health
insurance for a whole year, then we can pay for this bill. I have heard
some argue the bill should be opposed because it raises taxes on
tobacco--just tobacco. Anyone who opposes this bill on these grounds is
choosing big tobacco over children's health.
I support this bill because I believe it is a travesty that in the
richest, most
[[Page S12199]]
powerful country in the world, there are more than 47 million people
without health insurance. It is an absolutely shocking number. It
represents roughly one in six people who are going without regular
trips to the doctor and foregoing needed medications and who are forced
to use the emergency room for care because they have nowhere else to
turn. These are our friends, our neighbors, and millions of our
children.
My wife, during the years when she worked as a registered nurse, saw
these people and realized what happened to them.
The legislation before us will extend and renew health care coverage
for 10 million children. My own State of Vermont has been a national
leader in children's health care. Even before the creation of CHIP, we
knew this was the right thing to do. Because of our early action,
Vermont has the lowest rates for uninsured children in the country,
making our State a leader and an example for the rest of the Nation.
This bill will bring us still closer to the goal of covering all
children in our State but also to thousands elsewhere.
We are faced with many choices in the Senate. For me, the choice in
this bill is clear. It is a must-pass bill. It is worthy of our
support. I urge all my colleagues to stand for the children of this
country and support this bill, and I urge the President to abandon his
ill-advised threats and to sign it into law. If we can afford the war
in Iraq, we can afford to insure our children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just want to share a few thoughts with
my colleagues on the pending amendment. This hate crimes legislation is
constitutionally dubious and very unusual legislation in the history of
how we do law enforcement in America.
What I want to say to my colleague is that a murder in Utah, a murder
in Massachusetts, a murder in Alabama is not a Federal crime unless
certain other events occur, unless it is related to some other event. A
robbery in any State is not a Federal crime per se. It has to be
robbery of a Federal bank. It has to be robbery of an interstate
shipment or something of that nature. But simple assaults, simple
murders, no matter how grievous, are not Federal crimes. So the Supreme
Court has been cautious about that and has raised questions about it.
Now, with regard to our history of legislating in this area, we have
made Federal civil rights laws applicable to assaults and murders of
people in America on account of their race, and the Supreme Court has
upheld that. One of the fundamental reasons for that is that in many
areas of the country, for many years--truly not so today, I believe,
but in the past, areas such as my area of the country, have not
prosecuted those cases, and there was a historical record of a failure
to effectively prosecute in racial assaults that affected people's
fundamental civil liberties. So that has been upheld. But the
legislation we are talking about today is about picking an area that
people care about and are concerned about and feel deeply about, which
is that people should not be assaulted or abused as a result of their
sexual orientation, and now we want to create a Federal crime wherever
in America such an assault or an illegal activity or murder against
that person occurs. We want to make that a Federal crime.
One of my colleagues said it is a backstop for the Federal
Government. It is not a backstop. I was a Federal prosecutor. Federal
law has priority. So this is a move in that direction.
So the question is, what about the elderly? What about those who are
sick and infirm? What about police officers, if they are murdered? Do
we need the Federal Government to make that a crime also and be able to
prosecute all of those murders throughout the country when we have
never done that historically? It is a big deal from that perspective,
and that is why it is constitutionally suspect.
A State can pass such a law, I will admit. The Federal Government can
pass such a law on Federal property, military bases, and the District
of Columbia. But when the Federal Government reaches into a State that
has no interstate nexus and creates a crime of this kind, I think it
is, first, constitutionally questionable; secondly, not necessarily
good policy because what other kinds of crimes motivated by what other
kinds of malintent are we going to now make a Federal crime?
So Senator Hatch has explicitly and openly and directly delineated
the very aggressive prosecutions we are seeing in States for hate-type
crimes against homosexuals, and he has shown how a number of them have
gotten a death penalty, which this act does not provide for, but State
laws do. We have no record to indicate there is a shortage or a lack of
willingness to prosecute these cases, so I think, under those
circumstances, we ought not to do it.
I also would note it would be a tragic thing indeed if this Defense
bill would be vetoed as a result of this extraneous piece of
controversial legislation.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this has been an interesting exercise, as
far as I am concerned, but I rise to oppose this hate crimes
legislation. This is wrong--hate crimes legislation. Instead, we have
the opportunity to support the prosecution of hate crimes in a
meaningful and a legitimate way that is different from this.
I have said for years in this Chamber that violence motivated by bias
against a particular group is abhorrent. Everybody in this body
believes that. There is no issue here. We believe that. I believe such
conduct must and should be made a crime and punished differently from
other crimes. I know all of my colleagues share my conviction about
hate crimes. But where should that conviction lead us? The conviction
that hate crimes are abhorrent leads me to ask what Congress may
properly do about it. That conviction cannot, however, justify
supporting the wrong legislation.
The Senate has before it today two amendments which represent two
different approaches to the problem of hate crimes. I believe the
amendment offered by my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator
Kennedy, is unwise, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Some would argue
the ends justify the means. They say, if you believe hate crimes are
abhorrent, then you must vote for the Kennedy amendment. That certainly
is not true, and I urge my colleagues to resist that sort of misguided
pressure.
Our obligation is not only to pursue the right goals but to do it in
the right way. The Kennedy amendment would federalize the prosecution
of hate crimes. It would create a new Federal felony, punishable by up
to 10 years in prison, for causing bodily injury to another because of
that person's actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation--gender identity?--or disability.
This amendment is unwise because of how it is drafted and how its
supporters are trying to get it passed. The Senator from Massachusetts
introduced S. 622 in the 106th Congress. He introduced S. 966 in the
108th Congress. He introduced S. 1105 in April. It would prohibit
violence motivated by an additional new category of bias. The amendment
before us today would do the same. That process of adding categories
constituency by constituency and extending the reach of the Federal
hate crimes law could continue indefinitely.
When my colleagues consider whether to support the current Kennedy
amendment, even if they have supported previous versions, they should
know that this amendment before us today is broader than any version of
this legislation ever considered by this body. In its latest iteration,
the Kennedy amendment would prohibit violence motivated by gender,
sexual orientation, and gender identity. Now, there has been no public
discussion about what these terms mean, how they may differ, and
whether they can be applied in anything approaching a consistent and
reasonable way.
But let me address another problem with including the latest new
category--what the Kennedy amendment calls perceived gender identity.
The term ``perceived'' applies to gender identity as it applies to the
other categories, and it refers to the perpetrator's perception. In
other words, the amendment prohibits violence based on
[[Page S12200]]
what the perpetrator perceives to be the victim's gender identity. But
the term ``gender identity'' refers to the victim's perception. Get
that? The term ``gender identity'' refers to the victim's perception.
The online resource Wikipedia defines gender identity as:
Whether one perceives oneself to be a man, a woman, or
describes oneself in some less conventional way.
Now, the contradiction is obvious. The Kennedy amendment would
criminalize violence based on the perpetrator's perception of the
victim's self-perception. Whether or not this is good sociology--and I
don't believe it is--it is bad legislation.
The Kennedy amendment is also unwise in the way its supporters are
trying to get it passed. Even though my good friend from Massachusetts
introduced it as a separate bill, we are here today considering it as
an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. Some justify that by
saying it would also protect members of the military. This measure
would protect those serving in the military as well as everyone it
attempts to cover whether it is attached to this bill or any other bill
on any other subject at any other time. So that is not a good argument.
Its proponents wanted to attach the Kennedy amendment to this
legislative vehicle not because it is relevant to the Defense
authorization bill but because we consider the Defense authorization
bill around here to be what we call a must-pass bill. If the Kennedy
amendment prohibited violence against individuals because of their
status as members of the military, I suppose it might be more relevant
to the Defense bill. But I note that the Kennedy amendment does no such
thing.
The Kennedy amendment does not belong on the Defense authorization
bill, especially when the President has already threatened to veto the
amendment and may have to veto this bill because of this amendment, a
bill that is absolutely necessary for the benefit of our soldiers.
Now, in addition to being unwise, the Kennedy amendment is
unnecessary. State laws already provide for prosecuting the underlying
violence prohibited by the Kennedy amendment. Laws against murder,
rape, assault, and the like are State laws, and they should remain that
way. Forty-six States also have hate crimes legislation on the books
that either criminalize substantive offenses or enhance criminal
penalties for existing offenses because of their motive or bias.
By the way, the murderers of James Byrd in Texas and Matthew Shepard
in Wyoming, after whom this bill is named, were either sentenced to
death or are in prison for the rest of their lives under State law,
more than this bill would do. My point is, State laws have been taking
care of these matters, and there is absolutely no evidence that the
proponents of this bill have been able to show that States are not
doing their job under their laws, which are better than this law.
While these are the most widely cited examples, the Byrd and Shepard
cases, and the other case cited by my friend from Oregon to demonstrate
the need for the Kennedy amendment, it would treat both of these hate
crime murders more leniently than current State law does.
There is no evidence that State and local governments are incapable
of prosecuting these crimes, or that they are failing to do so.
Fewer than 17 percent of all law enforcement agencies reported even a
single hate crime in 2005.
Hate crimes account for less than one-tenth of 1 percent of crimes in
America.
The majority of hate crimes involve such things as vandalism or
verbal intimidation.
By requiring actual or threatened bodily injury, the Kennedy
amendment focuses on an even smaller portion of hate crimes.
This means that States would be more, not less, able to address the
hate crime problem themselves.
The States are, in fact, already doing so.
In addition to being unwise and unnecessary, the Kennedy amendment is
unconstitutional.
Yesterday in this Chamber, my good friend from Massachusetts
strenuously emphasized, clearly and unambiguously, that his amendment
is not limited by existing Federal jurisdiction.
In fact, he deliberately wants to break this new Federal hate crime
felony free from any such limitation.
In his words, the limitation of requiring Federal jurisdiction for
such a Federal crime would be ``outdated, unwise, and unnecessary.''
He said the same thing in April when he introduced this measure as a
separate bill.
But the requirement that Congress have authority to legislate on such
an issue derives from the very Constitution that each of us has sworn
to support and defend.
We must have affirmative authority, derived from the Constitution, to
legislate.
By giving us only delegated powers, America's founders rejected the
idea that the desirable ends justify the political means.
Federalizing crime is legitimate only when it is connected to a power
properly exercised by the Federal Government.
Rejecting the requirement of Federal jurisdiction in the legislation
before us is rejecting the limitations imposed upon us by the
Constitution.
With all due respect to my good friend from Massachusetts, I do not
believe the Constitution is outdated, unwise, or unnecessary.
In its findings, the Kennedy amendment cites the 13th amendment to
the Constitution, which banned slavery and involuntary servitude, as a
constitutional basis for this legislation.
Modern forms of slavery do exist, and I urge my colleagues to support
efforts by the Departments of Justice, Labor, and State to uncover and
eliminate such heinous practices as human trafficking and forced
prostitution.
But that is not what the Kennedy amendment, or existing hate crimes
laws for that matter, are about and they cannot hook their train to the
13th amendment engine.
Connecting 19th century slavery with 21st century perceived gender
identity at least requires a long series of rhetorical dots, but it
should require more than a storytelling imagination to produce sound
legislation.
The Kennedy amendment's growing list of prohibited bias categories
extends far beyond anything the Supreme Court has ever recognized as
relating to the badges and incidence of slavery.
We do not have to speculate about other constitutional defects in the
Kennedy amendment.
As I said yesterday in this chamber, the Supreme Court struck down a
portion of the Violence Against Women Act--I was a prime sponsor with
Senator Biden of that bill--because Congress's authority to regulate
interstate commerce did not extend to turning State crimes into Federal
lawsuits.
The Court emphasized the distinction between the truly national and
truly local and concluded that Federal legislation must be directed at
such things as the actual instrumentalities, channels, or goods
involved in interstate commerce.
The Kennedy amendment tries to avoid the same fate by appearing to
require an interstate commerce nexus for some of the hate crimes it
would cover.
If its backers are serious about this requirement, as the Supreme
Court surely is, this would further reduce the hate crimes the Kennedy
amendment would actually reach.
Their rhetoric and the ever-expanding list of prohibited bias
categories in successive versions of this legislation, however, make me
wonder whether they genuinely want the Kennedy amendment to be so
narrowly applied.
As I said in this chamber yesterday, my good friend from
Massachusetts, in the straightforward and direct way we have all come
to appreciate and respect, has said unequivocally that all hate crimes
will face Federal prosecution.
This will lead to a massive federalization of hate crimes that
traditionally have been, and that constitutionally should remain, left
to the authority of the States.
There is no need to burden prosecutors and courts and do such damage
to our constitutional framework of government.
Our conviction about hate crimes cannot, it must not, blind our
conviction about the need for wise legislation and respecting the
fundamental limits of our constitutional authority.
While the Kennedy amendment is unwise, unnecessary, and
unconstitutional, the good news is that we can do
[[Page S12201]]
something legitimate and meaningful about hate crimes without back-
handing the Constitution.
The amendment I have offered would strengthen enforcement of hate
crimes laws right where that enforcement may legitimately and most
effectively occur, at the State and local level.
My amendment would charge the Comptroller General, in consultation
with the National Governors Association and State and local law
enforcement, with studying whether State and local governments are
properly and effectively addressing hate crimes.
This would give us a more objective understanding of the nature and
scope of the hate crimes problem so that we can better determine
whether there is any basis for a greater Federal role before we go off
on this massive sweeping legislation the distinguished senator from
Massachusetts is urging. My legislation would help identify whether any
gaps exist in the ability and determination of States to prosecute hate
crimes and provide Federal resources to help them do so.
The authority to prosecute hate crimes rests with the States, and if
we truly want both to address hate crimes and stay within our proper
constitutional role, we can help the States effectively carry out their
responsibility.
I said it before, and I will say it again.
Crimes of violence, no matter their motivation, are abhorrent.
I recognize that some crimes of violence are directed not only
against individual victims, but against the groups or communities with
which those victims identify.
Concern about hate crimes, however, is only the beginning of the
discussion and the political ends do not justify the legislative means.
I know that my good friend from Massachusetts is genuinely passionate
about what he sees as an injustice.
His amendment, however, is the wrong way to address the problem.
The Kennedy amendment is unwise, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.
It is unwise in its drafting and in the way its supporters are trying
to get it passed.
It is unnecessary because States have their own hate crimes laws and
are demonstrably able to address the problem.
It is unconstitutional because Congress lacks authority to create
such a freestanding criminal felony unrestricted by Federal
jurisdiction.
I urge my colleagues, instead, to do the right thing and to do it the
right way by supporting the amendment I have brought to the floor.
I find no fault with people who are sincere in trying to do things
that sincerely are well motivated. But we should live within the
confines of the Constitution. There is no nexus that would justify this
type of overwhelming legislation, imposed upon everybody in this
country, when the States are already doing the job.
We have two hate crimes amendments before us today. One is extremely
broad, probably unconstitutional, and likely unnecessary. The President
has threatened to veto it. The amendment would torpedo the Defense
authorization bill. The other is a more modest approach. My amendment
would assist State and local law enforcement as they do the hard work
of providing equal justice for all their citizens. The Kennedy
amendment is sweeping, but it cannot realistically get done on this
bill. Mine is a modest, and I believe adequate, approach to this
problem, and it would become law. To quote an unappreciated political
philosopher:
You can't always get what you want. But if you try,
sometimes, you'll find you get what you need.
I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the Kennedy amendment
and for cloture on my amendment and I think we will make better headway
than we would if we agree to the Kennedy amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the passage of the Matthew
Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. We
have all heard the story of Matthew Shepard: the 21-year-old student at
the University of Wyoming who was brutally beaten--his skull smashed--
and tied to a fence with a rope and left to die--because he was
homosexual. No one should be targeted because of the color of their
skin, their religion, their gender or their sexual orientation.
In April of this year, I joined Senators Kennedy, Smith, and others
in introducing hate crimes legislation. This amendment, which is
identical to that legislation, for the first time will expand the
definition of a hate crime to include gender, gender identity,
disability, and sexual orientation. It gives the Justice Department
jurisdiction over crimes of violence committed because of a person's
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, or disability. Existing law only covers race,
color, religion, or national origin-based hate crimes, where the victim
was engaging in one of six `specified activities.' It will also
strengthen the ability of the Federal, State, and local governments to
investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, ethnic background,
religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability.
Some have said that this bill will take away first amendment rights.
That is just not true. This law would punish violent acts, not beliefs.
This legislation only applies to violent, bias-motivated crimes and
does not infringe on any conduct protected by the first amendment. The
first amendment right to organize against, preach against and speak is
not impinged.
America's diversity is one of our greatest strengths. Our tolerance
for each other's differences is part of the lamp that can help bring
light to a world which is enveloped in bigotry and intolerance.
America has taken many steps throughout our history on a long road to
become a more inclusive Nation.
We are hopefully about to take another one if we adopt the Matthew
Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
Ms. FEINSTEIN. I rise today in support of the Kennedy-Smith amendment
No. 3035, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2007.
This legislation is a crucial step toward prosecuting crimes directed
at thousands of individuals who are the targets of brutal and senseless
violence.
The current Federal hate crimes law simply does not go far enough. It
covers only crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, color,
religion, or national origin.
This amendment improves the current Federal hate crime law by
including crimes motivated by gender, gender identity, sexual
orientation, and disability.
Congress must expand the ability of the Federal Government to
investigate and prosecute anyone who would target victims because of
hate. In those States with State hate crimes laws, the Federal
Government must provide the resources to ensure that those crimes do
not go unpunished. We can and must do more.
In my own State of California, horrific instances of violence signify
the critical need for legislation today.
I would like to share just a few examples:
In Santa Ana, retired Federal agent Narciso Leggs, Jr., was found
strangled and tortured on June 29 in his southern California apartment.
The killer placed a smiling ceramic angel on the victim's shoulder
blade and wrote antigay slurs on his flesh with a black marker.
Another instance, in Los Angeles, CA, this past Spring: James
McKinney, a mentally disabled man, was beaten to death by an
unidentified man wielding an aluminum baseball bat as he was walking to
the store from his home, a mental health care facility. The attack was
caught on surveillance camera on Tuesday May 29, but his attacker
remains at large.
In San Diego, attackers wielding baseball bats and shouting antigay
slurs beat two men and stabbed a third in the back. The attack was the
first in more than a decade at San Diego's annual gay pride festival.
Lastly, one of the most well-known cases in California happened in
West Hollywood to actor Trev Broudy in 2002.
The night of his attack, Trev Broudy was hugging a man on a street.
Three men with a baseball bat savagely attacked the actor, leaving him
in a coma for approximately 10 weeks. As a result of the attack, Trev
suffered brain damage, lost half of his vision, and has experienced
trouble hearing.
[[Page S12202]]
The crimes are brutal. The attackers targeted their victims because
of who they are. Yet none of these crimes can be prosecuted as a
Federal hate crime.
These are not isolated instances. These crimes occur all over the
country. According to FBI statistics, 27,432 people were victims of
hate-motivated violence over the last 3 years. That is an average of
over 9,100 people per year, with nearly 25 people being victimized
every day of the year, based on their race, religion, sexual
orientation, ethnic background, or disability.
Even more disturbing is the fact that these FBI statistics show only
a fraction of the problem because so many hate crimes are unreported.
The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that the actual number of
hate crimes committed in the United States each year is closer to
50,000, and survey data from the biannual National Crime Victimization
Survey suggests that an average of 191,000 hate crime victimizations
take place per year.
Race-related hate crimes are the most common, but crimes based on
religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation are also significant.
In fact, a close analysis of hate crimes rates demonstrates that groups
that are now covered by current laws--such as African Americans,
Muslims, and Jews--report similar rates of hate crimes victimizations
as gays and lesbians--who are not currently protected.
On average, 8 in 100,000 African Americans report being the victim of
hate crime; 12 in 100,000 Muslims report being the victim of hate
crime; 15 in 100,000 Jews report being the victim of hate crime; and 13
in 100,000 gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals report being the victim of
hate crime.
Every individual's life is valuable. Congress must act to protect
every person who is targeted simply because of who they are.
Specifically, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2007 expands on the 1968 definition of a hate crime.
Under current Federal law, hate crimes only cover attacks based on
race, color, religion, and national origin. Under this amendment, hate
crimes will include gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and
disability.
The bill enables States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to
apply for Federal grants in order to solve hate crimes and provides
Federal agents with broader authority to aid State and local police.
Additionally, the bill amends the Hate Crime Statistics Act by
inserting ``gender'' and ``gender identity,'' allowing law enforcement
agencies to gather data on the newly protected groups.
This is not a new bill. It was first introduced in 1998. It has
passed the Senate three times: in 2000, and in 2002 and 2004 as an
amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill.
It passed the House this year as a stand-alone bill and last year as
an amendment to the Adam Walsh Act.
It is bipartisan. It has 44 cosponsors in the Senate and 171
cosponsors in the House. It is endorsed by over 210 law enforcement,
civic, and religious organizations and has the support of 73 percent of
the American population.
There is no excuse for not passing this bill out of the Senate today.
This bill is not about free speech. It is about crimes of violence--
often brutal, savage acts of violence. These crimes target a person
solely because of that person's race, sexual orientation, religion,
gender, national origin, or disability. By terrorizing one member of a
group, they terrorize entire communities of people. These crimes damage
our social fabric. We must be clear that we cannot tolerate this kind
of intimidation.
Today, I ask all of my colleagues to rally against hate by working to
ensure that this legislation is not simply supported but actually
passed and signed into law.
Until it is enacted, many hate crime victims and their families will
not receive the justice they deserve.
Let us send a message to all Americans that we will no longer turn a
blind eye to hate crimes in this country.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I still remember standing on the steps of
the Capitol on October 14, 1998--thousands gathered on a cool autumn
evening--to remember Matthew Shepard 2 days after he had been killed in
Laramie, WY.
That night I said:
Matthew Shepard is not the exception to the rule--his
tragic death is the extreme example of what happens on a
daily basis in our schools, on our streets, and in our
communities. And that's why we have an obligation to pass
laws that make clear our determination to root out this
hatred. We hear a lot from Congress today about how we are a
country of laws, not men. Let them make good on those words,
and pass hate crimes legislation.
Almost 10 years have passed since that candlelight vigil--10 years
too long for Washington to do what was so obviously needed. Violent
hate crimes are on the rise--almost 10,000 violent acts of hate against
individuals based on their sexual orientation have been reported to the
authorities since Matthew Shepard's murder. What a tragic reminder of
the urgency of providing local law enforcement with the added resources
and support needed to get tough on hate crimes. What a horrific wake-up
call to a sleepy Washington about the need to ensure a Federal backstop
to assist local law enforcement in those cases in which they request
assistance or fail to adequately investigate or prosecute these serious
crimes.
The good news is that today with this Senate vote we will move one
step closer than ever to legislating a Federal hate crimes law that
includes sexual orientation and gender identity--the Matthew Shepard
Act.
This is the least we can do, as we committed to do that night in
1998, to insure that ``the lesson of Matthew Shepard is not
forgotten.'' It is the least we can do to right a wrong in an America
where every morning, someone takes the long way to class, an America
where every day someone looks over his shoulder on the street, and
still today in America innocent people fear for their safety--all
because some people hate them for being who they were born to be--gay,
lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
This fight is not over, but this vote is an important milestone in
the fight--a day when I hope we will begin at last to turn the tide,
and reaffirm our faith that the strength of human justice can overcome
the hatred in our society by confronting it.
I want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his
hard work to address hate crimes and ensure that this vital legislation
is enacted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to my
friend from Utah describe this legislation. He has followed one of the
great traditions of the Senate. That is, he has misrepresented and
misstated my position and then he has differed with it. I know that
technique because I have used it a few times myself.
I hope, for those of our colleagues who have been following this
debate, to keep in mind very briefly--I outlined earlier the principal
reasons for this--but with regard to what is happening in the local
communities, and in the States, the fact is the National District
Attorneys Association is supporting this legislation. Do you believe if
we were doing all the things the Senator said, if we were violating
everything local and State, the National District Attorneys Association
would be supporting this? The National Sheriffs' Association is
supporting it, as is the States Attorneys General of the United States.
The principal law enforcement agencies in the States are supporting it.
Do you think they would be supporting this if it was unconstitutional?
You don't think they would have the opportunity to know what is
constitutional or not constitutional? And you don't think they
understand what is necessary to protect their citizens from the
viciousness of hate crimes?
There it is. I ask unanimous consent the entire list be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Letters From Organizations That Support the Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
1. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
2. American Association of University Women
3. American Civil Liberties Union
4. American Jewish Committee
5. American Psychological Association
6. Anti-Defamation League
7. Asian American Justice Center
8. Center For the Study of Hate and Extremism
9. Hadassah
10. Human Rights Campaign
[[Page S12203]]
11. Interfaith Alliance
12. International Association of Chiefs of Police
13. Jewish Council for Public Affairs
14. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
15. Major Cities Chiefs Association
16. Matthew Shepard Foundation
17. NA'AMAT USA
18. National Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual &
Transgender Community Centers
19. National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People
20. National Center for Transgender Equality
21. National Council of Jewish Women
22. National District Attorneys Association
23. National Organization for Women
24. National Sheriffs' Association
25. Organization of Chinese Americans, Inc.
26. People for the American Way
27. PFLAG
28. Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
29. SALDEF (Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund)
30. States Attorneys General
31. Unitarian Universalist Association
32. The United States Conference of Mayors
33. United States Student Association
34. Group Letter: Religious Organizations: African American
Ministers in Action, American Jewish Committee, Anti-
defamation League, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Catholics for a
Free Choice, Church Women United, The Episcopal Church,
Hadassah, Hindu American Foundation, The Interfaith Alliance,
Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Women
International, Muslim Public Affairs Council, NA'AMAT USA,
National Council of Churches of Christ, National Council of
Jewish Women, North American Federation of Temple Youth,
Presbyterian Church USA, Sikh Council on Religion and
Education, United Church of Christ Justice and Witness
Ministries, Union for Reform Judaism, United Methodist Church
General Board of Church and Society, Unitarian Universalist
Association of Congregations, United Synagogues of
Conservative Judaism and Women of Reform Judaism.
35. Group Letter: Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf
and Hard of Hearing, American Association on Health and
Disability, American Association on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, American Association on Mental
Retardation, American Association of People with
Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American
Counseling Association, American Dance Therapy Association,
American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association,
American Music Therapy Association, American Network of
Community Options and Resources, American Occupational
Therapy Association, American Psychological Association,
American Therapeutic Recreation Association, American
Rehabilitation Association, Association of Tech Act Projects,
Association of University Centers of Disabilities, Autism
Society of America, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,
Council for Learning Disabilities, Council of State
Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, Easter Seals,
Epilepsy Foundation, Helen Keller National Center, Learning
Disabilities Association of America, National Alliance on
Mental Illness, National Association of Councils on
Developmental Disabilities, National Coalition on Deaf-
Blindness, National Disability Rights Network, National Down
Syndrome Society, National Fragile X Foundation, National
Rehabilitation Association, National Respite Coalition,
National Structured Settlement Trade Association, NISH,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Research Institute for
Independent Living, School Social Work Association of
America, Spina Bifida Association, The Arc of the United
States, United Cerebral Palsy, United Spinal Association,
World Institute on Disability.
36. Group Letter: National Partnership for Women and
Families: 9 to 5 Bay Area, 9 to 5 Colorado, 9 to 5 Poverty
Network Initiative (Wisconsin), 9 to 5 National Association
of Working Women, AFL-CIO Department of Civil, Human and
Women's Rights, American Association of University Women,
Atlanta 9 to 5, Break the Cycle, Coalition of Labor Union
Women, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CCASA),
Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO,
Democrats.com, Equal Rights Advocates, Feminist Majority,
Gender Public Advocacy Coalition, Gender Watchers, Hadassah
the Women's Zionist Organization of America, Legal Momentum,
Lost Angeles 9 to 5, NA'AMAT USA, National Abortion
Federation, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum,
National Association of Social Workers, National Center for
Lesbian Rights, National Congress of Black Women, National
Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Women's
Organizations, National Organization for Women, National
Partnership for Women and Families, National Women's
Conference, National Women's Committee, National Women's Law
Center, Northwest Women's Law Center, Sargent Shriver
National Center on Poverty Law, The Women's Institute for
Freedom of the Press, Washington Teachers Union, Women
Employed, Women's Law Center of Maryland, Women's Research
and Education Institute, YWCA USA.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will mention a few. They include the Anti-Defamation
League, Human Rights Campaign, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Why?
Because, as we know, hate crimes are increasing. They are not
diminishing in the United States of America. They are increasing. All
the statistics demonstrate it.
What is also demonstrable is what local law officials point out by
their support. They do not have the tools or the will to deal with the
most vicious types of attacks that take place upon individuals because
of who they are. That is why they support this rather measured proposal
that we have, that will give help and assistance in attacking the
problems of hatred at home like we are attacking the problems of hatred
abroad.
This is not such a strange issue.
Will the Chair let me know when I have a minute left, please.
My friend, Senator Hatch, pointed out during our debate in 2000:
Crimes of animus are more likely to promote retaliatory
crimes; they inflict deep, lasting and distinct injuries--
some of which never heal--on victims and their family
members; they incite community unrest and, ultimately, they
are downright un-American.
No one could say it better. He understands that is what we are
talking about and whether we are going to battle that with both hands,
not with one hand tied behind our back as exists at the present time.
It is the local law officials who are stating that. Even the Justice
Department said the same a few years ago.
Finally, on why this is such an extraordinary situation--this is what
the Justice Department says.
Local authorities may not have the tools or the will to
prosecute a particular bias-motivated crime fully.
We put this aside. This, basically, is a moral issue. It is a moral
issue because of the viciousness and the motivational aspects of hatred
and bigotry. Our Founding Fathers, as brilliant as they were, wrote
prejudice in the Constitution of the United States. They wrote slavery
in the Constitution of the United States. This Nation has been battling
for 230 years to free ourselves from the stains of discrimination, and
we are not there yet. We suffered the brutalities of the Civil War. We
went through the period of Reconstruction. We have faced those issues
on the floor of the Senate: In 1964, the Civil Rights Act; the 1965
Civil Rights Act; the 1968 Civil Rights Act. We went on to knock down
the walls of discrimination.
When we knocked down the walls of discrimination on the basis of
race, we also, history will show--we knocked them down with regard to
gender, we knocked them down with regard to ethnicity, we knocked down
a lot of them in terms of disability. We have not with regard to sexual
orientation. But we have made remarkable progress. No nation in the
world has made that progress--no nation.
That is one of the reasons I am as proud of this Nation as I am. But
it is a continuing process. If we do not understand that out there, as
the various statistics of the Justice Department and the Southern
Poverty Law Center say, there are these centers of hatred and bigotry
that exist out there, that are hating and demonstrating and killing our
citizens on the basis of those definitions.
That is continuing, and the question is whether we are going to do
something about it. We are not going to solve all of the problems with
legislation, but if we do not solve this one, we miss a golden
opportunity.
I finally say, to those who have talked about, we are adding this on
the Defense authorization bill, we have had more time in quorum calls
around here. We have not taken a great deal of time. We are taking 2
hours this morning on SCHIP and hate crimes. We have not taken up a
great deal of time.
The majority of the Members have supported this. On three other
occasions, a majority of Republicans and Democrats have supported this
concept--on three other occasions. Let's get the job done. We have that
opportunity this morning.
Finally, this is about the morality of our country, the values of our
country. That is directly tied into what our men and women are doing
overseas in resisting terrorism and fighting for the values here at
home. One of the values that is here at home is the value of honoring
the dignity of the human being and the individual. That is why
[[Page S12204]]
all of those in the great religious faiths, the Interfaith Alliance, 75
different religions--the belief that lies at the core of our diverse
faith traditions is that every human being is endowed with dignity and
worth. That is why 1,400 members of the clergy have pointed out: Our
faith traditions teach us to love our neighbor. While we cannot
legislate love, it is our moral duty to protect one another from hatred
and violence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. This is from the religious community.
So we have on that standard above the Presiding Officer ``E pluribus
unum''--``out of many, one.'' We have a responsibility, to the extent
we can, to eliminate division, to eliminate the hatred, to eliminate
the bigotry, and to become one Nation with one history and one destiny.
This amendment moves us on that road to the kind of country this Nation
deserves to be. I hope our colleagues will support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 54 seconds remaining.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I agree with 80 percent of what the
distinguished Senator has said during this debate. The fact is, the
very name of this bill makes the very point I am making. It is the
``Matthew Shepard Act,'' a heinous crime committed against him where
both people were prosecuted and sentenced to life; in the Byrd case,
sentenced to death. We are taking care of these problems. There has
been no showing by the other side that the State prosecutors are
incapable of doing so. The fact is, we do not need a massive Federal
piece of legislation that would require the Federal Government to get
into areas that clearly are not in interstate commerce but are subject
to State laws that are being enforced. That is a very important point.
We should be very loath to go beyond that point.
I thank my very loquacious colleague who feels very deeply, but I
feel deeply, too, about the issue, about these people, about what is
happening, and what I am saying constitutionally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would refer my colleagues to my statement
in yesterday's Record on the hate crime legislation.
CHIP
Mr. President, just like any job in America, Senators have good days
and bad days. We all know what it is like to leave work frustrated that
we did not make the right decision, that the progress we have made was
not what we had hoped, that we did not express our views in quite the
right way or we just did not have enough time to get everything done.
But we also know, here in the Senate, how the opposite feels: days when
we put our political differences aside, rise above partisanship, and do
something lasting and meaningful for our country.
Earlier this year, when the Senate passed its version of the
Children's Health Insurance Program, it was a day just like that. It
was a day of happiness. And today can be another day just like that. As
a result of the hard work of Chairman Baucus, Senators Rockefeller,
Grassley, and Hatch, we have before us legislation that I am confident
will enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support, which we will vote on
shortly.
Hopefully, the strong bipartisanship message this body sends today
will be loud enough and strong enough that the President will
reconsider his stubborn opposition to this legislation. Senators
Grassley and Hatch are very supportive of the President. No one needs
to lecture anyone on that. But they have said the President's stand on
children's health is wrong and that he should join with us. And they
are right. For all the talk we hear about what Government does wrong,
the Children's Health Insurance Program is a shining example of what
Government does right.
Before children's health became law 10 years ago, millions of
children were totally uninsured. These children were part of a coverage
gap. Their parents' incomes were not high enough to afford private
insurance, nor low enough to qualify for Medicaid. Now, a decade later,
this program has reduced the number of uninsured children in working
families by 35 percent. Today, 6.6 million children have insurance
thanks to this exemplary program. Many of these children are now
getting regular checkups. They are benefiting from preventative
medicine. They are saving money for society, and their primary care
comes from a doctor, a family doctor, not from an expensive,
inefficient emergency room. Examples of this success can be found in
every single State, in urban areas, rural areas, east coast, west
coast, south, north, everywhere in between.
When we voted on this bill originally, I gave an example. I told the
story of a Reno woman named Terry Rasner. Since 1998, Terry has helped
children in Nevada enroll in Nevada Check Up, which is Nevada's
children's health insurance program. Her work has never been more
important. The latest numbers just released show that 430,000 Nevadans
have no insurance; they are uninsured. Nevada is a sparsely populated
State, but these numbers are overwhelming--430,000 people have no
health insurance. And 115,000 of the uninsured are kids, children.
Terry explained to me, in an e-mail she sent me, how the program is
operating in Nevada. She wrote:
There are many stories of children as old as 11 and 12 who
were finally able to visit a dentist for the first time in
their lives.
Stories of families who finally felt whole because they
could access affordable medical and dental care for their
children.
School nurses who were acutely involved in supporting and
promoting this program from the outset because they were on
the front lines of failed programs, or no programs at all, to
address the medical and dental needs of children of low-
income working families.
One child in particular was so bad off he was unable to eat
or chew food due to the dramatic decay in his mouth. Imagine,
children for the first time in their lives actually getting
to see a doctor or dentist that their parents were able to
afford.
Stories like this, examples of the children's health program saving
lives--these same stories are being told all across America, and
statistics bear this out.
This program is even better than ever because we have extended dental
care for these children. Study after study shows that our youth
enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program are much more
likely to have regular doctor and dental care. They report lower rates
by far of unmet needs for care. The quality of care they receive is far
better than it was before. That is an understatement. School
performance improves. The plan is helping to close the disparity in
care for minority children. And the Children's Health Insurance Program
has become a major source of care for rural children. So there is no
doubt, no question at all that the Children's Health Insurance Program
is good for kids, little people who cannot help themselves, it is good
for families, also, and it is good for America for sure.
Today, we have the opportunity to take the next step toward making
the great American success story even more of a success. The bill
before us maintains coverage for the 6.6 million children currently
enrolled and adds an additional 4 million low-income, uninsured
children. It also improves the program by curbing coverage of adults in
the program and targeting the lowest income eligible families as new
enrollees. It does all of this in a fiscally responsible manner.
This legislation is fully paid for. It does not add one penny to our
Nation's debt or add to the deficit.
It is not surprising that this bill was supported by 45 Republicans
in the House and virtually every Democrat in the House. Chairman
Grassley, Senator Hatch, and more than a dozen other Republican
Senators voted for this bill the first time around, and every single
Democrat in the Senate.
I might just add, as an aside, Senator Hatch has never been known as
a big spender, and he supported this bill overwhelmingly. We could not
be where we are but for him and Senator Grassley.
But not only do a significant number of Republican Senators support
this legislation, but Governors support it, our health care providers
support it, children's advocates and the vast majority of Americans are
cheerleaders for this worthy legislation. The Senate
[[Page S12205]]
will shortly do its part and pass this children's health insurance
legislation.
But despite all of this, all of the bipartisan support, all of the
goodwill this bill enjoys, surprisingly, stunningly, President Bush
continues to insist he will stop this bill from becoming law. This is
the same President Bush who, during the 2004 campaign, touted his plan
to expand the SCHIP program.
Quoting from the President, in a release he made:
The President will launch an aggressive, billion-dollar
effort to enroll children who are eligible but not signed up
for the government's health insurance program. The goal will
be to cover millions more SCHIP and Medicaid-eligible
children within the next 2 years.
That is what he said in 2004. Now President Bush offers us a list of
reasons for opposing legislation that would do what he said he strongly
supports.
One of the reasons he gives us is we cannot afford it. Let me repeat
what I said before: This bill is paid for and will not increase the
deficit a single cent.
Second, let's look at the things the President thinks we can afford.
In about a month in Iraq, the President will spend $12 billion. This
would far exceed what we would spend on these children. But, remember,
we are spending for what is fully paid for. It comes from a tobacco
tax.
So clearly it is not about having money; it is not about any of the
reasons he has given. Despite his list of unknown reasons, it has
become clear in recent days that there is only one reason I can come up
with for his reversal, his flip-flop on the Children's Health Insurance
Program: I guess it is because he wants to do something with health
care that he has not yet told us.
He has in the past calculated that holding this bill hostage is the
only way to raise from the dead his partisan, unpopular, and
ineffective health agenda. We realize this. Republicans realize this.
In fact, the ranking member of the Finance Committee realizes this, and
he has spoken so on the floor, Senator Grassley.
President Bush, on this issue, stands alone. Can one imagine our
President, President Bush, going to one of these children and saying:
You cannot have health care. You have to stop seeing your doctor. If
you get sick, your parents or a brother or sister will have to take you
to the emergency room. Get a brother or sister, get a neighbor to do
that, but we are not going to let you go see a doctor.
So despite his promises, I hope he will come to his good side and put
the well-being of millions of poor children ahead of his own flawed
political agenda that we are seeing on this issue today. I hope he
realizes this program is government at its best--lending a helping
hand, providing a safety net to children who need our help to reach
their full potential.
If we pass today the Children's Health Insurance Program with a good
bipartisan vote, this can be one of our good days, our legislative good
days, when we do something lasting and meaningful for the American
people who sent us here to help fulfill their dreams and their hopes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to proceed for a few moments
with my leader time and say to my good friend the majority leader, I
know it is customary for him to speak last, but I was unavoidably
detained from getting to the floor and wanted to make a couple of
observations about the Kennedy amendment on my leader time.
A vote for Senator Kennedy's hate crime amendment regretfully puts
this whole bill in jeopardy. The only way to ensure we have a Defense
authorization bill this year is to vote against the Kennedy amendment.
There are too many important Defense provisions in the bill that are at
risk because of a controversial, nongermane amendment dealing with
social policy.
Among the items at risk, the Wounded Warriors provision, the pay
raise, acquisition reform, and many other important Defense provisions,
all are put at risk by the adoption of the Kennedy amendment.
We have now gone through a long exercise debating Iraq amendments and
nongermane amendments related to the social agenda of the other side.
But what are we trying to accomplish here? Do we want to protect the
defense policy matters in this bill that actually matter to our forces
in the field, or do we want to debate political and social issues on
this measure? The Senate has been on record all year that we will not
cut off funding for our troops in the field and that we need to do more
to help our wounded warriors returning from the war. Let us not
sacrifice the bipartisan work of the committee for an amendment that is
not relevant to the underlying bill.
I hope the Kennedy amendment will be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Cloture Motion
Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
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,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 3035
regarding hate crimes.
Gordon H. Smith, Chuck Schumer, Bernard Sanders, Robert
Menendez, Sheldon Whitehouse, Frank R. Lautenberg,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John F. Kerry,
Patty Murray, Barack Obama, Jeff Bingaman, Ben Cardin,
Evan Bayh, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 3035 offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr.
Kennedy, to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008, shall be brought to a close.
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 350 Leg.]
YEAS--60
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--39
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order--the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the
leadership, we would be glad to have a voice vote, if that is
acceptable, satisfactory. We would vitiate the need for the yeas and
nays and move to a voice vote, if that is satisfactory.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I was distracted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Was the Senator from Massachusetts trying to get my
attention?
[[Page S12206]]
Mr. KENNEDY. As a result of this vote, we would be glad to vitiate
the need for the yeas and nays on this amendment and have a voice vote,
if that is acceptable.
Mr. McCONNELL. As far as I know, a voice vote is acceptable. We will
vote on the Hatch alternative.
Mr. KENNEDY. Then, Mr. President, if I could just have everyone's
attention for a minute, we are prepared to accept the Hatch amendment,
if that is satisfactory.
Mr. McCONNELL. We will need a rollcall vote on the Hatch amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Then, Mr. President, I would like to see if we could
have a voice vote now on the underlying amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Kennedy
amendment.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it would seem to me what we should do is
have a vote on the underlying Hatch amendment. I do not think we need
to vote on cloture. So I ask unanimous consent that we have a voice
vote on the amendment that is now before the body, we vitiate the
cloture motion on the Hatch amendment, and have a rollcall vote on his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the Kennedy amendment.
The amendment (No. 3035) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3047
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided on the Hatch amendment prior to a
vote on the amendment.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are willing to accept the Hatch
amendment. It requires a study and requires some authorization for
helping local communities. I would hope the amendment would be
unanimously accepted. I intend to vote for it, and I would hope all the
Members would vote for it. I understand we are going to order the yeas
and nays now. I hope we will vote in favor of the Hatch amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with that fine concession, I yield back the
remainder of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3047.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 351 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--3
Coburn
Graham
Vitter
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The amendment (No. 3047) was agreed to.
____________________