[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 106 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7509-S7550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1390, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1390) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2010 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:

       Levin/McCain amendment No. 1469, to strike $1,750,000,000 
     in procurement, Air Force funding for F-22A aircraft 
     procurement, and to restore operation and maintenance, 
     military personnel, and other funding in divisions A and B 
     that was reduced in order to authorize such appropriation.


                      Amendment No. 1469 Withdrawn

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I withdraw Senate amendment No. 1469.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has that right.


                           Amendment No. 1511

(Purpose: To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, 
  and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes)

  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Leahy, myself, and others, I call up 
amendment No. 1511, which is at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, Ms. 
     Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Feinstein, 
     Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. 
     Klobuchar, Mr. Specter, Mr. Franken, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Merkley, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
     Wyden, Mr. Casey, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Sanders, 
     Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1511.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REID. I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered.

[[Page S7510]]

                Amendment No. 1539 to Amendment No. 1511

  Mr. REID. I now call up a second-degree amendment which is at the 
desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1539 to amendment No. 1511.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require comprehensive study and support for criminal 
  investigations and prosecutions by State and local law enforcement 
                               officials)

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

     SEC. __. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY AND SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL 
                   INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE AND 
                   LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

       (a) Studies.--
       (1) Collection of data.--
       (A) Definition of relevant offense.--In this paragraph, the 
     term ``relevant offense'' means a crime described in 
     subsection (b)(1) of the first section of Public Law 101-275 
     (28 U.S.C. 534 note) and a crime that manifests evidence of 
     prejudice based on gender or age.
       (B) Collection from cross-section of states.--Not later 
     than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States, in consultation 
     with the National Governors' Association, shall, if possible, 
     select 10 jurisdictions with laws classifying certain types 
     of offenses as relevant offenses and 10 jurisdictions without 
     such laws from which to collect the data described in 
     subparagraph (C) over a 12-month period.
       (C) Data to be collected.--The data described in this 
     paragraph are--
       (i) the number of relevant offenses that are reported and 
     investigated in the jurisdiction;
       (ii) the percentage of relevant offenses that are 
     prosecuted and the percentage that result in conviction;
       (iii) the duration of the sentences imposed for crimes 
     classified as relevant offenses in the jurisdiction, compared 
     with the length of sentences imposed for similar crimes 
     committed in jurisdictions with no laws relating to relevant 
     offenses; and
       (iv) references to and descriptions of the laws under which 
     the offenders were punished.
       (D) Costs.--Participating jurisdictions shall be reimbursed 
     for the reasonable and necessary costs of compiling data 
     collected under this paragraph.
       (2) Study of relevant offense activity.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall complete a study and submit to Congress a report 
     that analyzes the data collected under paragraph (1) and 
     under section 534 of title 28, United States Code, to 
     determine the extent of relevant offense activity throughout 
     the United States and the success of State and local 
     officials in combating that activity.
       (B) Identification of trends.--In the study conducted under 
     subparagraph (A), the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall identify any trends in the commission of 
     relevant offenses specifically by--
       (i) geographic region;
       (ii) type of crime committed; and
       (iii) the number and percentage of relevant offenses that 
     are prosecuted and the number for which convictions are 
     obtained.
       (b) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--At the 
     request of a law enforcement official of a State or a 
     political subdivision of a State, the Attorney General, 
     acting through the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation and in cases where the Attorney General 
     determines special circumstances exist, may provide 
     technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other assistance 
     in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime 
     that--
       (1) constitutes a crime of violence (as defined in section 
     16 of title 18, United States Code);
       (2) constitutes a felony under the laws of the State; and
       (3) is motivated by animus against the victim by reason of 
     the membership of the victim in a particular class or group.
       (c) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may, in cases where 
     the Attorney General determines special circumstances exist, 
     make grants to States and local subdivisions of States to 
     assist those entities in the investigation and prosecution of 
     crimes motivated by animus against the victim by reason of 
     the membership of the victim in a particular class or group.
       (2) Eligibility.--A State or political subdivision of a 
     State applying for assistance under this subsection shall--
       (A) describe the purposes for which the grant is needed; 
     and
       (B) certify that the State or political subdivision lacks 
     the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute a crime 
     motivated by animus against the victim by reason of the 
     membership of the victim in a particular class or group.
       (3) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be approved or disapproved by the Attorney 
     General not later than 10 days after the application is 
     submitted.
       (4) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not 
     exceed $100,000 for any single case.
       (5) Report and audit.--Not later than December 31, 2008, 
     the Attorney General, in consultation with the National 
     Governors' Association, shall--
       (A) submit to Congress a report describing the applications 
     made for grants under this subsection, the award of such 
     grants, and the effectiveness of the grant funds awarded; and
       (B) conduct an audit of the grants awarded under this 
     subsection to ensure that such grants are used for the 
     purposes provided in this subsection.
       (6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     2008 and 2009 to carry out this section.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The assistant 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 the Leahy amendment 
     No. 1511 to S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2010.
         Evan Bayh, Roland W. Burris, Benjamin L. Cardin, Patrick 
           J. Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Bingaman, Bernard 
           Sanders, John F. Kerry, Carl Levin, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Robert 
           Menendez, Richard J. Durbin, Christopher J. Dodd, 
           Charles E. Schumer, Harry Reid.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Levin will give an explanation as to 
why the amendment was withdrawn. But my friend, the Republican leader, 
has the first right of recognition.


                      Health Care Week VI, Day III

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as Republicans and Democrats debate the 
best way to reform health care, Americans are increasingly concerned 
about the price tag and about who gets stuck with the bill. The Federal 
deficit suddenly stands at more than $1 trillion for the first time in 
history, and so far this year we are spending about $500 million a day 
in interest alone on the national debt. It is as if every single 
American gets up in the morning, walks over to the window, and tosses 
$2 out into the wind every day for the next 10 years. It is not a bad 
analogy, but that is what we are doing. And now the advocates of a 
government takeover of health care are talking about spending trillions 
more.
  So Americans are worried about cost--and they have good reason to be.
  Not only are we in a tough situation fiscally, we have no idea how 
much this reform will really cost. We know from experience with 
government-run programs like Medicare and Medicaid that early estimates 
often grossly underestimate what they end up costing. We know that some 
of the estimates we are hearing about health care reform are 
misleading. And we also know that the administration is building up a 
substantial track record of its own of dubious predictions that it has 
used to sell its ideas to the public.
  We saw it with the stimulus. In selling one of the most expensive 
pieces of legislation in history, the administration said it had to be 
passed right away, with almost no scrutiny. If we did not pass it right 
away, they said, the economy would collapse.
  Here is what the President said about the importance of passing the 
stimulus bill as quickly as possible: ``If we don't act immediately, 
then millions more jobs will disappear, the national unemployment rates 
will approach double digits, more people will lose their homes and 
their health care, and our nation will sink into a crisis that at some 
point is going to be that much tougher to reverse.''
  As it turns out, the administration overpromised.
  They predicted the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate from 
approaching double digits. We passed the stimulus, and unemployment is 
now approaching double digits. It was supposed to keep millions of jobs 
from disappearing. We passed it, and since then we have lost more than 
2 million jobs. It was supposed to save or create between 3 and 4 
million jobs. We passed it, and now the administration is backpedaling 
on that prediction too. Now it

[[Page S7511]]

says it is ``very hard to say'' how many jobs have been saved or 
created. The stimulus was supposed to have an immediate impact. We 
passed it, and it has not. Despite all the predictions about its effect 
on the economy, the administration now says it expects unemployment to 
continue to rise in the months ahead.
  Now, in an attempt to pass an even costlier and far-reaching 
government action, a government takeover of health care, the 
administration is making similarly aggressive claims about the dangers 
of not approving its plan.
  The administration says that if we do not pass its health care 
proposal then the economy will get even worse. It says that if we do 
not approve its health care proposal then the quality of everyone's 
health care will be jeopardized. It says that if we do not pass this 
trillion dollar bill now, then we will miss out on a chance to save 
money on health care down the road.
  I do not know if these claims are accurate, and I do not believe the 
administration is making these claims in bad faith. But I do know that 
Americans got burned on the stimulus, and I know that some in the 
administration have said that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. So 
at the very least, Americans have a right to be skeptical about the 
administration's latest effort to rush through a major piece of 
legislation without allowing us to evaluate it. It is a worthwhile 
question: Why does the administration say we have to send them a bill 
that would essentially nationalize one-sixth of the U.S. economy when 
many parts of the legislation itself would not even go into effect for 
another 4 years?
  Americans are right to be skeptical when administration officials say 
we cannot fix the economy without fixing health care, or that the 
Democrat plan for health care will not cause people to lose their 
current insurance when the CBO says it will, or that a government-run 
takeover of health care will not add to the ballooning national debt. 
After the stimulus, Americans have a right to be skeptical about all 
these claims, especially when they are told these reforms have to 
happen quickly, and especially when our experience with Medicare and 
Medicaid and government health care at the State level shows us that 
initial estimates and predictions can be way off the mark.
  Senator Collins, for example, has discussed the problems they have 
had in Maine as a result of its attempt to create a government-run 
health plan, of what a disappointment that has been. Six years ago, 
Maine instituted Dirigo Health as a government option after advocates 
made the same promises about what it would do to bring down costs and 
increase access that the advocates of a nationwide government health 
plan are making right now in Washington.
  Yet 6 years later, the Dirigo experiment has turned out to be a 
colossal, and extremely costly, failure. Despite initial promises, it 
has not covered most of the uninsured. And yet it has led to higher 
taxes on thousands of Maine residents who were already struggling to 
pay for private coverage. In short: Dirigo turned out to cause the same 
problems in Maine that some of us are predicting for all Americans if 
Congress rushes to approve a national government plan.
  Americans want us to take the time necessary to make health care less 
expensive and more accessible, while preserving what they like about 
our system. Americans want health care reform, but they do not want to 
give a green light to a reform that only ends up costing them more for 
worse care than they currently have. The fact that Americans are 
increasingly concerned about how much health care reform is going to 
cost should not be a reason to rush. It should be a reason for us to 
take the time to get it right.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, to explain where we are, let me take a few 
minutes, first of all, on the procedures. Then I want to go back and 
make some comments about the Levin-McCain amendment, which will come 
back. This is temporarily withdrawn because we could not get to a vote.
  The bottom line is we were here all day yesterday. We attempted 
repeatedly to obtain an agreement as to when we could vote on the 
Levin-McCain amendment.
  We had a lot of time yesterday for people to make speeches. We had 
time the day before. We have time anytime. But we have to get to a vote 
on that amendment.
  The reason we were not able to get to a vote is because of the next 
amendment, which the majority leader indicated is going to be taken up 
on this bill, the so-called hate crimes amendment. We have a law 
relative to hate crimes. This had been an important amendment to the 
law to add a group who had been left out, two groups previously left 
out of the existing hate crimes law. It would have also had an 
important definition of Federal interest in this hate crimes 
legislation.
  Hate crimes legislation is not new. This body had approved hate 
crimes legislation a couple years ago on the Defense authorization 
bill. The argument was made at that time that the hate crimes bill 
should not be offered on a Defense authorization bill. Senator Kennedy 
offered hate crimes legislation a couple years ago on the Defense 
authorization bill. The debate was extensive at that time as to why on 
this bill.
  The reason it was offered on this bill is obvious. This is 
legislation. The Senate rules allow for amendments such as hate crimes 
or any other amendment to be offered on legislation that is pending 
before the Senate. The minority has offered many nonrelevant amendments 
this year on legislation. On the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act, there was an amendment relative to ACORN. On the DC voting rights 
bill, there were amendments relative to guns and to the fairness 
doctrine. On and on and on. The Senate rules permit nongermane, 
nonrelevant amendments to be offered to pending legislation. It is not 
at all new. The opportunity to do that has been taken by many of us 
this year, last year, the year before and, I am sure, next year. First, 
it is not new. It is common in the Senate to offer amendments which are 
not relevant to a bill that is pending. That is allowed under our 
rules.
  The hate crimes amendment is an important amendment. I don't think 
anybody would deny the importance of this amendment. With hate crimes 
going up in the United States, it is critically important we strengthen 
our hate crimes law. There are Senators who oppose the amendment. That 
is the reason we are here, to debate, to argue for or to argue against. 
But I don't think one can argue it is uncommon, unusual or improper to 
offer nonrelevant amendments to legislation which is pending. 
Regardless of one's position on hate crimes, it is very difficult to 
argue it is not significant legislation.
  Thirdly, as Senator Kennedy so powerfully argued--and those of us who 
joined with him a few years ago on this amendment surely agreed--the 
values that are involved in this legislation, the effort to make 
America a better place, a place freer of hate crimes, surely is one of 
the values our men and women put their uniforms on and fight for. The 
closer we can come to a society which is freer of hate crimes, the 
better off we are internally, the closer we will live up to what we 
stand for in our basic fundamental documents and our history. It is 
what men and women who fight for the United States and carry out their 
missions are fighting for--not just physical threats to this country 
but for the values for which we stand, for freedom from hate, for 
diversity, for freedom from intimidation and violence based on one's 
religion, ethnicity or the other attributes listed in the hate crimes 
legislation.
  It is important legislation. It relates to the values of this 
country, values which our men and women take such risks for when they 
go into harm's way. The rules of this body allow for it.
  Somehow or other, the fact that we were going to proceed to a hate 
crimes amendment on this bill, even whether it was next in line or 
whether it was down the line in terms of amendments, the fact that it 
was made clear that, again, on a Defense authorization bill, as we have 
in the past, in the past with 60 Members of this body supporting it, 
the fact that that was made known in an open and honest way to Members 
of this body apparently precipitated a determination on the part of 
some that they not allow us to get to a vote on the pending Levin-
McCain amendment. That prospect, that open statement

[[Page S7512]]

that there would be a hate crimes amendment offered on this bill became 
the impediment, apparently, from all we can determine, to our getting 
agreement for a time for a vote on Levin-McCain.
  The question is, How to remove that impediment. There were two 
choices: Either agree not to offer the hate crimes amendment or remove 
the impediment. We have to now remove the impediment. There is not a 
willingness on the part of a significant number of Senators--and I 
believe a majority--not to offer a hate crimes amendment. It is pending 
legislation that is before us.
  The amendment is an important amendment. It has been offered before. 
There is precedent for offering it on the Defense authorization bill. 
The rules allow for it, so we don't need a precedent, but there is a 
precedent for doing so. There are dozens of precedents for offering 
nonrelevant amendments to legislation which is pending before the 
Senate.
  We will come back, obviously, to the Levin-McCain amendment. The 
Levin-McCain amendment is a very important amendment on this bill. We 
have to deal with the decision of the Armed Services Committee, on a 
close vote, to add F-22 planes, which uniformed and civilian leaders of 
the military indicate they do not want and do not need and we cannot 
afford. We have had some debate. We had plenty of time for others to 
debate it. Everyone who wanted to speak on the subject, I believe, had 
more than enough opportunity to do so. Last night we heard from the 
Senator from Georgia as to his reasons for offering the amendment in 
committee to add the additional F-22s. I compliment the Senator from 
Georgia for all the hard work he has done on our committee. It is 
another example of how the Armed Services Committee works together. Our 
Presiding Officer is a distinguished member of the committee so he 
knows this firsthand, how we work together, guided by one basic 
principle: for the good of the Nation, for the good of the men and 
women in the armed services. We disagree, obviously, on the Levin-
McCain amendment. There is surely, however, agreement that our 
intentions are always to adhere to that principle--what is best for our 
Nation, what is best for the men and women who put on the uniform of 
the Nation.
  So while there was committee disagreement and disagreement on this 
floor on the question of whether additional F-22s should be produced, 
the disagreement is not along party lines and rarely, if ever, is along 
party lines on the Armed Services Committee. I wish to, again, 
compliment not only the Senator from Georgia but also other members of 
the committee for sticking to that very important principle.
  I also agree with something the Senator from Georgia said last night 
relative to another of our operating principles. We have the right and 
the duty to challenge assumptions made in the bill sent to us by any 
administration and to act in accordance with our best judgment about 
what is right and what is in the best interests of the Nation. We are 
not a rubberstamp to every proposal offered by the executive branch. 
The Congress, hopefully, never will be.
  The Senator from Georgia pointed out a number of cases where we have 
acted as anything but a rubberstamp to a budget request. We added 
funds, for instance, in this bill for a larger pay raise than the 
executive branch requested to honor the service of the men and women in 
the military who have been bearing an extraordinarily heavy burden for 
the country fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We added $1.2 billion for 
a more mobile variant of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, 
called the MRAP. This MRAP variant is called the MRAP all-terrain 
vehicle. The reason we did this is because we knew there was an 
emerging requirement for these new vehicles to support our forces in 
Afghanistan that had not been reflected in the budget request. I don't 
believe any member of the Armed Services Committee or any Member of 
this body should act as a rubberstamp for any budget request, and the 
evidence will show over and over again, year after year, that our 
committee does not act as a rubberstamp.
  The question on the Levin-McCain amendment is whether we are right, 
that the leadership of our military, both civilian and uniformed, made 
a sound judgment when they, similar to their predecessors in the Bush 
administration, determined that we should end production of the F-22. 
The debate is not about whether we will have the capability of the F-
22. It is a debate about how many F-22 aircraft we should have and at 
what cost.

  We are talking about whether we will accept the recommendation of two 
Commanders in Chief, two Secretaries of Defense, plus the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff and their chairmen, that 187 F-22s is all we need, all we can 
afford, and all we should buy. Senator McCain and I have made a number 
of arguments about why we believe stopping the F-22 program at 187 is 
the right thing to do. I will not repeat all those arguments now, 
particularly since we have temporarily withdrawn the amendment. But it 
is important that I clarify promptly a number of points made by the 
Senator from Georgia during the debate yesterday so they do not remain 
uncontested.
  First, the Senator said that the Air Force had not been involved in 
any of the studies that led to determining that 187 F-22s was the 
correct number of aircraft to buy. A few days ago, the committee heard 
contrary testimony from the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
that there are at least two studies that support the department's plans 
for tactical aviation, including stopping F-22 production, including a 
recently completed study.
  This is what he said:

       There is a study in the Joint Staff that we just completed 
     and partnered with the Air Force on that, number one, said 
     that proliferating within the United States military fifth-
     generation fighters to all three services was going to be 
     more significant than having them based solidly in just one 
     service, because of the way we deploy and because of the 
     diversity of our deployments.

  So the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs referred to a recent study 
that led to the conclusion that Senator McCain and I support. That 
study was partnered with the Air Force, unlike what was stated last 
night by the Senator from Georgia that these studies did not have Air 
Force involvement.
  There is a strong analytical underpinning for the decision of the 
administration, including the Air Force. A letter from the Secretary of 
the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force on this matter is 
one underpinning, one of the strong evidences that that conclusion is 
correct. The letter is already part of the record so I will quote 
briefly from it. The Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff 
of the Air Force concluded in part, as follows:

       In summary, we assessed the F-22 decision from all angles, 
     taking into account competing strategic priorities and 
     complementary programs and alternatives, all balanced within 
     the context of available resources. We did not and do not 
     recommended that F-22s be included in the FY10 defense 
     budget. This is a difficult decision, but one with which we 
     are comfortable.

  That is from the letter of the Secretary of the Air Force and the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, so it should make very clear what the 
Air Force's position is on the matter.
  On another matter that was raised by the Senator from Georgia last 
night, listening to his arguments, one might conclude that the F-22 is 
the only aircraft we have or are planning to have that could operate 
effectively in the presence of very capable enemy surface-to-air 
missile systems. But the Department has provided contrary evidence. In 
his letter to myself and Senator McCain on July 13, the Secretary of 
Defense said the following:

       . . . the F-35 is a half generation newer aircraft than the 
     F-22, and more capable in a number of areas such as 
     electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses. To 
     sustain U.S. overall air dominance, the Department's plan is 
     to buy roughly 500 F-35s over the next five years and more 
     than 2,400 over the life of the program.

  The key words in that sentence by the Secretary of the Defense in his 
letter is that there will be a ``more capable'' aircraft in the F-35 
than the F-22 ``in a number of areas such as . . . combating enemy air 
defenses.''
  I think we all agree our military needs to maintain air dominance. 
But as the Secretary's letter points out, the F-22 aircraft is not the 
only aircraft the Department is relying upon to contribute to making 
that air dominance a reality. In fact, in certain areas, such as 
electronic warfare and combating surface-to-air missiles, the 
Department of Defense is counting on

[[Page S7513]]

the F-35 fleet to meet those missions with greater effectiveness even 
than with the F-22.
  The Senator from Georgia, last night, argued that proposing cuts in a 
number of areas--just like the committee 13-to-11 vote indicated and 
his proposal accomplished--that shifting funds to the F-22 program and 
shifting money from other areas was not doing any harm to other 
programs within the Defense Department.
  I have previously talked about the specifics relative to this issue, 
and I wish to summarize the difference on this point very briefly, as, 
again, we will be coming back to this issue. It is withdrawn 
temporarily, but, obviously, we will return to this issue and resolve 
this issue prior to the determination of this bill.
  First, we did not assume any first-year savings from acquisition 
reform or business process reengineering. Both these initiatives will 
yield savings. The Senator from Arizona and I, and with the support of 
our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, all unanimously 
supported acquisition reform.
  At the time we adopted that, and at the time the President signed our 
bill, we indicated there will be significant savings from reforming the 
acquisition system. But those savings do not occur in 2010. Nobody has 
alleged, and there is no support for any conclusion, that savings from 
acquisition reform are going to occur in the first year it is in 
effect. As a matter of fact, its main thrust is to apply to new weapons 
systems to make sure their technologies, for instance, are mature so we 
do not end up producing equipment that has technologies incorporated in 
it that have not been adequately tested.
  So we are not going to see savings in fiscal year 2010, as the 
Senator from Georgia assumed in his amendment that was adopted barely 
by the committee to fund the F-22 add-on. The result is $500 million he 
assumed from savings ends up as across-the-board real program cuts.
  I also would point out that the cost estimate of S. 1390 that we just 
received from the Congressional Budget Office did not assume any 
savings from those initiatives. Those, again, were savings which helped 
to fund the additional F-22s--alleged savings. They are phantom savings 
in the first year.
  Secondly, on the operation and maintenance reductions that were used 
to fund the F-22 add, the original committee position on this matter--
O&M, operation and maintenance reductions--was developed consistent 
with the Government Accountability Office analysis. The reductions, 
however, that were taken in operation and maintenance by the Senator 
from Georgia when he offered this amendment in committee to add the F-
22s go far beyond what was indicated by the Government Accountability 
Office's analysis and far beyond what is prudent.
  Finally, relative to the offsets that were taken, the $400 million 
cut applied to the military personnel funding top line will greatly 
complicate the Department's ability to manage the All-Volunteer Force 
and to provide for bonuses and incentives that will be needed to 
support the force. It might even be troublesome enough that the 
Department of Defense would be forced to ask for a supplemental 
appropriations--something we wanted to get away from this year and 
finally have.
  So one other thing is, there are some who suggest: Well, the F-35 is 
just a paper airplane that is the future. We have the F-22 now. The F-
35 is not here yet. It is here. There are--in this budget alone, in the 
fiscal year 2010 budget, which is the fourth year, by the way, of 
production of the F-35--there are 30 F-35s being produced for the 
military. So this is not a future deal when we talk about F-35s. This 
is a here-and-now deal. We are already into low-rate initial 
production. There are already at least five test aircraft flying, and 
we have 30 F-35s funded in this bill which is before this body now.
  Let me summarize the situation relative to the Levin-McCain amendment 
that would strike the additional funding for the F-22s, the additional 
planes that the military does not want, does not need, and says we 
cannot afford.
  First, the F-22 is a very capable aircraft. There should be no doubt 
about it. We have them. We need them. And they are valuable.
  Next, the Air Force has already bought, and will pay for, 187 F-22 
aircraft. So the debate is not about whether we will have that 
capability of the F-22 for the next 20 years. We will. We should, and 
we will. The debate is over how many F-22s are enough to meet the 
Nation's requirements. Two Presidents--President Obama and President 
Bush--two Secretaries of Defense, three Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, 
current members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all agree that 187 F-22s 
is all we need to buy and all we should buy.
  The debate also concerns what damage will be done if we do not 
reverse the cuts that were taken to pay for the additional F-22s--to 
pay for the $1.75 billion in the F-22 add. Those cuts are $400 million 
to military personnel accounts, $850 million to operations and 
maintenance accounts, and $500 million across-the-board reductions to 
the Department of Defense budget.
  We received a letter from the President this week saying he will veto 
the Defense authorization bill if it includes the F-22 production.
  So our amendment is a critically important amendment. It involves a 
lot of money, and there is a lot of principle involved as to whether we 
should continue to be building weapons we no longer need and we have 
enough of. We need the F-22. There is no doubt about that. But we have 
enough of the F-22, according to all our military leaders--civilian and 
uniformed leaders alike.
  But we cannot get to a vote, and that is the fact of the matter. We 
have waited for an agreement to get to a vote on the Levin-McCain 
amendment. Repeatedly, I have asked whether we can set a time for a 
vote, and the answer has come back: We cannot set a time for a vote. It 
is clear that for some reason, which, frankly, I do not fully 
understand--the reason we are not permitted to get to a vote on the 
Levin-McCain amendment is because of the prospect, the fact that either 
the next amendment or somehow down the line on this bill there is going 
to be offered a hate crimes amendment.
  How that and why that should result in a denial of an opportunity to 
vote on the Levin-McCain amendment escapes me, I must say. Because we 
are going to get to the hate crimes amendment whether we are allowed a 
vote on the F-22 amendment. Not allowing us a vote, not agreeing to a 
time for a vote on the Levin-McCain amendment does not obviate the fact 
there is going to be a hate crimes amendment offered. As a matter of 
fact, it is now the actual amendment before us. And everyone knew that.

  So I do not understand the logic behind the refusal to permit a vote 
on an amendment--the Levin-McCain amendment--because of objection to 
going to a vote on hate crimes, when we are going to that hate crimes 
amendment anyway and when we are going to have to come back to the 
Levin-McCain amendment. Everybody knows it. We are going to have to 
resolve both those amendments. So the decision some made to deny us an 
opportunity to vote at this time on Levin-McCain simply stymies this 
body from doing what it is going to do.
  There are many people who disagree with the Levin amendment. Fine. 
There are many people who disagree on the hate crimes amendment. That 
is their right. But what is undeniable is, we are going to resolve 
both, one way or the other. We are going to resolve both of those and 
hopefully a lot of other material and a lot of other amendments. They 
are both going to be resolved, one way or the other, on this bill. 
Argue both sides, argue neither side, but you cannot argue, it seems to 
me, that we should not allow a vote on the first amendment before us--
Levin-McCain--because of opposition to another amendment which is going 
to be offered.
  I know there is strong opposition to hate crimes. I understand it. I 
understand why people say it should not be on this bill, despite the 
rules which allow it. I respect the right to disagree with it. But I do 
not understand the logic or the strategy which denies us the 
opportunity to vote on an amendment which has been thoroughly debated--
the Levin-McCain amendment--because there is another amendment down the 
line which is going to be offered which people object to, when they 
know it is coming up. Despite strong feelings that it should not come 
up, it is coming up. It is now before us. Everyone knew it was going to 
come up.

[[Page S7514]]

  So now we are stymied. We are stymied from resolving an amendment 
which has to be resolved, one way or the other--Levin-McCain--because 
of objection to another amendment being offered. I don't get the logic. 
I don't understand the strategy. I understand the feelings and I 
respect the feelings, although I disagree with people who oppose the 
Levin-McCain amendment and I disagree with people who oppose the hate 
crimes amendment. So I understand the feelings. I don't share the 
feelings, but I respect them, and I respect their right to fight 
against these amendments. But for the life of me, I do not understand 
why we are denied an opportunity to vote on Levin-McCain because of an 
objection to another amendment. All it does is slow down this body. It 
stymies this body from resolving issues which are going to be resolved. 
As certain as this body is here, this is going to be resolved. These 
are going to be resolved like a lot of other amendments. I don't know 
how they will be resolved. That is not certain; it never is. But they 
will be resolved because that is the nature of the Senate, to resolve 
these issues.

  Again, I thank my good friend from Arizona. I know there are 
differences on the question of whether hate crimes ought to be offered 
on this bill. I respect him deeply, and I respect his positions and his 
right to hold them. While I surely disagree with the decision that has 
been made to not permit us to move at this time to a resolution of 
Levin-McCain, I nonetheless have a great understanding of the feelings 
here. I appreciate them and I respect them.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know there are a lot of other issues 
that are consuming the interests of my colleagues and the American 
people, such as the confirmation hearings of Judge Sotomayor; the HELP 
Committee, of which I am a member, is reporting out one of the most 
massive takeovers and expenditures of taxpayer dollars in history; and 
we have this bill on the floor, and there are other issues. So it has 
probably gone unnoticed that we have seen another really--if not 
unprecedented, certainly highly unusual action on the part of the 
majority.
  Frankly, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the American 
people, elections have consequences. What we have just seen is an 
amendment before this body and a piece of legislation before this body 
that I think one could argue is probably of more importance than any 
other we consider because it authorizes the measures necessary to 
preserve the security of this Nation, care for the men and women who 
are serving in the military, and meet the future threats we will face 
in the 21st century.
  So what has happened here is that the majority leader, with the 
agreement of my friend from Michigan, whom I highly respect and regard, 
has made it clear that their highest priority is not that. Their 
highest priority is a hate crimes bill--a hate crimes bill that has 
nothing to do whatsoever with defending this Nation.
  My friend from Michigan just complained that we haven't had a time 
for the vote. Of course we haven't had a time for the vote on the 
Levin-McCain amendment because we have been made aware that a hate 
crimes bill--and by the way, not an ordinary, small, specific 
amendment, but 17 pages, plus 6 additional pages, encompassing a piece 
of legislation that is before this body that has never moved through 
the Judiciary Committee. It has not moved through the Judiciary 
Committee, the appropriate committee of oversight.
  So the majority leader of the Senate comes to the floor, after 
prevailing upon the distinguished chairman to withdraw his amendment--
an amendment of some consequence, a $1.75 billion expenditure, and, far 
more important than even the money, a real confrontation between 
special interests and the national interests--so that we can move to 
the hate crimes bill.
  The hate crimes bill is not without controversy, I say. In fact, it 
is interesting that on June 16, 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights sent a letter to the Vice President and to the leaders of the 
Congress opposing the hate crimes bill.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Commission on Civil Rights,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 2009.
     Re S. 909.

     Hon. Joseph Biden, Jr.,
     President, U.S. Senate,
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     President Pro Tempore, U.S. Senate,
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Majority Whip, U.S. Senate,
     Hon. Jon Kyl,
     Minority Whip, U.S. Senate,
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee.
     Hon. Russell Feingold,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution,
     Hon. Tom Coburn,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 
         Constitution.
       Dear Mr. President and Distinguished Senators: We write 
     today to urge you to vote against the proposed Matthew 
     Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) (``MSHCPA'').
       We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal 
     of harm. Its most important effect will be to allow federal 
     authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants 
     who have already been acquitted by state juries--as in the 
     Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago. 
     Due to the exception for prosecutions by ``dual sovereigns,'' 
     such double prosecutions are technically not violations of 
     the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. But they 
     are very much a violation of the spirit that drove the 
     framers of the Bill of Rights, who never dreamed that federal 
     criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an 
     astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and 
     federal offenses. We regard the broad federalization of crime 
     as a menace to civil liberties. There is no better place to 
     draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports 
     to protect civil rights.
       While the title of MSHCPA suggests that it will apply only 
     to ``hate crimes,'' the actual criminal prohibitions 
     contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired 
     by hatred or ill will in order to convict. It is sufficient 
     if he acts ``because of'' someone's actual or perceived race, 
     color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, 
     gender identity or disability. Consider:
       Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their 
     victims. They are virtually always chosen ``because of'' 
     their gender.
       A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled 
     because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves. 
     Literally, they are chosen ``because of'' their gender or 
     disability.
       While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not 
     his intention to cover all rape with MSHCPA, some DOJ 
     officials have declined to disclaim such coverage. Moreover, 
     both the objective meaning of the language and considerable 
     legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage. If 
     all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level 
     of a ``hate crime'' in the minds of ordinary Americans are 
     covered by MSHCPA, then prosecutors will have ``two bites at 
     the apple'' for a very large number of crimes.
       DOJ officials have argued that MSHCPA is needed because 
     state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain 
     convictions. They have cited a Texas case from over a decade 
     ago involving an attack on a black man by three white 
     hoodlums. Texas law required the three defendants to be tried 
     separately. By prosecuting them under federal law, however, 
     they could have been tried together. As a result, admissions 
     made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of 
     all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.
       Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an 
     end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair 
     trial. The citizens of Texas evidently thought that separate 
     trials were necessary to ensure that innocent men and women 
     are not punished. No one was claiming that Texas applies this 
     rule only when the victim is black or female or gay. And 
     surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime. Why 
     interfere with their judgment?
       We are unimpressed with the arguments in favor of MSHCPA 
     and would be happy to discuss the matter further with you if 
     you so desire. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us 
     with your questions or comments. The Chairman's Counsel and 
     Special Assistant, Dominique Ludvigson, is also available to 
     further direct your inquiries.
           Sincerely,
     Gerald A. Reynolds,
       Chairman.
     Abigail Thernstrom,
       Vice Chair.
     Peter Kirsanow,
       Commissioner.
     Ashley Taylor, Jr.,
       Commissioner.
     Gail Heriot,
       Commissioner.
     Todd Gaziano,
       Commissioner.

[[Page S7515]]

  Mr. McCAIN. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sends a letter 
saying:

       Dear Mr. President and distinguished Senators: We write 
     today to urge you to vote against the Matthew Shepard Hate 
     Crimes Prevention Act.

  That is basically the bill the majority leader has just inserted into 
the process of legislation designed to defend this Nation's national 
security. Of course there are strong feelings on it. This is a complete 
abdication of the responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee but, more 
importantly, could hang up this bill for a long period of time. While 
we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars, we are going to 
take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that is 
more important--more important--than legislation concerning the defense 
of this Nation. I am sure the men and women in the military serving in 
his home State would be interested to know about his priorities.
  So here we are. Now we will go through--I am sure the majority leader 
will file cloture, we will go through 30 hours of debate, and we will 
have another vote. All of this is unnecessary. Why couldn't we move the 
hate crimes bill--remember, this is not a single-shot amendment on a 
specific small issue; this is a huge issue, the whole issue of hate 
crimes. It is a huge issue. It deserves hearings and debate and 
amendment in the Judiciary Committee. But what are we going to do? For 
reasons that I guess the majority leader can make clear because I don't 
get it, he wants to put it on the national defense authorization bill 
and pass it that way. He will probably succeed, and he will call it 
``bipartisan.'' The last time I checked, it has 44 Democratic 
cosponsors and 2 Republicans. That is the definition, by the way, 
around here of bipartisan bills. That is the way the stimulus package 
was bipartisan. That is how the omnibus spending bill was bipartisan. 
And I am pretty confident that if health care ``reform'' passes, it 
will probably be in another ``bipartisan'' fashion.
  So we will have some hours of debate. We will have more exacerbated 
feelings between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle. I 
would imagine that the hate crimes bill, given the makeup of this body, 
may even be put on a defense authorization bill--a huge issue. A huge 
issue will now be placed on a defense authorization bill and passed 
through the Congress and signed by the President. That is a great 
disservice to the American people. The American people deserve debate 
and discussion and hearings and witnesses on this legislation. They 
deserve it. They don't deserve to have a hate crimes bill put on this 
legislation which has no relation whatsoever to hate crimes.
  I will probably have a lot more to say about this in the hours ahead. 
I have been around this body a fair amount of time. I have watched the 
Defense authorization bill wind its way through Congress, and 
occasionally, including at other times, I have seen amendments put on 
bills which are nongermane, but I haven't seen the majority leader of 
the Senate--the majority leader of the Senate, whose responsibility is 
to move legislation through the Senate--take a totally nonrelevant, 
all-encompassing, controversial piece of legislation and put it on a 
bill that is as important to the Nation's security as is this 
legislation. We are breaking new ground here, let's have no doubt about 
it. It is one thing to sometimes have one Member or two or others 
propose amendments that happen to be their pet project or their pet 
peeve. It is an entirely different thing--it is an entirely different 
thing, and I have never seen it before--that the majority leader of the 
Senate comes to the floor and introduces an irrelevant piece of 
legislation that is controversial, that is fraught with implications 
for this and future generations, to a bill that is totally nonrelevant. 
After 30 hours of debate, we will have a vote on closing that debate 
and including it in the legislation. I am deeply, deeply disappointed, 
and I question anyone's priorities who puts this kind of legislation 
ahead of the needs of the men and women who are serving our military 
with bravery, courage, and distinction.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are currently on the Department of 
Defense authorization bill and an amendment that has been offered by 
the Democratic majority leader relative to the creation of a new 
Federal crime of hate crimes.
  Earlier, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, came to the floor to 
question the wisdom of adding that kind of legislation to a bill 
related to the Department of Defense. Most people, when they hear that 
argument, would say: Why don't they do these bills separately? It turns 
out that under the Senate rules, oftentimes there are few opportunities 
to move a bill forward. It is not at all unusual for Senators to come 
forward and offer what appears to be, and may in fact be, an unrelated 
amendment to a bill that is likely to pass and be signed by the 
President. Too often, we pass bills that die in transit to the House or 
once over in the House never see the light of day. They have the same 
complaint about the Senate.
  This is legislation, hate crimes legislation, which we believe is 
timely, important, and which we want to make part of this debate and 
ultimately would like to offer it to the President for signature. It 
has been debated in the House of Representatives, and it is a bill that 
I think we can quickly come together with the House on and agree on 
common terms. So it is an important opportunity.
  I might say to Senator McCain that I have offered what we would call 
unrelated amendments in the past, and he has as well. Going back many 
years, in 1993 Senator McCain offered a line-item veto amendment to a 
bill involving voter registration. He also offered that same amendment 
to research bills and to a bill involving the travel rights of blind 
individuals. He had a supermajority requirement to increase taxes added 
to a bill--unrelated--on the subject of unemployment compensation. So 
it is not unusual. I have done it. Senator McCain has done it.
  In fact, this year we have seen it happen repeatedly. In fact, most 
of the amendments have come from the other side of the aisle. Senator 
Vitter--on a bill that tried to put the economy back on track--offered 
an amendment that was critical of an organization known as ACORN. It 
had nothing to do with the stimulus package. It was his personal 
feeling about that organization that led to the amendment. Senator 
Ensign of Nevada offered a controversial amendment which, in fact, 
stalled a bill that was relating to the voting rights of the citizens 
of the District of Columbia. Senator Ensign's amendment dealt with gun 
control, which didn't have a direct bearing on the question of DC 
voting rights. Senator DeMint raised the question of the fairness 
doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission--another amendment to 
the DC voting bill. Senator Thune of South Dakota offered an amendment 
relative to concealed firearms, again on the DC voting rights bill.
  The list goes on. To suggest what was done this morning is unusual is 
to ignore the obvious. For the better part of this year, amendments 
have been coming from the Republican side of the aisle that are 
unrelated to the subject matter of the bill, and that has been a fact 
of Senate life.
  This amendment being offered by Senator Reid, as well as many others 
relative to hate crimes, is a very important one. I would like to speak 
to it.
  I speak in strong support of the passage of this hate crimes 
legislation. We plan on voting on it as an amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill. For several years, the Senate has taken up these 
two measures, and for several years both the House and the Senate have 
passed the hate crimes bill only to see it blocked by filibuster 
threats or veto vows.
  We are fortunate to have a new President who supports this hate 
crimes legislation. When the House of Representatives took up this 
legislation just a couple months ago, President Obama issued a 
statement which said:

       I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to act on this 
     important civil rights issue by

[[Page S7516]]

     passing this legislation to protect all our citizens from 
     violent acts of intolerance.

  What a difference a year has made. When Congress took up the hate 
crimes bill last Congress, President Bush called it ``unnecessary and 
constitutionally questionable.'' He promised to veto it.
  The American people said last November that they wanted a President 
who will take our country in a different direction. President Obama is 
doing that, and he is doing it on this issue as well.
  The hate crimes bill has another important supporter who, sadly, 
cannot be with us on the floor today, and that is Senator Ted Kennedy 
of Massachusetts, who has been our leader on this issue for over 10 
years. I wish he were here to make another impassioned speech for its 
passage. Nobody speaks to this issue with more authority and clarity 
than Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy has been called the heart and 
soul of the Senate. Passing this bill will honor the great work he has 
given in his public career to the cause of civil rights.
  The Kennedy hate crimes bill now before us is one of the most 
important pieces of civil rights legislation of our time. I am proud to 
cosponsor it. I generally believe Congress should be careful in 
federalizing crime. In the case of hate crimes, there is a demonstrated 
problem and a carefully crafted solution.
  Here is the problem--in fact, it is twofold. First, the existing 
Federal hate crimes law, passed in 1968 after the assassination of Dr. 
Martin Luther King, covers only six narrow categories. In order for the 
current law to apply, a person has to be physically assaulted on the 
basis of race, national origin, or religion, while engaging in one of 
the following specific activities: using a public accommodation, 
serving as a juror, attending a public school, participating in a 
government program, traveling in interstate commerce, or applying for a 
job.
  The Kennedy hate crimes bill now being considered would expand 
coverage so that hate crimes could be prosecuted wherever they took 
place as long as there is an interstate commerce connection, such as 
the use of a weapon. Federal prosecutors would no longer be limited to 
the six narrow areas I mentioned earlier in the bill passed some 41 
years ago.
  Secondly, the bill would expand the categories of people covered 
under the Federal hate crimes law. The current law provides no coverage 
for hate crimes based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender, gender 
identity, or disability. Unfortunately, statistics tell us that hate 
crimes based on sexual orientation are the third most common after 
those based on race and religion. About 15 percent of all hate crimes 
are based on sexual orientation. Our laws cannot ignore this reality.
  Let me address some of the arguments that have been made against this 
hate crimes bill. Some of my constituents--in fact, most of those who 
write in opposition to the bill--are writing either personally or on 
behalf of churches. There are people who believe this bill would be an 
infringement on religious speech. Their concern is that a minister 
could be prosecuted if he sermonizes against homosexuality, and after 
that a member of his congregation assaults someone on the basis of 
their sexual orientation. I understand their concern, but it is 
misplaced.
  The chair of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, held a 
hearing last month on the hate crimes bill. Attorney General Eric 
Holder was the star witness. I attended the hearing and asked the 
Attorney General pointblank whether a religious leader could be 
prosecuted under the facts I just described. I talked to him about a 
minister in a church who might stand before his or her congregation and 
argue that the Bible states clearly, from their point of view, that 
persons engaged in homosexual conduct are sinners, and if after that 
sermon someone sitting in the congregation, in anger, turns and strikes 
someone who is gay, can the minister be held responsible for inciting 
this person to strike someone of a different sexual orientation. This 
is what the Attorney General said in response to this hypothetical 
question I raised:

       This bill seeks to protect people from conduct that is 
     motivated by bias. It has nothing to do with regard to 
     speech. The minister who says negative things about 
     homosexuality, about gay people, this is a person I would not 
     agree with, but is not somebody who would be under the ambit 
     of this statute.

  Based on that representation from the Nation's top law enforcement 
officer, I hope some from religious communities who have been writing 
to my office will understand that my response to them over the months 
and years that they have been writing is consistent with the 
interpretation of this hate crimes bill by the Attorney General of the 
United States.

  It is also important to point out that the Kennedy hate crimes bill 
requires bodily injury. It does not apply to speech or harassment. It 
does not apply to those who would carry signs with messages of their 
religious beliefs. Attorney General Holder assured the Senate that, 
unless there is bodily injury involved, no hate crimes prosecution 
could be brought. I don't know how he could have been clearer or more 
definitive. I am certain that some who don't want to accept the clear 
meaning of his words will dispute him, but he was very clear for all of 
the people of good faith who would listen.
  And listen to the words of Geoffrey Stone, a first amendment scholar 
at the University of Chicago Law School:

       It is settled First Amendment law that an individual cannot 
     constitutionally be punished for attempting to incite others 
     to commit crimes, unless the speaker expressly incites 
     unlawful conduct and such conduct is likely to occur 
     imminently. The last time the Supreme Court upheld a criminal 
     conviction for incitement was more than a half century ago.

  I also note that 24 States--nearly half of the States in America--
have hate crime laws on the books that include sexual orientation, and 
religious leaders are not being prosecuted in those States. That is 
just not the purpose of the hate crimes laws. Prosecutors aren't going 
around looking to put ministers or people with religious beliefs 
contrary to certain sexual orientations in jail.
  Moreover, I think it is time that many people in the religious 
community would come forward and support this legislation. They should 
take comfort in knowing that if they believe intolerance and hate are 
not part of their spiritual message, this law is a good law in support 
of their beliefs.
  This law would go beyond the six narrow areas I covered earlier. It 
would be an important consideration since 20 percent of all hate crimes 
are committed on the basis of a person's religion. This hate crimes law 
will actually protect those discriminated against because of their 
religious belief. That should be another reason for those of faith to 
come forward and consider supporting it.
  Another criticism of the Kennedy bill is one that has been around for 
a long time. It is an argument about States' rights. They argue there 
is no need to pass a Federal hate crimes law because the States can do 
the job on their own.
  This argument is remarkably similar to one we faced almost a century 
ago when Congress debated an antilynching law. Between 1881 and 1964 
there is evidence that almost 5,000 people--in fact, 4,749--were 
lynched in the United States. Predominantly the victims were African 
Americans. Yet Congress resisted addressing this problem for 
generations.
  Let me read some quotes from a 1922 Congressional Record when 
Congress debated whether to pass a bill making lynching a Federal 
crime. One Member of Congress said:

       The great body of the good people of the country know that 
     the Federal Government should let the States solve these 
     purely local questions. They know that peace and confidence 
     cannot come from distrust and suspicion and that this 
     Congress cannot, by statute, change God's eternal laws.

  Another House Member said:

       The question is whether or not we shall duplicate the State 
     function by conferring the same power upon the Federal 
     Government as to this class of crimes. Ours is a government 
     of divided Sovereignties.

  The arguments this year against the hate crimes bill sound very 
similar to the arguments in 1922 against the antilynching law.
  We can all agree that criminal law is primarily a State and local 
function. It is estimated 95 percent of prosecutions for crimes occur 
at that level. But there are some areas of criminal law in which we 
have agreed the Federal Government can and should step in to help.

[[Page S7517]]

  There are over 4,000 Federal crimes, 600 of which have been passed in 
the last 10 years. Hate crimes are a sad and tragic reality in America. 
Last month's horrific shooting, not far from here, at the Holocaust 
Museum in Washington, DC, was the most recent reminder that hate-
motivated violence still plagues our Nation.
  Earlier this year in my home State of Illinois, two White men in the 
town of Joliet used a garbage can to beat a 43-year-old Black man 
outside a gas station while yelling racial epithets and stating: ``This 
is for Obama.'' The victim sustained serious injuries, lacerations, and 
bruises to his head.
  Last year, a University of Illinois student was walking near his 
college campus with three friends when an attacker, yelling antigay 
slurs, pushed him so forcefully he was knocked unconscious and suffered 
a head injury.
  These are incidents in my home State, which I am proud to represent, 
but I am not proud of this conduct, and I do not think America should 
be proud of this kind of intolerance and assault--physical assault--
that has taken place.
  According to FBI data, which is based on voluntary reporting, 
incidentally, there are about 8,000 hate crimes in America every year. 
Some experts estimate the real number is closer to 50,000.
  The Kennedy hate crimes bill will not eliminate hate crimes in 
America, but it will help ensure these crimes do not go unpunished.
  When Senator Kennedy introduced the hate crimes bill in April, here 
is what he said--for Ted, whom I wish could be with us today, I will 
repeat his words so he is part of the Record in support of this bill. 
Here is what he said:

       It has been over 10 years since Matthew Shepard was left to 
     die on a fence in Wyoming because of who he was. It has also 
     been 10 years since this bill was initially considered by 
     Congress. In those 10 years, we have gained the political and 
     public support that is needed to make this bill become law. 
     Today, we have a President who is prepared to sign hate 
     crimes legislation into law, and a Justice Department that is 
     willing to enforce it. We must not delay the passage of this 
     bill. Now is the time to stand up against hate-motivated 
     violence and recognize the shameful damages it is doing to 
     our Nation.

  In the words of Senator Kennedy, and in my own words as well, I urge 
my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now 
on the hate crimes amendment which takes the form of the Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act introduced by Senator Kennedy. I wish to speak on that 
amendment.
  I begin by commending and thanking Senator Kennedy for his leadership 
and dedication on this issue for a long time. He has been the leader, 
he has been persistent, and I know he remains fully supportive.
  This has been offered as an amendment to the Defense authorization 
bill. The reason is because it is so long overdue.
  This amendment will expand the Federal definition of a hate crime so 
that the Federal Government can prosecute crimes committed because of a 
person's gender, gender identity, disability, or other sexual 
orientation.
  It would increase the Justice Department's authority to prosecute by 
removing old restrictions that say a hate crime must involve a victim 
who is attacked because of hate and attacked while voting, attending a 
public school, serving on a jury or involved in another specially 
designated activity. So the application of the existing legislation is 
highly limited, and this would remove that limitation.
  It would authorize $5 million in Federal grants to help States, 
localities, and Indian tribes investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It 
would also allow the Federal Government to give important technical, 
forensic, and prosecutorial assistance to States and localities that 
prosecute these kinds of crimes.
  It would authorize the Department of Justice to begin programs to 
combat hate crimes committed by children and teenagers. This is 
important because this is a rising area of concern.
  It would allow law enforcement to gather more data about violent hate 
crimes so we know how big the problem is and can work to fight against 
it.
  Let me give a little bit of history. I have been working on hate 
crimes since I joined the Senate and the Judiciary Committee almost 17 
years ago. I know the history of this amendment very well. In the 103rd 
Congress, I introduced the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act to 
substantially increase criminal sentences whenever a crime was 
committed on Federal land that had an element of hatred to it relating 
to race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity or sexual 
orientation. The bill was actually enacted into law in 1994, and it was 
an important first step.
  In the 105th Congress, Senator Kennedy introduced the Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act for the first time, and I was one of 33 cosponsors. That 
was 1997, and this is the bill we are still talking about today, 12 
years later. In the 106th Congress, Senator Kennedy reintroduced the 
bill. The bill was bipartisan, it had 43 cosponsors, but it did not 
pass.
  In the 107th Congress, 2 years later, Senator Kennedy reintroduced it 
again. It was bipartisan, and this time it had 50 cosponsors. In July 
of 2001, it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, but a cloture 
vote in 2002 failed by a vote of 54 to 43. That was 7 years ago. One-
half of the Senate was cosponsoring this bill, but we lost by six votes 
on a cloture vote.
  Senator Kennedy reintroduced the bill in the 108th, the 109th, and 
the 110th Congresses. Each time there was broad and bipartisan support, 
but the bill did not pass. In this Congress, the bill has 45 
cosponsors. The Attorney General has testified in support of it, and a 
similar bill has already passed the House. I believe it is time to pass 
this legislation.
  Let me be candid and say I still do not understand the opposition to 
the bill. It does not criminalize speech. It only applies to violent 
acts. These are acts where the victim is targeted because of who they 
are--because of their race, or national origin, or disability, or 
religion, or gender, or their sexual orientation. We should have passed 
this bill many years ago.
  According to the FBI, hate crimes occur in the United States at a 
rate of approximately one for every single hour of the day. FBI 
statistics are not complete because they rely on voluntary reporting 
from local law enforcement agencies, but they are, nonetheless, I 
think, chilling and compelling. In 2007, 7,264 hate crimes incidents 
were reported to the FBI with a total of 9,535 victims. Approximately 
50 percent of the victims were attacked because of their race, 18 
percent because of their religion, 16 percent because of their sexual 
orientation, 13 percent because of their ethnicity or national origin, 
and 1 percent because of a disability.
  The nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that if we had 
information about all the hate crimes that occur in the United States, 
the total number would be close to 50,000.
  These crimes come in all sizes and all shapes, but they have one 
common theme: They leave people terrified, hurt, even dead, and they 
rip communities apart.
  I think we all remember the story of James Byrd, Jr., a 50-year-old 
Black man, who was savagely murdered in Jasper, TX, in 1998, 11 years 
ago, while this bill was under consideration. Mr. Byrd was walking home 
from his parents' home late one night. He was picked up by three White 
men in a pickup truck. They took him to the woods, they savagely beat 
him, they chained him to the back of the truck, and they dragged him 2 
miles to his death. His torso was found at the edge of a paved road. 
His head and arm were found in a ditch a mile away. The three men were 
later discovered to be Ku Klux Klan supporters, bearing racist tattoos.
  A crime like this is not just tragic for the victim and his family 
but it makes an entire group of people terrified to leave their homes 
at night, and

[[Page S7518]]

it tears communities apart in a potentially irreparable way. This is a 
heinous crime. Hate was the driving motivation and the law and the 
punishment ought to reflect that.
  Mr. Byrd was killed 11 years ago, and things have not gotten better. 
Let me tell you about three trends I find particularly disturbing. 
First, hate crimes targeting Hispanic Americans rose 40 percent between 
2003 and 2007. FBI statistics show these crimes are rising every single 
year. In 2003, 426 crimes against Latinos; in 2004, 475; 2005, 522;--
see it ratcheting up--2006, 576; and 2007, 595. That is a 40-percent 
increase in 4 years.
  The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has reported that this 
increase in violence correlates with the heated debate over 
comprehensive immigration reform, and we have all heard the talk shows 
that preach hatred. This is part of the result. Regardless of the 
reason, though, for the trend, it is unacceptable for us to stand by 
and let these crimes increase.
  Another example: In Shenandoah, PA, this year, a 25-year-old Mexican 
immigrant and father of two was beaten to death by a group of high 
school football players who yelled ethnic slurs as they punched and 
kicked him. They beat him until he was unconscious and convulsing. He 
died 2 days later from those injuries.
  Just last week, a Latina janitor in Ladera Ranch, CA, was doing her 
maintenance round when two men hit her on the head and stabbed her with 
a switchblade while yelling racial slurs at her. Another hate crime 
last week.
  These are brutal, and the victims are attacked because of who they 
are--their skin color, their religion, their heritage--and their 
attackers' hate and vengeance.
  There is a second troubling trend. The FBI reported 1,265 hate crimes 
against gay men and lesbians in 2007, and these are only the crimes 
reported. Many more crimes against this particular community are 
believed to go unreported to local law enforcement. The FBI has been 
reporting at least 1,000 hate crimes against this community every 
single year since 1995.
  These crimes are equally chilling. Last December, a woman in my 
State, in the San Francisco Bay area--in Richmond, CA--who happened to 
be lesbian, was attacked by four men when she got out of her car, which 
had a gay pride sticker on its license plate. They raped her and made 
comments about her sexual orientation. Then they drove her 7 blocks 
away and raped her over and over again before leaving her naked on the 
ground near a burned-out apartment complex.
  This is the United States of America. In my State, too, in Oxnard, 
CA, a 15-year-old openly gay boy named Larry King was harassed and 
bullied by his classmates for many years. One day, in 2008, he was 
sitting in an English class in school, when a fellow classmate stood, 
took out a handgun and shot him in the head. Larry King died in the 
hospital a few days later.
  It is essential we give law enforcement all the resources we need to 
investigate, to solve, to prosecute, and to punish these crimes.
  Finally, there is a third area I am very concerned about. Most of the 
worst of these crimes are being committed today by young people. On 
election night, just last year, four young men between the ages of 18 
and 21 drove to a predominantly African-American neighborhood in Staten 
Island, where they brutally beat a Black teenager who was walking home 
from watching the election results. They went on to assault another 
Black man, and they used their car to run over a third man they 
believed to be black. They injured this man so badly he was left in a 
coma.
  In Shenandoah, the individuals who savagely beat a 25-year-old 
Mexican immigrant to death were all 21 or younger. And in Oxnard, the 
boy who shot Larry King was 14 years old. Imagine being consumed by 
hatred at 14 years old and what that means for the future of your life.
  Why would anyone oppose giving the Department of Justice more 
resources to fight these crimes? These hate crimes are terrifying. 
These are the daily lives of Americans we are talking about--innocent 
people who are walking to work, driving home at night, working or, yes, 
sitting in our Nation's school classrooms.
  This legislation is important. It will allow the Federal Government 
to prosecute where States or localities are not willing to. It will 
allow the Justice Department to assist States and localities that want 
to prosecute but don't have the resources or expertise they need. It 
does not criminalize speech. It only applies to violent acts, not 
expressive conduct. It is bipartisan and supported by a majority of 
Congress.
  Twenty-six State attorneys general are advocating for it and so are 
more than 41 civil rights groups, 55 women's groups, 79 Latino groups, 
16 gay rights groups, 63 religious organizations that represent 
hundreds of individual congregations, by the International Association 
of Chiefs of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, 
the Major Cities Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of 
Police Officers, the United States Conference of Mayors, the American 
Veterans Committee, and many others.

  This legislation is long overdue. There is a problem out there. It 
deserves to be solved. It deserves to be deterred. It deserves to be 
punished. This bill is long overdue.
  I thank Senator Kennedy for his long history of leadership on this 
issue. Indeed, if we are able to pass this bill today, or whenever we 
vote, it will, in fact, be a major tribute to him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to repeat and emphasize the 
unprecedented fashion that we are now addressing legislation that 
concerns our Nation's security and the well-being and welfare of the 
men and women who are serving it.
  I always thought the job of the majority leader of the Senate was to 
move legislation through the Senate. Obviously, the majority leader has 
come to the floor of the Senate and, at the request of the majority 
leader, the chairman of the committee has taken out an amendment that 
addresses a $1.75 billion F-22 amendment that the President has placed 
his personal stamp on passing, that the Secretary of Defense has viewed 
as one of his highest priorities, as did the Secretary of the Air Force 
and other administration officials. What did we do? We come to the 
floor and withdraw the amendment, withdraw it so we can take up a major 
piece of legislation.
  I am reminded that there are amendments proposed by various Members 
of this body who believe their amendments need to be proposed and 
believe there is no other avenue but to put them on pending 
legislation. The majority leader of the Senate can bring up legislation 
wherever he wants to. That is the privilege of the majority. That is 
the right of the majority.
  Here we are trying to address an issue of paramount importance to the 
well-being of the men and women of the United States of America. Here 
we are trying to address an issue of $1.75 billion, which has far more 
importance, in many respects, than the actual cost of the F-22s 
themselves, and without a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, without a 
bill reported out by the Judiciary Committee, which is the committee of 
oversight, the majority leader of the Senate has one very important 
amendment pulled and then puts in a piece of legislation which is far-
reaching in the consequences and very controversial.
  I introduced into the Record a little while ago the U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights opposes this legislation. Doesn't this legislation, the 
hate crimes bill, deserve the amending and debate process that 
legislation is supposed to go through--committees and then on the floor 
of the Senate, open to amendments? No, it has been inserted now on the 
Defense authorization bill, and within a short time, I am sure the 
majority leader will come to the floor and file a motion for cloture to 
cut off debate on an issue of significant importance to all Americans 
and railroad it through on a ``bipartisan basis,'' with possibly two 
Republican votes.
  That is not the way this body should work. It is an abuse of power. 
It does not make for comity on both sides of the aisle. In fact, those 
of us who are committed to seeing this authorization bill done as 
quickly as possible because we are worried about the security of this 
Nation take great offense when the majority leader of the Senate, whose 
job is to move legislation through the Senate, brings extraneous

[[Page S7519]]

and unrelated legislation to a bill as important as this to the men and 
women of this country and our Nation's security. To somehow equate that 
with other amendments that have been proposed, from time to time, by 
Members on both sides, I think is not an appropriate comparison. I 
resent it a great deal. It is not good for the health of this body, in 
my view.
  Perhaps there is precedent for this. Perhaps there is precedent when 
a Defense authorization bill, an issue probably, as I say, of the 
highest criticality, with an amendment on it that the President of the 
United States has fully weighed in on and committed on, is taken off 
the floor, is taken away from consideration in order to put in an 
extraneous and very controversial full package of legislation.
  The hate crimes bill before us is not an amendment. It is 
legislation. It is an encompassing bill, 20-some pages long. We are 
going to have about 30 hours of debate, a discussion on it, the 
majority leader will come and cut off debate and we will probably pass 
it, thereby exacerbating a situation where those of us who oppose this 
legislation--and it is important legislation--will be faced with a 
dilemma of choosing between a bill which will harm, in my view, the 
United States of America and its judicial system and defending the 
Nation. I do not think that is fair to any Member of this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1521

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Brown and I introduced 
bipartisan and commonsense legislation as both an amendment to the 
National Defense Authorization Act and as a stand-alone bill. This is 
not the first time we have worked together on legislation. I would like 
to recognize and thank the junior Senator from Ohio for the bipartisan 
manner that both he and his staff have worked on this particular issue.
  In particular, I would also like to thank the Nevada Office of 
Veterans Services and the National Association for State Veterans Homes 
for bringing this matter to our attention.
  As stated, our legislation is both bipartisan and common sense. 
Currently, an individual is allowed into a State veterans home if the 
individual is, No. 1, an eligible veteran as defined by the U.S. Code; 
No. 2, the spouse of an eligible veteran; or, No. 3, a Gold Star 
parent.
  The problem, though, arises in the way that the Veterans Affairs 
Department defines a Gold Star parent. Under current regulations, an 
eligible parent is one who has lost all of their children while serving 
their country. I know it doesn't make sense, but that is the way the 
definition is. As a consequence, state veterans homes are forced to 
deny admissions to Gold Star parents if they have any surviving 
children. Losing a child in war is a stunning and life-altering event 
for anyone. Senator Brown and I believe that for these families, having 
one child make the supreme sacrifice in service to our country is 
sacrifice enough to authorize the surviving parent's elder care in a 
State veterans home later in life. Our legislation would change that to 
permit entry into a VA nursing home to any parent who lost a son or 
daughter in war while fighting to protect our freedoms and our very way 
of life.
  As most people are aware, State veterans homes were founded for 
servicemembers following the American Civil War. They have become 
institutions that our veterans and their dependents have come to rely 
on for nearly 150 years. Currently, there are 137 State veterans homes 
in all 50 States and Puerto Rico that, on a daily basis, provide 
hospital, rehabilitation, long-term care, Alzheimer's care, and end-of-
life care to approximately 30,000 veterans and dependents.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the Nevada 
State Veterans Home in Boulder City, NV, for the great work they do. 
U.S. News and World Report recently rated this veterans home as a 5-
star facility and the top nursing home in my home State of Nevada. I 
think it is only fair that the parents who have lost a son or a 
daughter have access to first-class facilities such as this.
  I thank, once again, the junior Senator from Ohio and ask my other 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise in support of strengthening our 
Federal hate crimes clause to include crimes motivated by a victim's 
sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or whether the victim has a 
disability. By passing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 
we will take a long-overdue step toward ensuring that our law 
enforcement officials have the resources they need to prevent and 
properly prosecute some of the most toxic and destructive violent 
crimes we face. I also thank my colleagues who have worked tirelessly 
to see this important legislation enacted into law. For the better part 
of the last decade, Senator Kennedy, along with Senators Leahy, 
Collins, and Snowe, have shown leadership on this issue, even when the 
odds of success were small. Their diligence is one of the reasons this 
legislation today enjoys the support of more than 300 law enforcement, 
civil rights, civic, and religious organizations. As a new Member of 
the Senate, I am proud to join them this year as an original cosponsor 
of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I truly hope my 
colleagues will join me to pass this amendment.
  In 1998, Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old college student, was beaten 
and murdered just because he was gay.
  The brutality of this crime captured the attention of the Nation. It 
was an attack not just on Matthew and his family but on an entire 
community. I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to meet Judy 
Shepard, Matthew's mother.
  I applaud her willingness to try and make something positive out of 
such a terrible tragedy. She has been a tireless advocate to try and 
get hate crimes legislation passed and to point out the impact of these 
violent acts on families across this country.
  The Matthew Shepard attack sent a message of hate and intolerance to 
LGBT youths and their families and instilled in countless young 
Americans a sense of fear simply because of their sexual orientation.
  Despite this, Matthew's murderers were not charged with a hate crime 
because no such law exists in Wyoming or on the Federal level. It is 
impossible to know for certain the full effect of crimes motivated by 
hate on the communities they target. What is certain is that hate 
crimes rob the members of these communities of a sense of security, and 
the impact is real.
  Among LGBT youth in this country, the suicide rate is four times 
higher than their straight peers, as many struggle to find their place 
in their families and their communities. While reducing bigotry and 
increasing tolerance will require a comprehensive effort, it is an 
effort that will take time. But addressing our outdated hate crimes law 
is one very important component.
  As Governor, I was proud to sign legislation that expanded New 
Hampshire's hate crimes to include sexual orientation. Unfortunately, 
many States still lack such laws, which is why this bill is so 
critical.
  By expanding the definition of hate crimes and by easing access to 
resources for local and Federal law enforcement officials to prosecute 
these crimes, we can hopefully help prevent these crimes and send a 
message that hate and bigotry in any form have no place in our society.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pending before the Senate is the 
National Defense Authorization Act which is an annual bill considered 
by

[[Page S7520]]

the Senate which basically authorizes the spending of money and certain 
policies for the Department of Defense. There is a lot of work that 
goes into this bill. It is put in primarily by the chairman of the 
committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, and by John McCain of Arizona. This 
bill looks to be over 1,000 pages long. They have put a lot of effort 
into this bill and are anxious to pass it.
  An issue came up, an important issue about the F-22 airplane. This is 
a fighter plane that the current administration and others have said 
should be discontinued. Whenever a fighter plane is being built and is 
being discontinued, there are people who resist because each one of 
these Defense projects involves a lot of people, a lot of jobs, a lot 
of contracts that are important to businesses and families and 
communities. So there is resistance. But on the F-22 fighter plane, 
President Obama has gone so far as to say in writing: If you include 
more planes beyond the 187 allocated in previous legislation, I will 
veto the bill. That, of course, would call for a supermajority to 
override the veto, which is not likely to occur. So it is a promise or 
a threat from a President we have to take seriously.
  The bill currently contains an amendment which expands the number of 
F-22 fighter planes that was adopted narrowly in the Armed Services 
Committee. The chairman and the ranking Republican have the same 
position as President Obama. They want to reduce or hold fast to the 
number of airplanes currently projected to be built and not to expand 
it, as this bill does. So they offered an amendment to stand with 
President Obama and delete the section of the bill which would call for 
more planes. That amendment, No. 1469, was offered on Monday to be 
considered by the Senate. A number of Members have come to support the 
amendment, and I am one of them. I support the President's position and 
the position of Senators Levin and McCain. There are others who oppose 
this amendment, clearly.
  At one point, Senator Levin said: Let's move this to a vote. Senator 
McCain agreed, as we should. It had been pending for 2 days. Everyone 
knows what is at issue. It is contentious and clearly controversial, 
but we deal with those issues. That is part of our job.
  At that point, the process broke down. The Republican side of the 
aisle objected to calling the amendment. That is when the bill came 
grinding to a halt. That is when Senator Levin said: We know that after 
this amendment on F-22s, we will go to an amendment on hate crimes 
legislation on the same bill. So he withdrew this amendment.
  Clearly, the answer to this--one I hope we can work out at the 
leadership level--is for Republicans to agree that we have a vote on 
the F-22 airplane. We should. Senator McCain is anxious for that to 
happen so the bill can move forward. Once that vote is out of the way, 
we should schedule a reasonable time for debate and a vote on the hate 
crimes legislation, which is not new. We have considered this before. 
But we are bogged down.
  At this point, tempers are flaring a little bit because this 
important bill is being held up over those two issues: whether the F-22 
amendment by Senators Levin and McCain will come to a vote and whether 
the hate crimes legislation offered by Senator Reid will also then be 
considered and voted on. I hope both those occur. There is no reason 
why they should not. Those who think they might lose the F-22 amendment 
are resistant to calling it for a vote. But there will come a day when 
we have to face this issue with a vote. That is ultimately what the 
Senate is here for.
  I might say about nonrelevant amendments, a position made on the 
floor by my friend from Arizona and others, it is a hard argument to 
understand in light of what we have been through.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a long list of 
nonrelevant amendments offered this year by the Republican side of the 
aisle to a series of bills considered on the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Republican Non-Relevant Amendments 2009

       Vitter #107 (ACORN) to H.R. 1, The American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act; Ensign #575 (DC Guns) to S. 160, DC Voting 
     Rights; DeMint #573 (Fairness Doctrine) to S. 160, DC Voting 
     Rights; Thune #579 (Concealed Firearms) to S. 160, DC Voting 
     Rights; Cornyn #674 (Union Dues) to H.R. 1105, Emergency 
     Supplemental Omnibus Appropriations; Vitter #621 
     (Congressional Pay) to H.R. 1105, Emergency Supplemental 
     Omnibus Appropriations; Thune #662 (Fairness Doctrine) to 
     H.R. 1105, Emergency Supplemental Omnibus Appropriations; 
     Thune #716 (Charitable Donations Deduction) to H.R. 1388, 
     National Service; Vitter #705 (ACORN) to H.R. 1388, National 
     Service; Inhofe #996 (National Language) to S. 386, Fraud 
     Enforcement; Vitter #991 (TARP) to S. 386, Fraud Enforcement 
     and Recovery Act; Coburn #982 (TARP) to S. 386, Fraud 
     Enforcement and Recovery Act; Thune #1002 (TARP) to S. 386, 
     Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act; DeMint #994 (TARP) to S. 
     386, Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act; Coburn #983 (IG-
     Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) to S. 386, Fraud Enforcement and 
     Recovery Act; Vitter #1016 (TARP) to S. 896, Helping Families 
     Save Their Homes Act; Thune #1030 (TARP) to S. 896, Helping 
     Families Save Their Homes Act; DeMint #1026 (TARP) to S. 896, 
     Helping Families Save Their Homes Act; Coburn #1067 (Guns in 
     National Parks) to H.R. 627, Credit Cardholders; Coburn #1068 
     (Guns in National Parks) to H.R. 627, Credit Cardholders; 
     Hutchison #1189 (Auto Dealers) to H.R. 2346, Iraq/Afghanistan 
     Supplemental Appropriations; Vitter #1467 (Rx Drug 
     Reimportation) to H.R. 2892, Homeland Security 
     Appropriations.

  Mr. DURBIN. They run the range of things. I talked earlier about some 
of these amendments: an amendment relating to the regulation of guns in 
the District of Columbia put on the voting rights bill; an amendment 
relating to the fairness doctrine and telecommunications on the same DC 
voting rights bill; an amendment related to congressional pay on the 
Omnibus appropriations bill. The list goes on and on. I won't go beyond 
including it in the Record.
  What the majority leader did today with the hate crimes legislation 
is not unlike what has been done repeatedly by the Republican side of 
the aisle over the last several months. Ultimately, these came to a 
vote. They were considered and voted on. That is all the majority 
leader is asking for, to bring the hate crimes legislation to a vote on 
this legislation.
  There is clearly a way out of this. It is for the Senate to do its 
job, to vote on the Levin-McCain amendment on the F-22 fighters up or 
down. Let's see who prevails, understanding that if this provision 
stays in the bill and Levin-McCain fails, the President will veto the 
bill. That is a pretty ominous prospect.
  Also keep mind that the hate crimes legislation is timely. It has 
passed the House of Representatives and should be considered by us.
  I would like to say a word on it and ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record a publication by an organization known as Third 
Way which consists of statements of support from religious leaders for 
the Senate hate crimes bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Statements of Support From Religious Leaders for the Senate Hate Crimes 
                                  Bill

       Dr. David P. Gushee, Distinguished University, Professor of 
     Christian Ethics, Mercer University: As a Christian, I 
     believe in the immeasurable and sacred worth of every human 
     being as made in the image of God and as the object of God's 
     redeeming love in Jesus Christ. In our sinful and violent 
     world, there are tragically very many ways in which this 
     sacredness is violated. This bill deserves Christian support 
     because its aim is to protect the dignity and basic human 
     rights of all Americans, and especially those Americans whose 
     perceived ``differentness'' makes them vulnerable to physical 
     attacks motivated by bias, hatred and fear. The bill simply 
     strengthens the capacity of our nation's governments to 
     prosecute violent, bias-related crimes. I am persuaded that 
     the bill poses no threat whatsoever to any free speech right 
     for religious communities or their leaders. Its passage will 
     make for a safer and more secure environment in which we and 
     all of our fellow Americans can live our lives. For me, the 
     case for this bill is settled with these words from Jesus: 
     ``As you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to 
     me'' (Mt. 25:40).
       Rev. Dr. Derrick Harkins, Senior Pastor, Nineteenth Street 
     Baptist Church, Washington, DC: A strong Biblical imperative 
     that I believe stands at the heart of my Christian faith is 
     the preservation and protection of the inherent dignity of 
     all persons. The Scriptures are replete with examples of 
     God's concern and compassion for those seen as ``other'' by 
     many. As an American, I know the protection of personal 
     dignity and human rights is a principle that makes us

[[Page S7521]]

     that much stronger as a nation, and certainly does not stand 
     at odds with freedom of expression. Passage of the Hate 
     Crimes Bill will help to ensure the safeguards of the law for 
     those who are victimized by acts of bias and hate. I welcome 
     the opportunity to support this bill as an expression of my 
     Christian witness, and my belief in our nation's highest aims 
     for all its citizens.
       Dr. Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland--A Church 
     Distributed: I would think that the followers of Jesus would 
     be first in line to protect any group from hate crimes. He 
     was the one who intervened against religious violence aimed 
     at the woman caught in the act of adultery. He protected her 
     while not condoning her behavior. This bill protects both the 
     rights of conservative religious people to voice passionately 
     their interpretations of their scriptures and protects their 
     fellow citizens from physical attack. I strongly endorse this 
     bill.
       Rev. Gabriel A. Salguero, Executive and Policy Advisor, The 
     Latino Leadership Circle: At the heart of the Christian 
     gospel is the belief in the intrinsic dignity of all 
     humanity. When people are targeted for acts of violence the 
     Church must speak out. I support the Hate Crimes bill because 
     it provides room for free speech and religious conviction 
     while protecting groups of people from acts of violence. As a 
     Christian who values both love and truth I support a bill 
     that protects the vulnerable while allowing ministers to 
     speak freely about their faith and moral convictions. The 
     Hate Crimes bill does not call for the sacrifice of either 
     dignity nor conviction. It is my prayer that we continue to 
     find ways forward that honors both freedom of speech and 
     protection for all our citizens.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, those who spoke in favor of the bill 
should be noted, their identities should be noted, because there is 
some argument, at least in the mail I have received from some religious 
leaders against the bill. Dr. David Gushee, distinguished university 
professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University, has a well-thought-
out statement in support of the bill; Rev. Derrick Harkins, senior 
pastor of the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church in Washington, DC, the 
same; Dr. Joel Hunter, senior pastor at Northland, has also come out in 
support; and Rev. Gabriel Salguero, executive and policy adviser of the 
Latino Leadership Circle.
  The point I tried to make earlier and the one their support makes is 
that there are religious leaders who believe this bill is necessary to 
protect those who may be subjected to physical violence because of 
religious belief--we don't want that to occur--that intolerance is not 
consistent with American values.
  Secondly, to those who argue that if we include sexual orientation in 
this bill, a pastor who sermonizes against homosexuality based on his 
interpretation of the Bible could be arrested for it, that is not true. 
As I quoted earlier, the Attorney General said, clearly, hate crimes 
legislation is focused on physical violence--not words, not harassment, 
but physical violence. If the religious leader is not engaged in 
physical violence against someone of a different sexual orientation, 
they will not be subject to prosecution under this bill. That has been 
made clear by the Attorney General, and the support of religious 
leaders indicates they understand that as well. We need to protect the 
people of our country against hate crimes and intolerance, but we also 
need to honor our constitutional guarantees when it comes to speech and 
religious belief. Those are consistent.
  I look forward to the Senate coming to a conclusion, but I think 
those who have come to the floor and criticized the majority leader for 
this situation have not told the whole story. The whole story is the F-
22 amendment by Senators Levin and McCain was ready to be called, 
should have been called for a vote, and if it is scheduled for a vote, 
it can be dispensed with. I will support it. I have made that clear to 
the sponsors. Then we can move to the hate crimes legislation which the 
majority leader has brought before us, not unlike the many different 
instances this year when Republicans did exactly the same thing on the 
floor.
  I urge those who might be off to lunch in a few minutes to use this 
opportunity. I see my friend from Arizona has taken the floor. I hope 
we can find an opportunity to work these two things out, perhaps bring 
to a vote the F-22 amendment, which I do support, the Levin-McCain 
amendment, to remove language in the bill on the expansion of the F-22 
program. The sooner we can get approval from the leadership on the 
other side of the aisle, the sooner we can dispense with it one way or 
the other, up or down. Secondly, I hope we can then move to the hate 
crimes legislation which has been debated at length and is not unlike 
many of the other amendments which have been offered on the Republican 
side of the aisle on a variety of different bills during the course of 
the last few months. Bringing these two matters to a vote, perhaps we 
can then take up other pending matters on the Defense authorization 
bill on which I know the Senators from Arizona and Michigan have worked 
so hard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I just have a question, while my friend has the floor. I 
have been waiting to speak on the hate crimes bill. I am wondering if 
it would be possible, because I am not sure if Senator McCain has a 
lengthy statement, for him to work with us so we could get a time 
certain when I may make that statement.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am going to yield the floor. Is the Senator seeking 
recognition?
  Mr. McCAIN. I will just take a few minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Could I yield to the Senator from Arizona with the 
understanding that after he has spoken, the Senator from California 
would be recognized?
  Mr. McCAIN. That would be fine with me.
  Mr. DURBIN. Could the Senator give an indication of how much time he 
may require?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am not sure what the Senator's reaction will be to what 
I have to say. I can't give him a specific time agreement. I am sorry. 
This is a vital issue we are addressing.
  Mr. DURBIN. I understand it is.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will make my remarks as short as possible. I believe 
the Senator from Illinois has the floor; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am trying to get a sense for timing's sake. We all have 
obligations in our various committees and with constituents. I am 
wondering if I should speak first. My statement is only about 6 
minutes. Then I could yield to Senator McCain. I think this hate crimes 
legislation is landmark legislation.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think Senator McCain has asked to be recognized first. 
If I have any response to him, I will try to make it very brief. I ask 
unanimous consent that after the Senator from Arizona has spoken, the 
Senator from California be immediately recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to point out again, the 
legislation which is now pending has replaced the F-22, the Levin-
McCain amendment. My argument is that the majority leader has put in 
legislation which is not relevant to the pending legislation, which is 
the Department of Defense authorization bill. I am perfectly willing 
for the hate crimes bill to come up under the regular order. Why it 
should be put on the Defense authorization bill, which will then not 
allow adequate debate and discussion of amendments, not to mention the 
fact that it hasn't gone through the committee of jurisdiction--
frankly, I do not think it is the appropriate way of using the Defense 
authorization bill. In fact, I think it is highly inappropriate. 
Therefore, why don't we do this, I ask the Senator from Illinois: agree 
that as soon as the Defense authorization bill is complete, we take up 
the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act under the regular 
order and do business the way the Senate should do business?


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 909

  So therefore, Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be immediately withdrawn; that no amendments on the 
topic of hate crimes be in order to the pending legislation; further, I 
ask that when the Senate completes action on the Department of Defense 
authorization bill, it be in order for the Senate to proceed to S. 909, 
the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, under the regular 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Is there objection?

[[Page S7522]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I would say 
that the Senator from Arizona knows that on 16 different occasions this 
year Republican Senators have offered nonrelevant amendments to pending 
legislation. The Senator has done that himself. I have done it myself. 
It is not unusual or beyond the custom and rules of the Senate. And I 
believe Senator Reid has the right to do it on this critically 
important legislation which we can move to with dispatch. Based on 
that, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. So, Mr. President, here are the facts. The fact is, the 
majority leader, whose job it is to move legislation through the 
Senate, is now blocking progress of Defense authorization--that 
progress through the Senate--by proposing an unneeded, irrelevant 
amendment, which is a large piece of highly controversial legislation.
  The Senate majority leader will come to the floor and he will file 
cloture. Then, after some hours--with no amendments because he will 
probably fill up the tree--the Senate will pass a highly controversial, 
highly explosive piece of legislation to be attached to the 
authorization for the defense and the security of this Nation. That is 
wrong. And why--I want to put it this way: It is unanswerable that we 
do not just take up the hate crimes bill in the regular order and allow 
Senate debate and discussion. That is how the Senate is supposed to 
work--not put it on a major piece of legislation.
  I will also point out to my friend from Illinois something he knows. 
It is one thing for someone who sits back there to propose an amendment 
to pending legislation because they feel that is the only way they can 
get their argument heard. The majority leader of the Senate has the 
authority to move whatever legislation he wants. And the majority 
leader of the Senate should move the hate crimes bill if he wants it 
considered rather than give it priority over the legislation that 
accounts for the national security of this country and the men and 
women who serve it.
  So I am sure there will be all kinds of comments about the 
Republicans blocking a vote, blocking this, blocking that. Why don't we 
take up legislation in the regular order? Hate crimes has been opposed 
by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. This is a very controversial 
issue. By putting it on the DOD bill, we are not going to have the 
adequate debate, discussion, and amendment an issue such as this 
deserves. There is passion on both sides of the aisle.
  So it is obvious, whether it is the intention or not, what is 
happening here is the whole process of debate and amendment will be 
short-circuited, because we on this side of the aisle are more than 
willing to take up the legislation as a separate piece of legislation, 
debate, amend, and discuss it, and let the American people decide. 
Instead, the men and women in the military right now today are being 
shortchanged by putting irrelevant legislation that is highly 
controversial and highly complex on a bill designed for defense of this 
country and for the men and women who serve it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Actually, I will be glad to yield. But if the Senator 
wants to have a colloquy, go ahead.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to make sure Senator Boxer has her chance.
  If I could make two points in the nature of a question to the Senator 
from Arizona.
  First, Senator Reid offered this amendment on behalf of Senator 
Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is now presiding over 
the Sotomayor hearings. I know he supports it, and I support it as 
well, the hate crimes legislation, but I want to make that a matter of 
record.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I respond to that?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is one thing to have the chairman of the committee 
support it; it is another thing to have the legislation go through the 
committee with the proper debate and discussion and amendment. But go 
ahead.
  Mr. DURBIN. The second point I would like to make to the Senator from 
Arizona is, when we asked for unanimous consent from the Republican 
side to move to the hate crimes legislation, there was objection. So it 
is not as if we have not tried to go through regular order. This seems 
to be the only path we can use to bring this matter to a conclusion. 
And I think it can be done in a responsible way quickly. It does not 
have to drag out over a matter of days. The Senator knows that. If we 
can get agreement on both sides to have a reasonable time for debate 
and a vote on the bill, I think that would meet the needs the Senator 
has suggested to get back on the substance of the Defense authorization 
bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. In deference to the Senator from California, I will make 
my answer brief, just to say I do not think--as I have said in my 
previous argument, it does not belong on a defense authorization bill, 
particularly so moved by the majority leader of the Senate. But, Mr. 
President, the Senator from California is waiting, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator from California will allow 
me to make a unanimous consent request before she speaks.


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon, on Thursday, 
July 16, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on 
the Leahy amendment No. 1511, with the time until then equally divided 
and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that if cloture 
is invoked on amendment No. 1511, then all postcloture time be yielded 
back and amendment No. 1539 be agreed to; that amendment No. 1511, as 
amended, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table; that upon disposition of the hate crimes amendment, Senator 
Levin be recognized to offer the Levin-McCain amendment, and that the 
time until 5 p.m., Thursday, July 16, be for debate with respect to the 
amendment, with all time equally divided and controlled between 
Senators Levin and Chambliss or their designees; that at 5 p.m., 
Thursday, July 16, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the 
amendment, with no intervening amendment in order during the pendency 
of the F-22 amendment; further, that the mandatory quorum be waived 
with respect to rule XXII.
  The purpose of this unanimous consent request is to achieve just what 
the Senator from Arizona asked for: a timely consideration of both 
amendments. We will be back on the bill on his amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that we accept this schedule and move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
object, I am not asking that there be a time agreement on hate crimes, 
I am asking that the hate crimes bill be brought up as a standing bill. 
The Senator has 60 votes. The Senator could bring it up whether this 
side of the aisle objects or not as a freestanding piece of 
legislation. I object to it being considered on the Department of 
Defense authorization bill. It has no place for it. It should not be 
there. The longer we wait, the longer the delay is in providing the men 
and women of the military the tools they need. So I do object. And we 
should take this up. I am sorry my unanimous consent request was not 
agreed to--that we would take it up as a freestanding bill after the 
consideration of the Department of Defense bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from California 
for her courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain and Senator Durbin 
for moving through their debate swiftly so I would have this 
opportunity to speak in support of a landmark piece of legislation that 
has been offered as an amendment, the hate crimes prevention amendment 
named after Matthew Shepard.
  This bill is a long time coming. I know we could make a process 
argument. We do it well around here. But it seems to me, we can move 
this Defense bill through quickly. We are doing that. We will do that. 
It has strong support. But we can also take care of this long-
neglected, important piece of legislation whose passage will protect 
and defend our citizens from hate crimes.
  So it is funny, because technically speaking, of course, the Defense 
bill is

[[Page S7523]]

about our military, and we all support doing what we have to do to keep 
it strong and to be prepared. That is why I will support that. But 
there is no reason why we cannot take a little time to look at the fact 
that it is time for the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act to 
really be passed. It will not slow us up really. We have just seen that 
Senator Durbin has asked for a unanimous consent agreement to do this 
quickly. It is not going to delay. My Republican friends do not seem to 
mind it when they offer nonrelevant amendments to bills. They have done 
it 16 times this year. Oh, they do not have a problem. But if it is 
something they do not like, suddenly they make this process argument. 
Rather than debate process, why don't we just get on with it? We can do 
a couple of important things this week--one of them, the Defense bill, 
and the other, protecting our citizens from hate crimes.
  The importance of the amendment that was offered by Senator Leahy 
through our leader is that it would strengthen the ability of Federal, 
State, and local authorities to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.
  It has been more than 10 long years since the senseless death of 
Matthew Shepard--a tragedy that showed us we have a long way--a long 
way--to go before we can truly say in this country there is equal 
justice for all.
  Let's look back at what happened to Matthew Shepard 10 long years 
ago. Two men offered Matthew Shepard, a gay man, a ride in their car. 
Subsequently, Shepard was robbed. He was pistol whipped. He was 
tortured. He was tied to a fence in a remote rural area. And he was 
left to die. Mr. President, this was not a robbery. This was not a spur 
of the moment situation. We know from the pair's then-girlfriends, who 
testified under oath, that the two men plotted beforehand to rob a gay 
man in particular. That crime occurred because Matthew Shepard was a 
gay man. Well, they robbed him. They tortured him. And they killed him.
  This crime should be a Federal crime. And yes, we have tried to pass 
that hate crimes legislation for years and years. There is always an 
excuse: We do not have the time. It is not relevant to the bill. Well, 
Matthew Shepard's family--what happened to them will never go away. The 
loss they carry in their hearts will never disappear. But the one thing 
we can do to ease their burden is to pass this legislation.
  Look, we have offered this on Defense bills before. This is not the 
first time. We dealt with it and we voted and we moved on. So the only 
thing you can say as to why there is all this objection is because 
people do not want to vote on this bill, and they are making it more 
and more difficult for us to be able to get to it. I hope we will, in 
fact, stick to it and get this done. Again, it is not going to weigh 
down the Defense authorization. In my mind, again, it is something we 
need to do and we can do with no harm to the underlying bill.
  We should be proud to support this legislation, not afraid to vote on 
it, not trying to postpone a vote on it. Hate crimes are particularly 
offensive because they are propelled by bias and bigotry. They not only 
inflict harm on the victims, but they instill fear in entire 
communities.
  That is why I have--and I ask to put into the Record--a strong letter 
of support from my sheriff from Los Angeles, Lee Baca. I ask unanimous 
consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            County of Los Angeles,


                            Sheriff's Department Headquarters,

                                 Monterey Park, CA, June 25, 2009.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The Los Angeles County Sheriff's 
     Department is proud to support S-909. This bill would provide 
     federal assistance to state and local jurisdictions for the 
     prosecution of hate crimes.
       This bill will adopt the definition of ``hate crime'' from 
     the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 
     which is a crime where the defendant intentionally selects a 
     victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that 
     is the object of the crime, because of the actual or 
     perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, 
     gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person and 
     additionally include gender identity.
       This bill will also authorize the Attorney General, at the 
     request of the state or local law enforcement agency, to 
     provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other 
     assistance in criminal investigations or prosecutions. The 
     Attorney General is additionally authorized to award grants 
     to law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses 
     associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate 
     crimes.
       In 2007, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 
     statistics indicate that 2,025 law enforcement agencies 
     across the country reported 7,624 hate crimes involving 9,006 
     offenses. Of those, 7,621 were single bias incidents 
     involving 9,527 victims and 6,962 offenders. Of the single 
     bias incidents, 50.8 percent were racially motivated, 18.4 
     percent motivated by religion, 16.6 percent motivated by 
     sexual orientation, 13.2 percent motivated by ethnicity or 
     national origin, and 1 percent motivated by disability.
       This bill is, indeed, a civil rights issue, as President 
     Obama said, ``. . . to protect all of our citizens from 
     violent acts of intolerance.'' Hate crimes are a scourge in 
     our society and have no place in humanity.
       Thank you for sponsoring this important legislation. It is 
     the duty of government to protect all, equally and 
     unequivocally. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate 
     to contact me directly.
       Sincerely,
                                                         Lee Baca,
                                                          Sheriff.

  Mrs. BOXER. I want to note that Lee Baca happens to be a Republican. 
I want to note that this law enforcement individual is very strong on 
this. He says this hate crimes bill deals with a civil rights issue, 
and he quotes President Obama, ``to protect all of our citizens from 
violent acts of intolerance.'' Lee Baca adds in his own words:

       Hate crimes are a scourge on our society and they have no 
     place in humanity.

  What we are dealing with is not a Republican issue or a Democratic 
issue. There are gay people who are Republicans. There are gay people 
who are Democrats. There are gay people in the closet. There are gay 
people out of the closet. But I can tell my colleagues that too many 
gay people live in fear. They live in fear that two people or one 
person could attack them simply because they are gay, and that is not 
right in this, the greatest country in the world, and we can fix it.
  I also wish to point out this bill also protects women who are 
attacked simply because of their gender. So this bill is about making 
sure women are protected and gays are protected.
  I wish there was no need for this law. I wish we lived in a world 
where such a law would be unnecessary. We all do. One of our Founders 
said, if people were perfect, we wouldn't need a government. People are 
not perfect. There has to be right and wrong and it has to be spelled 
out. People who are innocent need to be protected.
  A man gets in a car with two people who claim to be his friends, and 
he winds up robbed, tortured, and killed, and put on a fence, I might 
add.
  So, Attorney General Holder, when he testified before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, reported that the FBI said there were 7,624 hate 
crime incidents in 2007. That is the most recent data: 7,624 hate crime 
incidents.
  If we pass this bill, we send a signal that the Federal Government 
will not stand by and watch this sort of thing happen. We send a 
message that we will be a backup, that we will supply the law 
enforcement personnel, the forensic assistance, anything the local 
prosecutor needs and the local police need to help them.
  Eric Holder also testified that between 1998 and 2007, more than 
77,000 hate crime incidents were reported by the FBI. That is one hate 
crime for every hour of every day for a decade, one hate crime every 
hour of every day for a decade.
  Senator McCain--and I have full respect for him--said: Let's just do 
this another day.
  We shouldn't wait another day. This should receive unanimous support 
from everyone across party aisles, and I believe it will receive 
tremendous support across party aisles. I do. So let's get to vote on 
it.
  Statistics are one thing; the individual stories are horrifying. I 
will give my colleagues another example, the case of Lawrence ``Larry'' 
King, a 15-year-old boy from Oxnard, CA. Larry, an eighth-grader, was 
shot and killed by a fellow student in the middle of a classroom in 
February of 2008. According to news reports, the shooting occurred the 
day after the students had a verbal altercation about Larry's sexual 
orientation. The police and the district attorney classified the murder 
as a hate crime. The district attorney said there had never been a 
violent shooting like this before in Ventura County in

[[Page S7524]]

my State. A young life ended too soon by a violent act of hate.
  My State is not immune from these crimes.
  In Richmond, CA, four men were arrested and charged for brutally 
gang-raping a young lesbian. According to news reports, one of the 
attackers taunted her for being a lesbian during the attack.
  After that heinous incident, a young Black man in Richmond was 
attacked. According to the young man's police report, his attackers 
yelled racial epithets and slurs as they broke six of his bones.
  Finally, another example: In 2006, a man walked into an Amish school 
in Pennsylvania. Taking several female students hostage and releasing 
all the male students, he shot 10 of the girls, killing 5--killing 5--
before shooting himself. The age of these girls was from 6 to 13 years 
old. These girls lost their lives because of a despicable act of hate 
based on their gender.
  There is no reason to come to the floor and say we can't do this bill 
because we have other very important business on our plate. Of course 
we do. Of course we need to do the Defense bill. Of course we will do 
the Defense bill. The last I checked, the Defense authorization usually 
passes practically unanimously. This isn't a problem. So we can deal 
with this. We have done it before.
  These stories demonstrate if America is to serve as a model for 
tolerance and justice, we must do everything in our power to fight 
hate-motivated violence, and this amendment is an important step in 
that fight.
  So to summarize what this amendment does, it would add gender, sexual 
orientation, gender identity, or disability as protected categories 
under our hate crimes laws. Second, the amendment removes the 
requirement that a victim be engaged in a federally protected activity 
such as serving on a jury or attending a public school before the 
government can act. Third, and very important, the amendment provides 
additional Federal assistance to State and local authorities to 
investigate and prosecute hate crimes. I talked about the letter from 
my sheriff in Los Angeles County. Our law enforcement people need all 
the help they can get when they are trying to solve a hate crime and 
then trying to prosecute a hate crime. This bill will give them the 
assistance they deserve to have if they ask for such assistance. If 
they don't act, this is a backup law. This says it is a Federal crime. 
There is a nexus with interstate commerce, but as we know, that is not 
too hard to make.
  So this basically says we are going to protect these individuals in 
our society who may be disabled and if they are discriminated against 
because they are a woman or a man--gender bias--or because of their 
sexual orientation.
  Opponents of this amendment will say it punishes free speech and 
thought and that every crime will become a Federal hate crime. That is 
patently untrue. The hate crimes prevention amendment, as I said, is 
narrow, and we know these crimes do occur. This isn't about punishing 
speech. This isn't about punishing thoughts. If all that Matthew 
Shepard had to deal with were taunts about his sexuality, his sexual 
orientation, that would be one thing. He had to deal with murderers who 
tortured him. That is different. If they had said something to him and 
walked out, that would be one thing. They acted on their hatred, and 
that is un-American. It is un-American.
  This amendment doesn't attempt to federalize all crimes, or even hate 
crimes. The certification provision prevents the Federal Government 
from stepping into a case unless it can certify that doing so is 
necessary to secure justice and is in the public interest. Thus, 
prosecutions that normally take place at the State and local level will 
continue to be handled there. The difference is we will then give them 
as a Federal Government all the tools they need from us.
  This amendment is an important step as we continue to form a more 
perfect union, and we can't rest until we do this--and more. We can't 
rest until we pass laws to create a fair workplace for all. We can't 
rest until we pass a law that repeals ``don't ask, don't tell'' and 
allows our capable Americans and our patriotic Americans to serve our 
country. We are losing some of the best and brightest from our military 
because they don't want to live a lie. We can't rest until we pass laws 
to end racial profiling in our society. We can't rest until we pass 
comprehensive laws to protect our children from violent crimes.
  Years ago I wrote the Violence Against Children Act. I am still 
waiting to get it passed. When someone takes up a hand against a child 
and injures that child and hurts that child, that is un-American too. 
If there is a violent crime against a child, I believe the Federal 
Government ought to care and ought to help the local governments who 
are trying to solve that crime and punish that crime if they need help.
  So we have a lot of work to do to form that more perfect union. 
Instead of arguing process today, why don't we have our friends come to 
the floor and say: This is a wonderful opportunity now to take a step 
forward and pass this Hate Crimes Prevention amendment, which we have 
been trying to do for so long, and, of course, not slow down the 
Defense bill. There is no need to slow down the Defense bill. We can do 
both.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and any kind of 
procedural vote it takes to make it available to us on the floor of the 
Senate.
  I thank you very much, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak 
briefly on the hate crimes legislation. The details of the bill have 
been explained. The statistics have been enumerated by a number of my 
colleagues. Perhaps the most impressive statistic is the one from the 
Attorney General on 77,000 hate crimes.
  I do believe it is time we act. This issue first came before the 
Senate back in 1997, some 12 years ago. Senator Kennedy was the 
originator. At that time, he searched for cosponsors among Republicans, 
and I believe it is accurate to say that I was the only one who would 
support cosponsorship, and we moved the legislation forward by 
publishing an op-ed piece in the Washington Post.
  I ask unanimous consent that op-ed piece be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am glad to say that since the time this 
issue has come before the Senate, there are now 18 Republican 
cosponsors. My sense is that there will be widespread, if not 
unanimous, support among the Democrats so that there is a very solid 
statement respectively in the Senate.
  Ordinarily, matters of criminal prosecution are left to the States. 
The offense is prosecuted in the jurisdiction where it occurred. I have 
a strong bias for local prosecutions as a generalization and developed 
that concern from my own experience as a district attorney for the city 
and county of Philadelphia. Law enforcement ought to be local. But the 
brutal fact of life is that when you deal with hate crimes--and there 
are many examples. In 1997 when Senator Kennedy and I first introduced 
the bill, there was the case of racial matters--dragging an African-
American through the streets of a Texas town. There has since been many 
other brutal cases, one highly publicized of a gay young man, a victim 
of a hate crime in Wyoming.
  Regrettably, discrimination for race or national origin continues 
until this day. There has recently been a publicized matter that 
occurred in Huntingdon Valley, a suburb of the city of Philadelphia, at 
a swim club where the swim club operators negotiated with a group 
representing Hispanic and African-American children, ages 5 to 11, to 
occupy a swimming pool, with the swimming pool's permission. When the 
youngsters, Hispanics and African Americans, went to swim, there was, 
according to the media reports--and I have spoken to people on both 
sides personally to find out what went on--there was animus hostility, 
racial comments directed at African Americans and the Hispanics, 
conduct which one would have thought America would have passed long 
ago.
  But it is as current as 2 weeks ago in the suburbs of my hometown of 
Philadelphia, PA. The matter has moved forward. It has resulted in 
lawsuits being

[[Page S7525]]

filed. It would be my hope that a way could be found to handle the 
matter to the satisfaction of all parties. But I can understand if the 
parents of the children involved want to pursue remedies. This is a 
matter that could be handled by the civil rights division, which has 
prosecutorial authority and also has authority for mediation and 
reconciliation.
  I cite that as an illustration of a matter that is as current as 
today's news on animus based on race, whether it be African Americans 
or Hispanics. It is my hope that this matter will receive prompt 
attention in the Senate and will be part of the pending legislation and 
it will go to conference and become the law of the land.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Washington Post, Dec. 1, 1997]

             When Combating Hate Should Be a Federal Fight

                (By Edward M. Kennedy and Arlen Specter)

       The Post's Nov. 17 editorial criticizing the measure we 
     have introduced on hate crimes reflects a misunderstanding of 
     our proposal to close the gaps in federal law and a failure 
     to recognize the profound impact of hate crimes.
       Hate crimes are uniquely destructive and divisive because 
     they injure not only the immediate victim, but the community 
     and sometimes the nation. The Post's conntention that a 
     ``victim of a bias-motivated stabbing is no more dead than 
     someone stabbed during a mugging'' suggests a distressing 
     misunderstanding of hate crimes. Random street crimes don't 
     provoke riots; hate crimes can and sometimes do.
       The federal government has a role in dealing with these 
     offenses. Although states and local governments have the 
     principal responsibility for prosecuting hate crimes, there 
     are exceptional circumstances in which it is appropriate for 
     the federal government to prosecute such cases.
       Hate crimes often are committed by individuals with ties to 
     groups that operate across state lines. The Confederate 
     Hammerskins are a skinhead group that began terrorizing 
     minorities and Jews in Tennessee, Texas and Oklahoma a decade 
     ago.
       Federal law enforcement authorities are well situated to 
     investigate and prosecute criminal activities by such groups, 
     and the federal government has taken the lead in successfully 
     prosecuting these skinheads.
       Hate crimes disproportionately involve multiple offenders 
     and multiple incidents and in such cases, overriding 
     procedural considerations--including gaps in state laws--may 
     justify federal prosecution.
       In Lubbock, Tex., three white supremacists attempted to 
     start a local race war in 1994 by shooting three African 
     American victims, one fatally, in three separate incidents in 
     20 minutes. Under Texas law, each defendant would have been 
     entitled to a separate trial in a state court, and each 
     defendant also might have been entitled to a separate trial 
     for each shooting. The result could have been at least three, 
     and perhaps as many as nine trials, in the state courts, and 
     the defendants, if convicted, would have been eligible for 
     parole in 20 years. They faced a mandatory life sentence in 
     federal court.
       Federal and local prosecutors, working together, decided to 
     deal with these crimes under federal laws. The defendants 
     were tried together in federal court, convicted and are 
     serving mandatory life sentences. The victims and their 
     families were not forced to relive their nightmare in 
     multiple trials.
       Federal involvement in the prosecutions of hate crimes 
     dates back to the Reconstruction Era following the Civil War. 
     These laws were updated a generation ago in 1968, but they 
     are no longer adequate to meet the current challenge. As a 
     result, the federal government is waging the battle against 
     hate crimes with one hand tied behind its back.
       Current federal law covers crimes motivated by racial, 
     religious or ethnic prejudice. Our proposal adds violence 
     motivated by prejudice against the sexual orientation, gender 
     or disability of the victim. Our proposal also makes it 
     easier for federal authorities to prosecute racial violence, 
     in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 
     helped federal prosecutors deal with the rash of racially 
     motivated church arsons.
       The suggestion in the editorial that our bill tramples 
     First Amendment rights is ludicrous. Our proposal applies 
     only to violent acts, not hostile words or threats. Nobody 
     can seriously suggest that the neo-Nazis who murdered Fred 
     Mangione in a Houston nightclub last year because they 
     ``wanted to get a fag'' were engaged in a constitutionally 
     protected freedom of speech.
       In addition, hate-crimes prosecution under our bill must be 
     approved by the attorney general or another high-ranking 
     Justice Department official, not just by local federal 
     prosecutors. This ensures federal restraint and that states 
     will continue to take the lead in prosecuting hate crimes.
       From 1990 through 1996, there were 37 federal hate crimes 
     prosecutions nationwide under the law we are amending--fewer 
     than six a year out of more than 10,000 hate crimes 
     nationwide. Our bill should result in a modest increase in 
     the number of federal prosecutions of hate crimes.
       When Congress passed the Hate Crimes Statistics Act in 
     1990, we recognized the need to document the scope of hate 
     crimes. We now know enough about the problem, and it is time 
     to take the next step.
       As the Lubbock prosecution shows, combating hate crimes is 
     not exclusively a state or local challenge or a federal 
     challenge. It is a challenge best addressed by federal, state 
     and local authorities working together. Our proposal gives 
     all prosecutors another tool in their anti-crime arsenal. The 
     issue is tolerance, and the only losers under our proposal 
     will be the bigots who seek to divide the country through 
     violence.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise in support of the vital 
legislation that is long overdue. More than a decade has passed since 
Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered. Yet the bill that bears his name 
is still not law.
  The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act has broad bipartisan 
support here in the Senate, passed handily in the House, and has the 
unequivocal support of the President and the Attorney General. Indeed, 
Attorney General Holder recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee 
that passage of this legislation is one of ``his highest personal 
priorities.''
  It is essential that we act now to pass this amendment and make the 
Matthew Shepard Act the law of the land.
  According to FBI statistics, more than 9,000 violent hate crimes were 
perpetrated in 2007. However, experts tell us that since hate crimes 
often go unreported, the actual number is an order of magnitude higher.
  Whatever the number--all hate crimes are unacceptable. They are 
crimes inflicted not merely on individuals, but on entire communities. 
As Mr. Holder put it, ``perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the 
humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the 
God to whom we pray, or whom we choose to love.''
  Let me be clear: this legislation does not criminalize speech or 
hateful thoughts. It seeks only to punish action--violent action that 
undermines the core values of our Nation.
  This legislation strengthens the ability of State and local 
governments to prosecute hate crimes by ``'providing grants to help 
them meet the often onerous expenses involved in investigating these 
crimes. It also enables the Justice Department to assist State and 
local governments in prosecuting hate crimes, or to step in when these 
governments fail to act.
  Even though the aggregate number of hate crimes has slightly 
decreased nationally over the past decade, the number of crimes against 
certain groups has risen. Hispanic Americans have increasingly become 
the target of bigots' rage. And, according to a recent AP story, the 
number of fatal hate crimes against LGBT people increased by a shocking 
30 percent last year.
  Indeed, late last year, there was a particularly chilling hate crime 
perpetrated in New York against an Ecuadorian man named Jose Osvaldo. 
Jose, a father of two, was walking home with his arm around his brother 
and was viciously attacked with an aluminum baseball bat while his 
perpetrators yelled anti-gay and anti-immigrant slurs.
  This legislation sends a clear message to those perpetrators and to 
all others: in America, we do not tolerate acts of violence motivated 
by hatred of vulnerable communities. In America, you are free to be 
yourself, and you should never be attacked for doing so.
  What message will it send to Americans if we fail to pass this 
amendment? I wonder and I worry.
  I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time to speak in favor of 
the pending amendment, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. 
This is similar to an amendment we considered last year to try to 
advance the modifications of the Federal hate crimes statute.

[[Page S7526]]

  Some have questioned whether we need this act. They claim that the 
instances of hate crimes in America have diminished. I wish that were 
the case. I wish we did not need to have a separate law to deal with 
hate-motivated violent acts in America.
  All we need to look at is what happened at the Holocaust Museum on 
June 15 of this year, when Stephen Johns, a security guard, was 
murdered. He was murdered by someone who had extreme views. Look at 
Lawrence King, a 15-year-old who died on February 12, 2008, because he 
was gay; or look at what happened after the last elections, when two 
men went on a killing spree to find African Americans; or look at what 
happened in July 2008, when four teenagers were brutally beaten up 
because they were immigrants.
  All we need to look at are the FBI statistics that indicate in 2007 
there were 7,600 hate crimes in America. That is the reported hate 
crimes. We know many of these acts go unreported and the numbers are 
much larger. Ethnic communities are reporting an increase in violent 
acts motivated by hate.

  Unfortunately, this law is needed, and we need to strengthen the law 
so it can effectively accomplish its purpose. What do I mean by that? 
This amendment, this law, builds on federalism. It builds on what our 
States are already doing to combat these crimes. Forty-five States have 
separate laws that deal with hate crimes--31 deal with violence against 
someone because of their sexual orientation, 27 include gender 
violence. What we need to do is strengthen our Federal law so 
federalism, in fact, can work.
  The Federal Government has resources which the States don't always 
have to be able to pursue these types of violent acts. This amendment 
would strengthen the Federal statute so it would apply to acts of 
violence based upon someone's gender, sexual orientation, or 
disability. And it would go beyond the current Federal law, which only 
allows Federal involvement if the crime occurs during some protected 
activity.
  It also provides the resources to help our States, in that the bill 
provides grants to State, local, and tribal law enforcement entities 
for prosecution, programming, and education related to hate crimes 
prosecution and prevention.
  The bill contains a requirement that the Department of Justice 
certify that Federal prosecution is necessary because the States cannot 
or will not effectively prosecute the crime. This is to supplement the 
actions of the State, to work with our States, to respect what 
federalism should be about. Most of these matters will be handled by 
the State, but the Federal Government may be able to help the State, 
and this bill will allow us to do exactly that.
  The bill also contains provisions broadening the categories of hate 
crimes tracked by the FBI. So these are improvements in the law that 
will maintain our ability to deal with this type of outrageous 
activity.
  Some have questioned: Well, isn't every violent crime a hate crime? 
The answer is no. A hate crime occurs because the perpetrator 
intentionally selects the victim because of who the victim is. Similar 
to actions of terrorism, hate crimes have a greater impact because they 
cannot only affect the victim, they affect our entire community. We are 
all diminished when someone in our community is violated because of his 
or her ethnic background or because of race or sexual orientation.
  We need to speak to our national priorities. This amendment speaks to 
what America should stand for--that we will not permit or tolerate 
someone to be victimized because of that person's gender or race or 
because of that person's sexual orientation or disability.
  This is a bill that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in this 
body. Many of us have worked for many years in order to improve the 
Federal Government's ability to respond in these areas. This is the 
next chapter that needs to be done. I hope my colleagues will do what 
we did in the prior Congress and pass this amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill so we can move forward to strengthen our resolve 
against this type of hate activity in America.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, watching the Senate floor 
during the debate over health care reform, I cannot help but feel that 
some of my colleagues are a little confused. It is almost as if they 
have forgotten that this discussion is going on in America, not Canada. 
They don't want to talk about the 22,000 Americans who died in 2006 
because they do not have insurance. They don't want to talk about the 
more than half a million Americans who file for bankruptcy after 
incurring unpayable medical bills. They don't want to talk about the 
millions of other Americans who worry that they are one layoff away 
from losing coverage and one heart attack away from losing everything.
  No, they want to talk about Canada. I am not saying we should not 
sympathize with our neighbors to the north, but I wish to talk about 
how we can fix the health care system for the American people, for the 
people of New Mexico, since none of the plans we are considering would 
set up a Canadian system.
  Let's look at how we can pass an American solution to the problems 
faced by Americans. If you like the coverage you have, you should be 
able to keep it, and none of the plans we are considering would take 
away the options Americans already have. But the status quo is not 
enough. We need to give consumers another option. We need to give them 
the freedom to choose a quality, affordable, public health option. 
After all, what is more American than competition and choice? Even if 
our private market functioned perfectly, it would make sense to give 
consumers another choice. But our health care system doesn't function 
perfectly. Our system provides too little choice and too little quality 
at too high a price. Too many of America's health care markets are 
effectively monopolies, or at best duopolies. According to a recent 
study by the American Medical Association, most American metropolitan 
areas are dominated by one private insurer, and others are largely 
dominated by just two. In New Mexico, the top two companies have 65 
percent of the market. To put that in perspective, Dell, Compaq, 
Gateway, HP, and IBM combine for less than 54 percent of the U.S. 
personal computer market. I have to believe we can offer our consumers 
more than two choices of health plans.
  My State is a rural State, and in rural areas such as ours consumers 
often have less choice. They get to pay whatever the local health care 
plan wants or go without insurance. Insurance companies have used this 
monopoly power to offer less and to charge more. As consolidation has 
increased since 2000, insurers have raised deductibles and copayments 
without increasing coverage, and they have continued to make healthy 
profits while their customers struggle to keep up with rising costs. 
Premiums for employer-sponsored health care have almost doubled since 
1999, but rising costs have not hurt health care company CEOs. The top 
10 CEOs managed to pull down $85.4 million in 2008.
  Even worse, what competition we have doesn't keep companies honest. 
Instead, they compete to avoid the poor and the sick. In New Mexico, an 
insurance company can charge a customer more because of a health 
problem from 5 years ago or because he happens to be 45 years old and 
not 44. They can even charge a woman more because she might get 
pregnant. They have every incentive to do so.
  When a private insurance company turns down somebody who needs help, 
its profits go up. When it denies needed care, it has more money for 
its shareholders. That is a broken system.
  In New Mexico, we have seen the impact of unaffordable health care. 
Almost one in four New Mexicans is uninsured and nearly half our 
citizens have inadequate coverage. The vast majority of these people 
are employed, but they and their employers simply cannot afford 
coverage.
  A constituent of mine from Cedar Crest, NM, wrote me the other day to

[[Page S7527]]

explain she and her husband cannot afford to offer their employees 
health care at a small manufacturing company they own. The rates for 
small businesses such as theirs are unaffordable.
  Our high numbers of uninsured citizens cost the rest of us money. The 
average New Mexico family with insurance pays an additional $2,300 just 
to cover the price of the uninsured--$2,300. You see, if a New Mexican 
with diabetes has insurance, his insurance company can pay a small 
amount to have him receive routine tests and treatments from a 
podiatrist. But if a New Mexican is uninsured, he is less likely to 
receive checkups. As a result, he is more likely to miss the telltale 
signs of a circulatory problem and twice as likely to need an 
amputation.
  Diabetes amputations cost almost $39,000, and New Mexico did 366 of 
these procedures in 2003 for a total of $4.2 million. When a diabetic 
has a limb amputated, the operation is only the beginning of the 
medical services he will need. For the uninsured, those costs fall on 
every family with insurance.
  Some of my colleagues admit that the status quo does not work, but 
they claim a government regulator can keep the private HMOs in line; we 
will not need more regulation if open competition can be more 
effective. Others just claim that a public health care option will not 
work, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Experts have developed a 
number of viable plans to give Americans the choice of a quality, 
affordable public option. More than 30 State governments offer their 
employees a choice between private insurance and a State-backed public 
option, including my State of New Mexico. These States have not found 
this strategy unworkable. They have not seen either public or private 
coverage dominate the market. Their employees just have another choice. 
What would be wrong with that?
  The truth is, this Congress has a very simple decision to make. We 
can stick with our current system or we can give Americans another 
option that guarantees quality, affordable care. Opponents of reform do 
not want to talk about that decision so they talk about Canada. But the 
decision before us has nothing to do with Canada. It is about the 
American people. They have been stuck in a broken system too long, and 
it is time to give them another choice.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            aung san suu kyi

  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to address 
the situation in Burma.
  Though it has faded from the headlines, the outrageous detention and 
trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, that astonishingly courageous Burmese 
leader, continues. Ms. Suu Kyi, who has spent the majority of the past 
two decades under house arrest, is being held at the notorious Insein 
Prison compound. She was charged with crimes following the arrival at 
her house of an uninvited American man who swam across a nearby lake. 
He then reportedly stayed on her compound for 2 days, despite requests 
to leave. Based on this occurrence, the regime charged Ms. Suu Kyi with 
crimes and ordered her to stand trial in late May. Since then, she has 
been jailed and awaits possible conviction and up to 5 years in prison.
  Let us recall that this long-suffering woman is, in fact, the 
legitimately elected leader of that country. To this day, the generals 
refuse to recognize the 1990 elections, in which the Ms. Suu Kyi's 
National League for Democracy was victorious. Instead, they plan to 
proceed with ``elections,'' to be held next year, that they evidently 
believe will legitimize their illegitimate rule. The ruling regime 
seeks ways to ensure that Ms. Suu Kyi and other NLD members are not 
free to participate in these elections, since it is the NLD--and not 
the military junta--that has the support of the Burmese people. As an 
estimated 2,100 political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, fill 
Burmese jails, the international community should see this process for 
the sham that it represents.
  I once had the great honor of meeting Aung San Suu Kyi. She is a 
woman of astonishing courage and incredible resolve. Her determination 
in the face of tyranny inspires me, and every individual who holds 
democracy dear. Her resilience in the face of untold sufferings, her 
courage at the hands of a cruel regime, and her composure despite years 
of oppression inspire the world. Burma's rulers fear Aung San Suu Kyi 
because of what she represents--peace, freedom and justice for all 
Burmese people. The thugs who run Burma have tried to stifle her voice, 
but they will never extinguish her moral courage.

  Earlier this month, the United Nations Secretary-General traveled to 
Burma in an attempt to press the regime on its human rights abuses. The 
ruling generals reacted in their typical fashion. They stage managed 
Ban Ki-moon's visit, even refusing his request to speak before a 
gathering of diplomats and humanitarian groups.
  Instead, before leaving, he was forced to speak at the regime's drug 
elimination museum. He was also refused a meeting with Aung San Suu 
Kyi. Burmese officials stated that their judicial regulations would not 
permit a meeting with an individual currently on trial. Incredible. 
Following his visit to Burma, the Secretary-General pointed out that 
allowing a meeting with Ms. Suu Kyi would have been an important symbol 
of the government's willingness to embark on the kind of meaningful 
engagement essential to credible elections in 2010. He is right, and 
the regime's refusal is simply the latest sign that meaningful 
engagement is not on its list of priorities.
  It is incumbent on all those in the international community who care 
about human rights to respond to the junta's outrages. The work of Aung 
San Suu Kyi and the members of the National League for Democracy must 
be the world's work. We must continue to press the junta until it is 
willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to democratic rule.
  The Burmese people deserve no less. This means renewing the sanctions 
that will expire this year, and it means vigorous enforcement by our 
Treasury Department of the targeted financial sanctions in place 
against regime leaders. And it means being perfectly clear that we 
stand on the side of freedom for the Burmese people and against those 
who seek to abridge it.
  The message of solidarity with the Burmese people should come from 
all quarters, and that includes their closest neighbors--the ASEAN 
countries. The United States, European countries, and others have 
condemned Ms. Suu Kyi's arrest and called for her immediate release. 
The countries of Southeast Asia should be at the forefront of this 
call.
  ASEAN now has a human rights charter in which member countries have 
committed to protect and promote human rights. Now is the time to live 
up to that commitment, and ASEAN could start by dispatching envoys to 
Rangoon in order to demand the immediate, unconditional release of Aung 
San Suu Kyi.
  Following the visit of the U.N. Secretary-General, the Burmese 
representative to the U.N. stated that the government is planning to 
grant amnesty to a number of prisoners so they may participate in the 
2010 general elections. ASEAN states should demand the implementation 
of this pledge to include all political prisoners currently in jail, 
including Ms. Suu Kyi.
  Secretary of State Clinton will travel to Thailand later this month 
to participate in the ASEAN Regional Forum. I urge her to take up this 
issue with her Southeast Asian colleagues.
  Too many years have passed without the smallest improvement in Burma. 
And although the situation there is replete with frustration and worse, 
it is not hopeless.
  We know from history that tyranny will not forever endure, and Burma 
will be no exception. Aung San Suu Kyi, and all those Burmese who have 
followed her lead in pressing for their own inalienable rights, should 
know: All free peoples stand with you and support you. The world is 
watching not

[[Page S7528]]

only your brave actions but also those of the military government, 
where cruelty and incompetence know no bounds.
  Burma's future will be one of peace and freedom, not violence and 
repression. We, as Americans, stand on the side of freedom, not fear; 
of peace, not violence; and of the millions of people in Burma who 
aspire to a better life, not those who would keep them isolated and 
oppressed.
  The United States has a critical role to play, in Burma and 
throughout the world, as the chief voice for the rights and integrity 
of all persons. Nothing can relieve us of the responsibility to stand 
for those whose human rights are in peril, nor of the knowledge that we 
stand for something in this world greater than self-interest.
  Should we need inspiration to guide us, we need look no further than 
to that astonishingly courageous leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. The junta's 
latest actions are, once again, a desperate attempt by a decaying 
regime to stall freedom's inevitable process in Burma and across Asia. 
They will fail as surely as Aung San Suu Kyi's campaign for a free 
Burma will one day succeed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article from BBC News entitled ``Inside Burma's Insein Prison'' and 
an AP article entitled ``Myanmar junta stage-manages visit by UN 
chief.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From BBC NEWS, May 14, 2009]

                      Inside Burma's Insein Prison

       Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi is being held 
     in the notorious Insein jail in Rangoon, after being charged 
     with violating the terms of her house arrest.
       Human rights campaigners say incarceration at the top 
     security prison, which is known as the ``darkest hell-hole in 
     Burma'', could be tantamount to a death sentence--especially 
     as the 63-year-old's health is known to be fragile.
       Bo Kyi, now joint secretary of Assistance Association for 
     Political Prisoners (Burma), has firsthand experience of life 
     in Insein jail.
       He was jailed for more than seven years for political 
     dissent, and was kept in solitary confinement for more than a 
     year, in a concrete cell that was about 8ft by 12ft (2.5m by 
     3.5m).
       There was no toilet in the cell--just a bucket filled with 
     urine and feces. He slept on a mat on the floor.
       Mr Kyi says he was tortured and beaten by the prison 
     guards. He was shackled in heavy chains, with a metal bar 
     between his legs, which made it difficult to walk.
       Every morning for about two weeks, he says he was made to 
     ``exercise''--forced to adopt awkward positions and if he 
     failed he was brutally beaten.
       During this time he was not allowed to shower and was 
     forced to sleep on bare concrete.


                              Disease rife

       He was later moved from isolation and shared an overcrowded 
     cell with four other political prisoners.
       He says the prison has the capacity to house 5,000-6,000 
     prisoners. He estimates there are currently some 10,000 in 
     detention.
       Once a week they were able to wash their clothes. But 
     during the stifling summers he said there was no water to 
     bathe.
       With only three prison doctors to treat 10,000 inmates, he 
     says diseases such as tuberculosis, scabies and dysentery 
     were rife. Mental illness was also widespread.
       Bo Kyi says Aung San Suu Kyi is most likely being held in a 
     special compound built for her detention in 2003, which has a 
     wooden bed and a toilet.
       Although the conditions there are probably not as bad as in 
     the rest of the prison, he says he is still extremely 
     concerned for her well-being.


                         `Totally unacceptable'

       Ms Suu Kyi has spent more than 11 of the past 19 years in 
     some form of detention under Burma's military government.
       She was jailed at Insein prison in May 2003, after clashes 
     between opposition activists and supporters of the regime.
       Her latest period of house arrest was extended last year--a 
     move which analysts say is illegal even under the junta's own 
     rules. It is due to expire on 27 May.
       Human rights activist Debbie Stothard, from the pressure 
     group Altsean-Burma, has urged the international community to 
     intervene in trying to secure Ms Suu Kyi's release.
       ``Many people have died when they have been detained in 
     Insein, that's a proven fact.
       ``The fact that Aung San Suu Kyi . . . now might be subject 
     to a life-threatening detention condition--it's totally 
     unacceptable,'' she said.
       ``It's totally unjust and it's time that Asean, China and 
     the rest of the international community finally put their 
     foot down.''
       Many analysts believe that pro-democracy leader's arrest is 
     a pretext by the military regime to keep her detained until 
     elections expected in 2010.
                                  ____


                        [From AP, July 6, 2009]

             Myanmar Junta Stage-Manages Visit by UN Chief

                           (By John Heilprin)

       Yangon, Myanmar.--Myanmar's ruling junta wanted Ban Ki-moon 
     to go into a grandiose drug museum through the back door to 
     prevent the U.N. secretary-general from making a rock-star 
     entrance.
       Ban eventually did walk through the front door--a small 
     victory after he had lost far bigger battles, notably a 
     hoped-for meeting with jailed democracy leader Aung San Suu 
     Kyi (pronounced ong sahn SUE CHEE).
       After a two-day visit in which the generals tried to stage-
     manage the world's top diplomat at every step, Ban left the 
     country with few prospects of even slightly loosening the 
     iron grip on power held by military regime and its junta 
     chief, Senior Gen. Than Shwe.
       If people saw Ban acting independently in Myanmar ``that 
     would cause Than Shwe to lose face,'' said Donald Seekins, a 
     Myanmar expert at Japan's Meio University. ``So they want to 
     manipulate him.''
       By snubbing Ban, the country's military rulers lost an 
     opportunity to improve its standing among many of the world's 
     nations that view the struggling country with rich reserves 
     of gas and minerals as a pariah.
       Inside Myanmar, Suu Kyi's opposition party said Than Shwe 
     (pronounced TAHN SHWAY) showed he is unwilling to permit real 
     change ahead of the 2010 elections, which would be the first 
     in two decades.
       Ban had asked to make his closing speech to diplomats and 
     humanitarian groups Saturday at a hotel, but the junta 
     refused and forced him to instead speak at the government's 
     Drug Elimination Museum.
       Ban's staff didn't want his presence there--where a wax 
     figure depicts a military intelligence chief chopping opium 
     poppies, which Myanmar views as a scourge introduced by 
     colonialists--to appear like another prop furthering the 
     government's agenda.
       ``They fought us over every last detail,'' said a U.N. 
     official who took part in organizing the trip, speaking 
     anonymously and out of protocol because of the sensitivity of 
     the matter.
       Ban--whose mild-mannered facade belies a toughness and 
     occasional temper--would have preferred a tete-a-tete with 
     Than Shwe to having note-taking aides around, an example of 
     his belief in his ability to sway recalcitrant world leaders 
     if only he can get them alone in a room.
       But Than Shwe's idea of a tete-a-tete was to pit himself 
     and the other four generals who together make up the ruling 
     State Peace and Development Council against Ban and some 
     high-ranking U.N. deputies in the rarely visited capital of 
     Naypyitaw, according to U.N. officials.
       The 76-year-old Than Shwe suggested that Ban might not be 
     invited back until after the elections.
       Ban said Than Shwe promised to hand over power to civilians 
     after the elections. But the generals refused to follow U.N. 
     recommendations intended to prevent sham elections, including 
     publishing an election law and freeing Suu Kyi and 2,200 
     other political prisoners to ensure general participation.
       ``Only then will the elections be seen as credible and 
     legitimate,'' Ban told reporters Monday in Geneva, 
     Switzerland.
       The government refused to honor the results of the 1990 
     elections after Suu Kyi's party won in a landslide. The junta 
     tolerates no dissent and crushed pro-democracy protests led 
     by Buddhist monks in September 2007.
       At the end of the trip, Ban tried to defuse the notion he 
     was returning empty-handed.
       He said the visit was an opportunity to plant seeds that 
     could blossom later and that he was dutifully relaying the 
     international community's message the elections must be seen 
     as credible.
       In the meantime, Ban said he will keep talks alive with 
     Than Shwe through the so-called Group of Friends on Myanmar.
       That approach hasn't nudged Myanmar on key issues. Nor have 
     eight previous visits by Ibrahim Gambari, Ban's top envoy to 
     Myanmar, produced many results.
       ``Than Shwe is using the United Nations as a way of buying 
     time or distracting people from the main issues, so it isn't 
     very constructive,'' Seekins said. ``I don't think Than Shwe 
     is willing to make political concessions, especially 
     concerning Aung San Suu Kyi. I think he would really like to 
     put her away in jail and not have to worry about her.''
       In the absence of Suu Kyi, it was left to Ban to deliver 
     unusually stinging remarks about the government, its 
     pummeling of human rights and the urgent need to set a new 
     course.
       When he took the stage at the museum, it was a rarity in 
     the military's half-century of dominance--an outside 
     political figure allowed to say what he wants.
       And after much haggling, Ban's black Mercedes was allowed 
     to pull up to the front door of the museum. There, his 
     motorcade disgorged a small entourage of aides and a half-
     dozen international journalists. Local press awaited him 
     inside.
       That also ensured an audience for him in Myanmar and 
     beyond--another small victory.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, from the story of the Burmese prison, let 
me quote:


[[Page S7529]]


       Human rights campaigners say incarceration at the top 
     security prison, which is known as the ``darkest hell-hole in 
     Burma'', could be tantamount to a death sentence--especially 
     as the 63-year-old's health--

  Referring to Aung San Suu Kyi's health----

     is known to be fragile.
       Bo Kyi, now joint secretary of Assistance Association for 
     Political Prisoners (Burma), has firsthand experience of life 
     in Insein jail.
       He was jailed for more than seven years for political 
     dissent, and was kept in solitary confinement for more than a 
     year, in a concrete cell that was about 8ft by 12ft. . . .
       There was no toilet in the cell--just a bucket filled with 
     urine and faeces. He slept on a mat on the floor.
       Mr. Kyi says he was tortured and beaten by the prison 
     guards. He was shackled in heavy chains, with a metal bar 
     between his legs, which made it difficult to walk.
       Every morning for about two weeks, he says he was made to 
     ``exercise''--forced to adopt awkward positions and if he 
     failed he was brutally beaten.
       During this time he was not allowed to shower and was 
     forced to sleep on bare concrete.

  It goes on.
  So she is there in that prison. I hope and pray the treatment she is 
receiving is not anywhere along the lines of what this prison is well 
known for.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, first, I commend my colleague from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, for his great leadership and for his important 
words about Burma. No one would know better than Senator McCain about 
the human rights violations of someone held in a prison such as that.
  As he is aware, on a bipartisan basis, the women Senators have come 
together to support Aung San Suu Kyi and her fight in Burma.
  I would also add, I recently met with a Burmese community in my 
State. They are concerned about their relatives there and everything 
that is happening in that country. We have someone in our office whose 
relatives are in Burma.
  So I thank the Senator for his words and also for his leadership on 
the amendment, the Levin-McCain amendment to strike the $1.75 billion 
added to the bill that is on the floor to purchase additional F-22 
aircraft that have not been requested by the Pentagon.
  This is a very difficult issue for many people in this Chamber, 
including the Senator from Arizona. But we all know in the end what 
counts is to do the right thing for our troops and for our national 
security.
  This amendment truly gives us an important choice: Will we continue 
to pour billions into unproven weapons systems, despite repeated cost 
overruns and program delays or are we going to make the hard choices 
necessary to ensure that our troops in the field have what they need to 
fight present and future conflicts?
  These F-22s, we know, possess unique flying capabilities, but not one 
has ever flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. We have much more pressing 
needs. Both the past President and the current President support this 
amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it as well.
  I am actually here to speak in support of the Matthew Shepard Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation which will 
help us fight hate crimes and make our communities safer.
  Among other things, the bill would impose criminal penalties for 
targeting a victim on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation 
or disability.
  I wish to thank Senator Leahy for his work on this bill and, of 
course, Senator Kennedy for his work and leadership on the issue over 
the years.
  I have been involved with this piece of legislation for many years. 
If you go way back to 2000, when I was the county prosecutor for 
Minnesota's largest county, I was actually called to Washington for the 
first time to take part in a ceremony in which the bill was introduced.
  I remember this moment well because there I was with the President at 
the time, President Clinton, and Attorney General Reno. We were ready 
to walk in for this ceremony to introduce the hate crimes bill. I was 
standing outside, and the military band struck up ``Hail to the Chief'' 
because the President was entering the room. I started to walk, and all 
of a sudden I felt this big hand on my shoulder, and this voice said: I 
know you are going to do great out there, but when they play that song 
I usually go first.
  It is something I will never forget.
  So here I am now, 9 years later, with this same bill. We are working 
very hard to get this bill passed. I am hopeful we will be able to do 
that.
  What I remember most about that day back in 2000, however, was the 
meeting I had with the investigators in the Matthew Shepard case. They 
were two burly cops from Wyoming, and they talked about the fact that 
until they had investigated that horrible crime, they had not 
considered what the victim's, Matthew Shepard's, life was like.
  When they got to know the family in the case, when they got to know 
the mom, and they got to know the people surrounding Matthew Shepard, 
their own lives changed forever.
  I hope by passing this bill we can prevent other Matthew Shepards 
from being targeted and deter hate crimes.
  Attorney General Eric Holder recently appeared before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee to talk about his support for this bill, and he 
gave us some somber statistics. He reported that ``there have been over 
77,000 hate crime incidents reported to the FBI'' from 1998 to 2007 or 
``nearly one hate crime every hour of every day'' for the past decade.
  In my State of Minnesota, there were 157 reported offenses in 2007. 
But when I think about this issue, it is not just about the statistics. 
It is about the victims of these crimes.
  When I was county prosecutor, we had a number of cases that were 
clearly motivated by hate. That was one of the reasons, actually, I was 
chosen to go out to Washington. And part of it was we had worked well 
with the Federal prosecutors on some of the cases.
  We had the case of a 14-year-old African-American boy who was minding 
his own business, and a guy who did have some mental health issues told 
his friends: I am going to go out and--he used a different word--but 
shoot a Black kid on Martin Luther King Day. And he did. And he almost 
killed this little 14-year-old boy. But he survived, and we prosecuted 
the case.
  I also think about a young Hispanic man. He was working in a factory, 
and his boss got mad at him because he did not speak English and he was 
speaking Spanish at work. His boss took a 2 by 4 and hit him over the 
head, resulting in bleeding in his brain and brain damage--all for 
speaking Spanish.
  I also think about the case we had with a Hindu temple that was 
severely vandalized by young kids. And I think about the case of a 
Korean church that had all kinds of hateful graffiti written on it. 
Some of these cases, as I said, were major attempted murder cases. Some 
of them were simply graffiti cases. But to the people in that church, 
to the people in that temple, it meant something much more.
  That is why I was glad, at least in a few of these cases, we were 
able to use our State hate crimes legislation. Those were cases in 
Minnesota--a place where you might not think you would see these kinds 
of cases. But we did.
  This bill in front of us, the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill, will 
strengthen the ability of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments 
to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. It increases the number of 
personnel at the Treasury Department and the Department of Justice 
working on hate crimes. It gives grants to State and local law 
enforcement officials investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. It 
authorizes the Attorney General to provide resources and support to 
State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials for hate crime 
investigations and prosecutions.

  In addition, this bill authorizes the Federal Government to step in 
when needed and prosecute hate crimes, when needed, after the Justice 
Department certifies that a Federal prosecution is necessary. While 
most of these cases will continue to be handled by State and local 
jurisdictions, the bill provides a Federal backstop for State and local 
law enforcement to deal with hate crimes that otherwise might not be 
effectively investigated and prosecuted or for when States request 
assistance. It is a backdrop. Think about how many other areas of the 
law where we have these kinds of backdrops. In the gun area, as the 
Presiding Officer is aware from his work in the State of

[[Page S7530]]

New Mexico, sometimes we have overlapping jurisdictions. The gun crime 
is a perfect example. State laws can apply, but sometimes the Feds will 
come in or you will want them to come in and handle the case. The same 
with drug crimes. It helps to have that Federal backdrop for the 
investigating power, for the sentencing power, and for many other 
things. So this bill won't usurp the role of local law enforcement but, 
rather, supplement it when needed.
  Finally, I wish to note that this legislation has the support of 
numerous law enforcement organizations, including the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs, and the 
National District Attorneys Association.
  For years we have recognized the need for this legislation. I think 
back to 2000 when I was standing outside of the East Room with 
President Clinton when it was first introduced. For years we have known 
we need this legislation, but year after year the forces of reaction 
have stalled and blocked and tried to do everything they can to make it 
go away. This must end.
  A little over 40 years ago, Robert Kennedy broke the news to a crowd 
in Indianapolis that Martin Luther King, Jr., had just been 
assassinated. During his speech, Kennedy called on the crowd and the 
country to make an effort, to understand and to comprehend, and to 
replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed with an effort to 
understand with compassion and love. We should answer his call today.
  I look forward to the day--and I hope it will be very soon--when the 
Hate Crimes Prevention Act becomes law. It is long overdue. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are on the Defense authorization bill, 
apparently stranded, unable to vote on an amendment that had been 
offered dealing with the issue of the F-22. The F-22 airplane is a 
remarkable airplane. I have talked to pilots who have flown it. I have 
seen it at Edwards Air Force Base. It is an extraordinary airplane.
  It costs a lot of money. We have built as many as the Defense 
Secretary wants built at this point. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, 
the Defense Secretary, the head of the Air Force, has indicated they 
want to cap the F-22 at that number--I believe it is 187--and do not 
wish to build more. They say that is all we need. That is all we want.
  There is a $1.75 billion fund that was put in this bill, now, as an 
amendment in the Armed Services Committee, to build more F-22s. So the 
amendment by the chairman of the committee and by Senator McCain, the 
ranking member, was to take the $1.75 billion out of the bill. I 
support the amendment--not because I don't like the airplane, I do; but 
if those who are in charge of the Pentagon, Secretary Gates; Admiral 
Mullen; the head of the Air Force, Secretary Donnelly; General Schwartz 
and others say we do not want anymore F-22s, don't need anymore F-22s 
to do the mission that we believe is necessary for that airplane, and 
instead we want to move toward the Joint Strike Fighter--if that is 
their judgment, in my judgment we ought not put another billion back 
into this bill. Yet that is what happened in the subcommittee.
  I wish to call attention to the fiscal policy and where we are in 
this country. President Obama has been in office a relatively short 
period of time. He inherited an unbelievable mess. There is no question 
about that. We are in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. 
There is a substantial decrease in revenues and increased spending this 
year as a result of this very steep recession. Social service costs are 
going up, and there's more unemployment, more food stamps and so on. I 
believe there is close to a 20-percent reduction in revenue for the 
government and close to a 20-percent increase in spending. On top of 
that, Congress passed a stimulus or economic recovery program. All of 
this has driven the deficit up in this fiscal year, a very sizable 
deficit. That deficit will be very sizable next year and the year 
after.
  It begins to go down and then goes back up in the outyears. This is a 
fiscal policy that is not sustainable for our country. It just is not. 
It is not a Democratic or Republican policy that is not sustainable, it 
is a fiscal policy of trillions and trillions of dollars of red ink 
that we must change.
  If we cannot even deal with the issue of adding $1.75 billion to 
build more planes that the Defense Department says they do not want, we 
will hardly be able to deal with the more difficult fiscal problems in 
the future. So I support the amendment offered by the chairman and the 
ranking member. I hope we get a chance to vote on that amendment.
  The issue of spending money we do not have, often on things we do not 
need, is not new in any committee in this Congress. There are plenty of 
areas where we can take a pretty big slice out of spending. You can do 
it, not with just big programs, you can do it with smaller programs. I 
brought to the floor a couple charts that show an issue that, in my 
judgment, is flatout total, complete, thorough government waste. I have 
tried, now, about 5 years in a row to get rid of it and have been 
unsuccessful. I finally got an amendment this past week added to an 
appropriations bill that shuts down the funding. But now we will see, 
there will be a big fight on the floor to restore the funding. Let me 
tell you what this is.
  Again, we are not talking about a lot of money. In my hometown, this 
would be a lot of money, but my hometown is 300 people, so $20, $30 
million is a lot of money.
  This is a picture of Fat Albert, which is an aerostat blimp or 
aerostat balloon. This is Fat Albert, purchased by the government. In 
fact, we purchased a couple of them so we can put it way up in the air 
on a tether, and it would broadcast television signals into the country 
of Cuba because the Castro brothers run an operation down there that 
doesn't provide any freedom to the Cuban people, so we are sending them 
television signals to tell them how wonderful things are in the United 
States and how awful things are in Cuba.
  Actually, the Cuban people do not need those television signals to 
know that because they can simply listen to Miami radio, or they can 
listen to what is called Radio Marti, which actually gets into the 
market in Cuba. We broadcast Radio Marti. I don't object to that. It 
costs a fair amount of money. I don't object to that. We get radio 
signals into Cuba to tell the Cuban people what is going on in our 
country and the problems they face in their country.
  I have been to Cuba. I think the Cuban people know pretty much the 
problems they face with the Castro regime, a regime that squeezes the 
freedom out of the Cuban people.
  But here is the deal. We have aerostat balloons, first of all, to put 
television signals into Cuba. The problem is we have spent a quarter of 
a billion dollars doing it and the Cubans can't get the TV signal. Why? 
Because the Castro government jams it easily. They jam it just like 
that. We used to broadcast from 3 in the morning to 7 in the morning a 
signal no one can see, so we use these balloons on a big tether and 
broadcast a television signal to people who can't see it. We kept 
spending money thinking it was a great thing to do, broadcasting a 
television signal nobody can see. In fact, one of these balloons got 
loose, got off its mooring, and wound up somewhere in the Everglades. 
They had a devil of a time trying to catch this balloon; and another 
balloon disappeared in a hurricane, and they have never seen it since.
  They decided, you know what, we can actually clip the American 
taxpayer for more than a balloon. What we will do is buy an airplane 
and broadcast the television signal the Cuban people can't see from an 
airplane, so the American taxpayers bought an airplane. It flies, I 
think, 5 or 6 days a week, broadcasting television signals into Cuba 
that the Cubans block, that no one can see.
  You talk about ignorant? At a time when we are deep in debt, spending 
money we don't have to broadcast television signals to people who can't 
get it? That is unbelievable to me.

[[Page S7531]]

  Here is what the Cuban people see. All of us have seen bad television 
with snow covering the entire screen. Here is what is broadcast--it is 
programs with caricatures of the Castro brothers. The Cubans don't need 
to be reminded the Castro brothers are a scourge in that government.
  Let me describe what John Nichols, who is a professor of 
communications and international affairs at Penn State University, has 
said:

       TV Marti's response to this succession of failures over a 
     two-decade period has been to resort to ever more expensive 
     technological gimmicks, all richly funded by Congress. And 
     none of these gimmicks, such as the airplane, have worked . . 
     . It's just the laws of physics. In short, TV Marti is a 
     highly wasteful and ineffective operation. . . .

  Even as I speak, I assume our airplane is broadcasting a television 
signal to the Cuban people who cannot receive it.

       TV Marti's quest to overcome the laws of physics has been a 
     flop.

  John Nichols says, the same witness.

       Aero Marti, the airborne platform for TV Marti, has no 
     audience currently in Cuba, and it is a complete and total 
     waste of $6 million a year in taxpayer dollars. The audience 
     of TV Marti, particularly the Aero platform is probably zero. 
     . . .

  Talking now about the airplane platform.
  We are talk about the GAO report.

       The best available research indicates that TV Marti's 
     audience size is small . . . telephone surveys have reported 
     less than 1 percent had watched TV Marti over the last week.

  I don't know what 1 percent is. I don't know what less than 1 percent 
is. That is minuscule, right? But I have offered an amendment that 
takes out about $15 million to support TV Marti, which is a program 
that has now wasted about a quarter of a billion dollars sending 
television signals to Cuba that no one in Cuba can see. You know what, 
it is very hard to get this kind of thing stopped.
  The reason I wish to mention it today is we are on the floor talking 
about $1.75 billion for the F-22. We are, I assume--almost everyone 
here is supporting the next generation fighter we are building, the 
Joint Strike Fighter. But the Pentagon says they want to stop and not 
order anymore of the F-22s. It is a reasonable thing, to me, that being 
deep in debt, choking on red ink, at least we might want to accept the 
recommendation of not building that which they do not want. At least 
with respect to Aerostat balloons and airplanes and television signals 
to Cuba that no one can see, the very least the taxpayers should expect 
of us is that perhaps we would stop spending money sending television 
signals to no one. Maybe that is not too much to ask.
  Let me ask consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes on a 
different subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today House and Senate leaders appointed 
members for a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. That is the title, 
the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. I have been calling for both a 
commission and also a select committee of the Congress because I think 
that we have a requirement and responsibility to establish what is the 
narrative that has caused this economic and financial crisis in this 
country. We are in a deep financial crisis and have been for some long 
while.
  This didn't happen as a result of some giant hurricane or some 
tornado or some flood, or some other natural disaster visiting our 
country. No, this was not a natural disaster. This happened as a result 
of decisions being made by human beings here among us. The question is 
who? And what decisions? How did this happen? What is the narrative 
that has caused the most significant crisis since the Great Depression?
  Very smart economists have said, you know what, over a long period of 
time from the Great Depression forward, we created stabilizers in this 
country so we would not see steep recessions or certainly not a 
depression in our future. We are evening things out, they would say, 
and that was probably true for a while, but this recession is deep, 
this hole is steep. The question is, What caused it? What happened.
  I support the creation of a commission today. I offered legislation 
in January of this year, called the Taxpayer Protection Act, which 
called for the creation of a commission to investigate this financial 
crisis. My colleagues, Senator Conrad and Senator Isakson, similarly 
offered a commission proposal, a piece of legislation during debate 
earlier this year. I support the notion of going forward. The 
appointments today to this Commission are welcome. I hope the 
Commission does all that is necessary to uncover what has happened 
here.
  I still believe we need a Select Committee in the Senate. The New 
York Times said it in an editorial, nothing can substitute for the work 
the Senate must do itself. I say that because we now have, in recent 
days, additional news items in the paper you read. Let me pick one. I 
don't mean to pick this company out just to be punitive, but it is a 
good example in recent days: Wells Fargo.
  Wells Fargo is a FDIC-insured bank. It is one of the biggest banks in 
America:

       Wells Fargo to expand securities business. It plans to grow 
     and invest in securities activities that it largely inherited 
     from Wachovia. The business is to be called Wells Fargo 
     Securities.

  What is Wachovia? Wachovia is a bank that was failing because 
Wachovia had all kinds of problems. Wachovia was a bank that had 
purchased Golden West Financial, which had about $120 billion, we are 
told, in toxic option adjustable rate mortgages.
  By the way, related to this, I saw in the newspapers the other day 
that pick-your-payment mortgage plans have actually now had a higher 
default rate than other subprime mortgage loans. Think of that. You 
look at that and think, What was the pick-your-payment plan? That was 
the plans put out by these mortgage companies--sophisticated, exotic 
plans--saying to people, you know what, pick your own payment. You tell 
us what you will pay and we will write a mortgage around it.
  So we had all of these strange plans out there, exotic plans, some of 
which were creating an unbelievable bubble of speculation. We had bank 
holding companies buying them and we had FDIC-insured banks actually 
trading them. Pretty soon you got toxic assets lying in the belly or 
the gut of these financial institutions, and they are going to go 
belly-up unless somebody else buys them.
  So Wells Fargo buys Wachovia, and then Wells Fargo announces that, 
well, our investment banking and our capital markets businesses are now 
going to operate under a new name, ``Wells Fargo Securities.''
  The question is this: With the biggest banks in the country 
operating, in many cases with holding companies engaged in real estate 
and securities issues, having demonstrated now that these holding 
companies do not have firewalls that are much thicker or much more 
beneficial than tissue paper, are we still going to continue to see all 
of this?
  Are we still going to see FDIC-insured institutions, for which the 
taxpayers are ultimately responsible for failure, talking about: We are 
going to get involved in more risk trading, more securities?
  Wachovia. Well, Wachovia Bank, I have spoken of them before. Wachovia 
Bank was one of those banks buying sewer systems in Germany. Why? 
Because an American bank wanted to own a sewer in a German city? No. 
They wanted to avoid paying U.S. taxes, so they did sale-lease back 
transactions with German sewer systems.
  That is part of a culture issue with companies, it seems to me, when 
you do that sort of thing. But now we have Wells Fargo that bought 
Wachovia, announcing the best part of what they bought was Wachovia's 
securities business. The fact is, Wachovia was not going to make it. 
That is why Wells Fargo purchased them.
  We ought to be asking a couple of questions these days about the 
Administration's announced plans for new financial reform, which I 
welcome by the way. This President inherited this mess, so he is 
talking about financial reform, and I welcome that discussion.
  One, I think we ought to have a healthy and robust discussion about 
whether the Federal entity that shall become the systemic risk 
regulator in this country should be the Federal Reserve Board.
  Not me. Not me. The Federal Reserve Board is what has helped cause 
this

[[Page S7532]]

problem. I mean, the Federal Reserve Board acted blindly for over a 
decade. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board by itself is almost 
totally unaccountable to anyone and operates in very substantial 
secrecy.
  Why would we decide to have an agency that has failed over the last 
decade or so in managing and supervising the financial industry in this 
country, that watched the creation of these big holding companies, 
watched what happened with the mortgage companies with unbelievably 
speculative instruments, watched the advertisements on television 
saying: If you have been bankrupt, slow pay, no pay, got bad credit, 
come to us. We will give you a loan--the Federal Reserve watched all of 
that and did nothing. Now we are going to be told they are the ones to 
save us with respect to systemic risk in our economy? I do not think 
so. That is No. 1; the Federal Reserve Board is going to be the entity 
to deal with systemic risk? Boy, there is no evidence, at least in 
recent years, to suggest that makes much sense.
  No. 2, no discussion yet, and there might be, on this issue of too 
big to fail. Does it matter that we have allowed the creation of 
entities in the financial sector that are too big to fail? In my 
judgment it matters because if they are too big to fail, then the 
American taxpayer bails them out. That is what happened last fall.
  The Treasury Secretary leaned over the lectern to us one Friday and 
said: Look, if you do not pass a bailout bill in 3 days, a three-page 
bill giving me $700 billion, this economy is going to fall off a cliff.
  Well, I did not believe it. I did not vote for the bailout. But the 
fact is, all of this was because some of the largest financial 
institutions in the country, he said, were in deep trouble.
  Why were they in trouble? Because they loaded up with substantial 
risk. Congress, in the last decade, has passed laws that allowed them 
to do that. They said this is modernization. But when we create 
institutions that are too big to fail and then they load up with 
substantial risk, especially those that are FDIC-insured with holding 
companies now, engage in securities, and that is exactly what Wells 
Fargo is announcing: We bought Wachovia. Now we will take the 
securities on with Wachovia and decide to juice it up.
  Should we continue with the doctrine of too big to fail? I do not 
believe so. Yet in the intervening months, the last 8 months or so, the 
very institutions that were judged too big to fail and were required to 
get bailouts from the American taxpayer are still engaged in merging 
with other institutions, making them bigger and even less able to fail.
  So is there someone willing to intervene to say too big to fail has 
to change? Must we perhaps at least have a discussion about breaking up 
some institutions that are too big to fail? What about very large 
strong regional interests that are not too big to fail? I am just 
asking the question because nobody, in talking about financial reform 
that I am aware of these days, is willing to address the question of 
too big to fail. And you cannot address this question of financial 
reform without including it.
  All of us want the same thing for this country. We want this country 
to recover. We want our economy to expand and grow and create jobs and 
be healthy again. The fact is--I have talked about this many times. I 
taught economics briefly in college. The fact is, all of the charts and 
graphs and indices are irrelevant as compared to the confidence of the 
American people.
  When the American people are confident about the future of this 
country and about their future, about their job, about their family, 
then they do things that manifest that confidence. They buy some 
clothes, buy a car, take a trip, buy a house. They do the things that 
expand the economy because they are confident about the future.
  When they are not, they do exactly the opposite and that contracts 
the economy. The question is, how do we give the American people 
confidence going forward that things are going to be better? Month 
after month, because unemployment has a long tail even past recovery, 
we see hundreds of thousands of people having lost their jobs. 
Obviously, those folks do not have a lot of confidence. They feel 
helpless and hopeless.
  How do we give people confidence we are going to fix things that are 
wrong so this will not happen again? That is where this issue of 
financial reform comes in. Part of that confidence, it seems to me, can 
come from this institution, from the Congress and the President. Part 
of it can come from the people watching this institution.
  Take a look at this amendment, an amendment that says: Let's not 
spend $1.75 billion we do not have on something the Pentagon says they 
do not want.
  Confidence can come from affirmative action on that. Part of that 
confidence could come from 100 or 1,000 of these examples, a little 
program called TV Marti, broadcasting television signals to people who 
cannot see it, and doing it for 5, 10, 15 years and spending a quarter 
of a billion dollars. Part of that confidence could come from the 
American people taking a look at our deciding to shut these kinds of 
things down and trimming back government that has become bloated. So we 
can do some of this to create confidence.
  But another part of it, it seems to me, has to come from the 
administration's judgment about what is real reform in financial 
reform. That must include, in my judgment, the issue of too big to 
fail. It must include effective regulatory oversight so we do not have 
the kind of activities going on that we saw for the last 10 years: 
financial institutions engaged in unbelievable practices with no one 
minding the store and no one watching who were the referees of the 
system, wearing striped shirts and whistles and blowing the whistle 
when they saw a foul in the market system. We cannot continue that. We 
need effective regulation. We need effective reform. When we get that, 
the American people will feel: You know what. They fixed that which 
caused this serious problem, and we feel better about the future of 
this country.
  We have a lot to do in a short time. Some big issues of health care, 
energy, and climate change, and others. I am going to visit about the 
issue of climate change tomorrow. But we have very big issues that have 
great consequences for this country. But at the moment, we stand in a 
very deep recession.
  The American people are concerned about the future and want some 
assurance that all of us are doing the things necessary to put the 
country back on track.
  One step today is the amendment that was offered by the chairman and 
the ranking member of this committee. It is $1.75 billion. That is a 
lot of money. But step after step after step in the right direction can 
give people confidence about the future of this country.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Financial Markets Commission

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, almost 7 months ago, Senator Conrad from 
North Dakota and myself began an adventure attempting to convince this 
body and the one across the hall to create a Financial Markets 
Commission to study and do a forensic audit of what happened to our 
financial markets in 2007, 2008, and 2009. All of us recognize we have 
been through a catastrophic financial collapse with many potential 
components contributing to the gravity. It is not over yet.
  I commend Leader Reid and Leader McConnell, Leader Boehner in the 
House, and Speaker Pelosi and others who had the authority under the 
legislation for announcing their appointments today to the Commission. 
I particularly commend the majority on the appointment of Ms. Born to 
the Commission. It was her outspoken words prior to the collapse that 
should have warned us better, or we should have paid more attention to, 
about the overleveraging of the economy and the underwriting of risk. 
Nonetheless, the

[[Page S7533]]

collapse has happened. The recession is here. Unemployment in Georgia 
today topped 10 percent. We are seeing predictions that it will top 10 
percent for the entire country within the days ahead. It is critically 
important that we find out what went wrong, what the contributing 
factors were, and recommend back to the Congress those actions we need 
to take to ensure this never happens again.
  For my children and grandchildren, if I have one last legacy, it is 
to say, when it was on my watch, we found out what the problem was, we 
corrected past errors, and we gave a little more security to their 
investments and future in the days to come.
  I have my opinions as to what went wrong, but I know I am not smart 
enough to have all the answers. There are others who think they know 
what has gone wrong. We already have from the White House as well as 
from the Senate some who are making recommendations over creating czars 
or authorities or things to address the financial collapse. It would be 
a mistake beyond words for us to do that now in the absence of all the 
facts. This Commission has the authority, the money, and the power to 
get to the bottom of the problem. We gave them a $5 million budget, an 
18-month timetable, and subpoena powers. As evidenced by those who have 
been named today, we have some of the best financial minds in the 
country--not elected officials, not members of government, some former 
servants, but some of the best minds in the business to begin the 
process of studying the collapse that began in 2007, continued through 
2008, and in a protracted way continues today.
  It is important that we get all the facts. There is plenty of blame 
to go around. Members of the House, in 1999, such as myself, who voted 
overwhelmingly for the repeal of Glass-Steagall--that very well could 
be one of the things the Commission finds was where we had too much 
deregulation in financial services. We ought to know that and what 
contribution it may have had. I have grave suspicions over the role 
Moody's and Standard & Poor's, the ratings agencies, played. I wonder, 
why should the agency that rates the security be paid by the creator of 
the security? They ought to be paid by the person buying the security 
if they are looking for a surety. And why were credit default swaps 
unregulated? Why did they fall outside the purview of government? What 
is it about FASB rule 114 that is hurting so bad in the community 
banking system today because of the devastation of mark-to-market on 
real estate? And congratulations on the change by FASB of rule 157, 
which has lessened some of the pressure on mortgage-backed securities 
and the valuation of those, which has helped some bigger institutions. 
But there are lots of things that could have gone wrong and some that 
did. We need to have all of them on the table, the best minds in the 
business looking at it, and we need to have a bipartisan, unfettered, 
comprehensive recommendation on what we need to do to ensure that it 
never, ever happens again.
  I urge the President and our leadership to be cautious in moving 
ahead regulatorily without first getting the facts together. We are in 
an environment now where everybody does know what the rules are as they 
exist. In the few months ahead, long before this Commission reports, a 
lot of decisions will be made that will be dependent and predicated 
upon the environment the investment community thinks they are operating 
in or at least knows they are operating in today.
  We have some bumps ahead. Commercial mortgage-backed securities are 
the next shoe to drop in this economic compromise we have been through, 
although those mortgage-backed securities are not in trouble as much 
because of their underwriting as they are from the effects of the poor 
underwriting of the residential mortgage-backed securities that caused 
a collapse of those markets and those securities. That comes ahead of 
us.
  We have another wave of adjustments in terms of residential 
mortgages. That is not over. We have the pending problem of the number 
of mortgages in foreclosure, more performing, good loans at one time 
than subprime-originated loans at their beginning, meaning the 
unemployment rate and the protracted decline of the economy is 
contributing to people who were paying and are falling behind on 
payments on their houses. Now, because values have declined, they 
recognize they are better off to leave than to try to sell the house 
because they can't get anything out of it. We must put an end to this 
decline. We can best do it by having all the facts necessary at our 
disposal to know what went wrong when, who did wrong where, and what we 
need to do as quickly as possible to prohibit this from ever happening 
again.
  I spent 33 years of my life in the private sector in the real estate 
business. I know lots of people in that business, and I know how much 
the families they represent, the customers they have had, and the 
families themselves have suffered in the months past and the pending 
suffering yet to come.
  This is the most important thing this Senate and Congress can do, to 
do a forensic audit and diagnosis. Let the chips fall where they may 
and then make the corrections necessary so it never happens again.
  I am happy to commend our leadership for their expeditious 
appointment of highly qualified and talented people. I hope all in this 
body will pay close attention to what they say and do and not rush to 
judgment thinking we know the answer, when all of us really know this 
Commission is essential to finding out what really did happen and what 
we really do need to do.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise today as a member of the Armed Services 
Committee in the Senate to support this bipartisan bill in front of us 
that is critically important to our national security.
  I applaud Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their 
leadership in guiding this bill to the floor today. They have done a 
tremendous job. I also want to acknowledge the expert staff they have 
been ably supported by who serve on the committee the Acting President 
pro tempore and I are both so honored to be a part of.
  I am particularly grateful to them for including provisions important 
for Colorado, including $560 million in authorized military 
construction.
  I would like to highlight in particular the military construction 
dollars for Fort Carson, which is in the wonderful city of Colorado 
Springs and the County of El Paso. Millions of dollars have been 
allocated to Fort Carson for military construction projects to prepare 
to expand the post so it could house a 47th Brigade Combat Team, and 
millions more are in the pipeline for fiscal year 2010.
  But the future of that funding was put in doubt when Defense 
Secretary Gates announced earlier this year that the Army would not 
create a new brigade combat team at Fort Carson.
  I remain disappointed that brigade will not be coming to Fort Carson, 
at least in the near future. But I understand Secretary Gates's concern 
that we need to fill out the brigades we have, expand the amount of 
dwell time service members have between deployments, and meet readiness 
requirements before we create new brigades.
  Still, I wanted to ensure that Fort Carson and the Colorado Springs 
community are not punished because of the Army's decision. Many of the 
soldiers at Fort Carson live and work in substandard buildings. They 
still need new barracks, mess halls, vehicle maintenance shops, and 
other infrastructure--even if that new brigade combat team will not be 
located there.
  A number of faculties were scheduled to be replaced in future years 
anyway, so with the dollars we have kept in the bill, the 43rd Brigade 
Combat Team will get its updated facilities a few years early. I am 
pleased the committee worked with me to preserve the most important 
construction dollars at Fort Carson. This ensures the soldiers at Fort 
Carson will have the quality of life they deserve.
  The bill also includes language I offered in the committee with 
Senator

[[Page S7534]]

Lieberman that studies the benefits and risks of reducing the planned 
number of BCTs from 48 to 45. The relationship between the number of 
brigades and dwell time and demands on specific military occupational 
specialties, so-called MOSs, is complicated. I want to make sure the 
reduction of BCTs results in the upsides we expect and does not present 
unforeseen problems or downsides.
  Staying on the topic of what is important in the bill to Colorado, 
there is $246 million in funding to keep the cleanup of the Pueblo 
Chemical Depot on track. This will allow the destruction of weapons 
there and the cleanup at the depot to be completed by the 
congressionally mandated date of 2017. Significantly, the bill funds 
the disposal, onsite, of these hazardous wastes left after the chemical 
treatment of the mustard agent. I worked with the people of Pueblo to 
fight a proposal to ship this waste offsite, so I am glad the bill 
underscores the DOD's commitment to onsite disposal. It is the safest 
thing to do and makes the most sense.
  Finally, in regards to Colorado, the committee approved an amendment 
I offered regarding reimbursement for health care providers, such as 
Pikes Peak Behavioral Health Group in Colorado Springs. This center, 
and many centers like it, want to help our soldiers and their families, 
but TRICARE--which is the civilian health care system for military 
personnel and their dependents--cannot keep up with the high costs of 
medical care, and sometimes providers are not reimbursed at all for 
their necessary services.
  In particular, TRICARE providers are not reimbursed for providing 
case management services for soldiers with PTSD and traumatic brain 
injury, known as TBI. If we help these soldiers stay in treatment, if 
we make sure they get their medical appointments, and if we generally 
coordinate their care, we end up reducing costs, and we help those 
soldiers and their families who are facing these challenges with mental 
health function in their communities.
  So this amendment directs the Defense Secretary to assess the 
efficacy and cost of case management services for those with serious 
mental health problems. My hope is the study will show the benefits of 
case management and then help further the DOD consider covering this 
important service under TRICARE.
  If I might, let me turn to the broader legislation because it 
includes many provisions that do not directly relate to Colorado.
  The bill supports our service members, and it keeps Americans safe. 
It authorizes $679 billion for defense programs, with $129 billion 
going to our ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
  First and foremost, the bill focuses on our military's readiness 
needs. We need to do all we can to help make sure our men and women in 
uniform--who voluntarily put their lives on the line for us, and who 
have been stretched to the limit by repeated deployments--have the 
training, the equipment, and the facilities necessary.
  To help our men and women in uniform support themselves and their 
families, the bill provides a 3.4-percent, across-the-board pay raise, 
as well as an extension of stop-loss pay for 2 more years. That is an 
important number.
  Importantly, this bill gives Afghanistan the attention it deserves. I 
had the great privilege of traveling to that part of the world 
recently, and I think there is a window of opportunity to try to arrest 
deteriorating security conditions in both countries and to work with 
the civilian governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan to achieve 
stability and security in this all-important region.
  This is not about ``staying the course.'' This is about finally 
committing resources and attention to an area that is a critical front 
in the war against Islamic extremism and correcting the mistakes and 
missteps of recent years.
  That is what the bill would do. It would refocus our attention on 
this important region. It would protect our troops in harm's way by 
providing funds for MRAP all-terrain vehicles to be deployed in 
Afghanistan and additional Blackhawk helicopters to give mobility to 
our troops.
  Our bill also supports the training and equipping of the Afghan 
Security Forces, as well as efforts to help the Pakistani Government 
understand and implement a counterinsurgency strategy on the part of 
their military forces.
  Moreover, our bill cares for our wounded warriors. It expands TRICARE 
benefits for certain military retirees. It requires mental health 
assessments of service members prior to deployment, and it calls for an 
increase in the number of military and civilian behavioral health 
personnel.
  We also include a comprehensive review of the activities of the 
Department of Defense for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of 
substance abuse disorders among service members. This is particularly 
important in light, today, of a report that has been released--the 
EPICON study--that directly focuses on Fort Carson.
  This is a study that was initiated last year to examine the records 
of Fort Carson soldiers who have been involved in violent crimes since 
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army Surgeon General, 
Lieutenant General Schoomaker, put together a team of experts to 
identify any commonalities among the violent crimes.
  I had a chance to sit down with General Schoomaker yesterday. He and 
his team have concluded that although risk factors alone do not explain 
a ``clustering'' of crime in the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 4th 
Infantry Division--the 4 of the 4--a combination of factors converged 
to increase the risk that these soldiers would be engaged in violent 
crime.
  One concern General Schoomaker expressed was that the stigma and lack 
of referral to the Army Substance Referral Program for required 
substance abuse screening may have increased the overall risk of 
violent behavior. The general talked about the need to reduce barriers 
to treatment for alcohol and drug abuse, which is an Army-wide concern. 
He mentioned pilot projects ongoing at a number of posts where soldiers 
who ``self-identify'' a substance abuse problem can get treatment 
without the knowledge of their commanders, helping them seek treatment 
without fear of appearing weak in the eyes of their superiors. I will 
be urging the Army to establish a similar pilot program at Fort Carson.
  Mr. President, let me turn to the bill and what is notable for what 
it does not include. There are policies that are difficult to change 
because they are antiquated and no longer reflect the reality of our 
society. The failed policy, ``don't ask, don't tell,'' is a good 
example. But the fact that it will be difficult to repeal does not mean 
we should not try.
  Since the implementation of this program in 1993, the Armed Forces 
have discharged over 12,000 brave and qualified combat troops--code-
breakers, medical and intelligence specialists, and skilled 
translators--simply for being gay. This includes over 300 service 
personnel who have been discharged since President Obama took office.
  Mr. President, this is 2009. I believe this discriminatory policy 
undermines the strength of our military and the fairness of our great 
Nation. We are engaged in two wars. It is counterproductive to 
discharge service members who have critical skills to winning these 
wars, even as the military has to spend scarce dollars to replace them. 
In my opinion, we need to bring the injustice of this policy to the 
forefront now, and I plan to work with my colleagues and with the 
administration to see that we accomplish, in a timely manner, the full 
repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''

  There are things this bill doesn't include that it shouldn't include, 
such as spending on underperforming, unnecessary, and outdated weapons 
systems. It took courage for Secretary Gates to make the 
recommendations he did, since it is never easy to stop spending 
programs in our Defense budget. But we need to stop funding programs 
that significantly exceed their budget and we need to stop spending 
limited dollars to buy more capability than the Nation needs.
  There are also provisions in this bill that shouldn't be included, 
such as additional spending on the F-22. I voted in committee against 
an amendment to add $1.75 billion to the bill to purchase F-22 aircraft 
that the military does not

[[Page S7535]]

want, does not need, and says we cannot afford. The F-22 is a valuable, 
capable aircraft, but the question is whether we need more than 187 F-
22s to meet the Nation's requirements, and there is bipartisan 
agreement that we do not. Presidents Obama and Bush, two Secretaries of 
Defense, three Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, and current members of the 
Joint Chiefs agreed that 187 aircraft are sufficient.
  So let me conclude by saying that this is a good bill. It is a bill 
that balances the need to sustain our current war-fighting abilities 
with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security. 
It is critical that we are able to meet the operational needs of our 
military today, even as we continue to prepare our men and women in 
uniform to be the best trained and equipped force in the world.
  This is a good bill for our Nation and for my home State of Colorado; 
it is a carefully drafted and considered bipartisan bill, and I urge 
its passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado, not just 
for his statement and for his support for this bill but for his work on 
this committee. He has made a major contribution already. We look 
forward to his continuing work with us. As he knows and has so well 
expressed, this is a bipartisan effort on the part of the committee. It 
is important that we continue that way, and his instincts have shown 
already very dramatically that those are his views as well.
  So I thank him very much, not just, again, for the support of an 
amendment that we plan on getting back to as soon as we dispose of the 
hate crimes bill but also, and even more importantly, for his great 
work on our committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.


                        Tribute to Norm Coleman

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to pause for a moment. I know we 
are on the bill, and I am most anxious to proceed with the Defense 
authorization bill, having served on the committee since 1994 and 
before then in the House. It is imperative now that we get as robust a 
bill as possible.
  Before doing that, let me mention one thing because I haven't yet 
spoken about this. I have been watching several of our colleagues who 
have come to the floor to speak about a great Senator, Norm Coleman, 
who is no longer seated in the Senate but who is a remarkable 
character.
  A good friend of mine, Paul Weyrich, who recently died, wrote an op-
ed piece, and it is called ``The Workhorses and the Show Horses.'' He 
talked about so many of the Members of the House and the Senate who are 
out there just to make themselves look good. They are the ones who are 
show horses. Then there are the workhorses. We talk about someone such 
as Norm Coleman, who was always there and getting deeply involved in 
issues, many of which are not popular issues if you are using them to 
run for reelection. I am thinking of a close friend, a mutual friend of 
ours named Ward Brehm. Ward Brehm and I have been working together for 
a long time on some things in Africa, as the Chair is aware, and he was 
talking about being from Minnesota and how much involved Norm Coleman 
got in various international affairs issues that don't have any votes 
behind them, but he was willing to do it. Every time you turned around, 
he was willing to do things that other people weren't willing to do.
  I remember several years ago when he and I met with a delegation from 
Burundi and Rwanda and the DRC. This was a group that was over here in 
conjunction with the National Prayer Breakfast. He and I always worked 
together during the time that we had the National Prayer Breakfast. We 
would get these people to come all the way over here from different 
countries, but we kind of concentrated on Africa. I remember him 
standing there talking about, for a long period of time--keep in mind 
he is a Jew. I was never real clear where in New York he was from--I 
think the Bronx or someplace. But anyway, he was very strong in the 
Jewish community, and I am not. I am on the Christian side. But we 
would always get together and talk to them about Jesus and talk to them 
about loving God. And then when he would pray--at the end of these 
things, we would offer a prayer, and he would end up giving a prayer in 
Hebrew--an amazing guy.
  At the National Prayer Breakfast African dinner 2 years ago--I had 
sponsored the dinner that was for all the Africans who had come over 
for the Prayer Breakfast and stayed for the African dinner--he was a 
major player in that. So these are things people didn't know about Norm 
Coleman.
  The idea is scripturally based; it is Acts 2:42. It is kind of a 
genesis of these weekly Prayer Breakfasts in the Senate. On Wednesday 
mornings, we had a Prayer Breakfast and about 20, 25 Senators showed up 
every Wednesday and Norm Coleman was the chairman of that and was 
always in these groups. But he was also one who was helping us in 
forming these same groups with members of Parliament from all over 
Africa. He was a tireless worker in that effort, which was not 
something out there to get any votes.
  I talked to him the other day, having gone through this election and 
then the 8 months or so, whatever it was, in recounting and all of 
that. I told him that many years ago I was mayor of Tulsa, and I did a 
pretty good job, I thought. I was supposed to win hands down. Someone 
came out of obscurity and because of a set of circumstances that should 
have gotten votes, not lost votes, I had lost unexpectedly on that 
Tuesday.
  Well, we had scheduled our Tulsa Mayor's Prayer Breakfast the next 
morning. Bill Bright, who died not too long ago, came by as the 
speaker. Keep in mind, here he was the speaker at the Mayor's Prayer 
Breakfast the morning after I lost the election. He gave the most 
brilliant speech. I remember how he said it and the words he used. He 
said: A lot of times we think in terms of what is happening to us 
today, looking at our own careers, but, he said, God is still up there 
and there is a plan for all of us. He said in a very clear way that I 
thoroughly understood, the day after I lost the election I wasn't 
supposed to lose, that God opens a window and he closes a door and that 
window is going to be bigger. I can tell you right now I wouldn't be 
doing what I am doing today if it had not been for that.
  So I would just say about my friend, Norm Coleman, God has a plan in 
mind for you, Norm, and it is one we will look back someday and say 
perhaps this is the best thing that could have happened to you. In the 
meantime, we love you, Norm, and God bless you.


                           Amendment No. 1511

  I wish to also speak in terms of a program that I think a lot of 
people don't understand, and on which I know there is honest 
disagreement.
  The F-22, people have said, is something like a Cold War aircraft. It 
is not. To quote Secretary Donnelly and General Schwartz both, because 
they both said the same thing, they said the F-22 is unquestionably the 
most capable fighter in our military inventory, not just air to air, as 
some on this floor have insinuated, but also precision attack air to 
ground, as well as intelligence collection. In contrast, almost every 
other piece of military equipment in our inventory today--air, land, 
and sea--is Cold War equipment that needs to be replaced.
  I think about the Bradley vehicle. It has been around since the 
1960s. I think about the Abrams tank. It has been around since the 
1970s. I think about the Paladin, even though we have had about five 
major upgrades on the Paladin, that is our artillery beast, and that 
was actually World War II technology where you had to get out of the 
thing after every shot and swab the breach. You hear that and people 
can't believe it. Well, fortunately, we are going to go through an 
improvement on that. But the point I am trying to make is most of the 
stuff we have is Cold War stuff and to find that F-22 isn't needed 
because it wasn't flown in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think, is pretty 
narrow-minded. We have a lot of people we have to defend America 
against for contingencies that we don't know are out there and we don't 
know what our needs are going to be. The need certainly wasn't there in 
terms of Afghanistan and Iraq, but we don't know where the next enemy 
is going to be coming from or what the next contingency is. I wish we 
did. I can remember being on the House Armed Services

[[Page S7536]]

Committee my last year there in 1984. We had people testify. They 
said--these are smart people. They said: You know, in 10 years, we will 
no longer need ground capability. And look what has happened since that 
time.
  So no matter how smart our people are, there is no way we are going 
to be able to determine where the next guy is going to come from and 
what our capability is going to have to be. Is it going to be in the 
air, sea, strike vehicles, lift capacity, cannons? So we need to keep 
that in mind because the only thing we have in the form of a fifth-
generation fighter is the F-22, and it is uniquely designed and 
equipped to penetrate a hostile environment and be a savage air 
dominance for our ground forces. The F-22, I look at it as an 
investment in the future, not just 10 years down the road but 20 years 
and beyond. What we build today is going to have to be able to 
determine and deter and defeat adversaries for decades. Just look at 
the age of our entire military today. We talked about all these 
vehicles, but we have such things as the national security in long 
term, 40 years. We can't even see what we are going to need 10 years 
from now.
  Now we talk about the F-35. Well, the F-35 is great. I am a strong 
supporter of the F-35 and working on it and getting it up as fast as 
possible. Its mission requirements are not the same as the F-22. The F-
22 is out flying today, and we have that capability today. Only five F-
35s are flying, and it is still in the testing period. It is impossible 
to assess the full capabilities of the F-35 until operational tests are 
completed in, I think, 2014. Well, that is 2014. This is 2009. There is 
a lot of time between now and 2014.
  While we discuss cutting the only fifth-generation fighter in 
production today, China and Russia are continuing to move forward with 
the development of their fifth-generation fighters. I think they call 
the Chinese one the J-12 and the Russian is the T-50. They are out 
there right now talking about building these things. Today our Legacy, 
our F-15s, F-16s, F-18s are less capable than other fourth-generation 
fighters, such as the SU-27 and the SU-30 series aircraft.
  I might remind the President that we have--we already know other 
countries are buying these capable fourth-plus generation aircraft that 
are better than what we have now, except for the F-22. We know of one 
sale, and I remember this--it has been quite awhile ago now--for F-27s 
from China, 240 of these. Now they are talking about cutting our number 
of F-22s--and I will talk about the numbers in a minute--down to the 
187 and stopping the amendment that would increase that by seven 
vehicles. I don't want to see our Legacy fighters outmatched by fifth-
generation fighters developed by China and Russia. I have always said 
our pilots are better, our training is better, but they have to have at 
least comparable equipment to survive.
  So our air-to-air threat is only one aspect of the threat our Air 
Force faces today. Our surface-to-air threat remains to be a real 
serious problem. You just think about what the Russians are making now, 
the S-300s and the Chinese 4000s. They are capable of tracking up to 
100 targets and getting as high as 90,000 feet in the air.
  Now, that is priceless. These systems that make penetrating hostile 
airspace difficult and deadly for a legacy aircraft, including unmanned 
vehicles, such as our Predator, which has performed brilliantly, are 
uncontested facts. Only the F-22, with its advance stealth technology 
and weaponry and supersonic speeds, can successfully penetrate what we 
call denied airspace, hunt and destroy strategic ground targets during 
the day or night, and collect and provide battle intelligence and 
awareness, and maintain our superiority in the air.
  The Air Force officials have repeatedly stated no less than 243 F-22s 
would be sufficient to maintain a moderate level of risk. We are 
talking about the deaths of Americans. If that is the goal, that is 
what we should have. In the beginning, it was 750 F-22s. We have slowly 
gone down. That is what this amendment is about today.
  GEN John Corley, Commander of the Air Force Combat Command, said:

       At Air Combat Command, we have held the need for 381 F-22s 
     to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our 
     Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed 
     asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my 
     opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts the execution of our 
     current national military strategy at high risk in the near 
     to mid term. To my knowledge, there are no studies that 
     demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our 
     national military strategy. Air Combat Commandment analysis, 
     done in concert with the Headquarters Air Forces, shows a 
     moderate risk force can be obtained with an F-22 fleet of 
     approximately 250 aircraft.

  So we are talking about a bare minimum number, and whether it is 243 
or 250, that should be a bare minimum number.
  While the F-22 hasn't deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, a theater 
security package of six F-22s are on a continuous rotation to Guam in 
the Pacific Theater of Operations and have been forward deployed in 
Japan.
  Why? Because it is the only fighter capable of stealthy penetration 
of North Korea's air defenses.
  Finally, there continues to be allegations about the costs and 
operations of the F-22--to include an article last week in the 
Washington Post. The bottom line is, these allegations are false or 
intentionally misleading. The F-22 cost per flying hour is $19,750, not 
more than $44,000, as they were trying to say. The F-22 maintenance 
trends have improved from 62 percent to 68 percent. The F-22 skin is 
not vulnerable to rain. Finally, the fly-away cost for F-22s multiyear 
this Congress approved is $142.6 million, not $350 million.
  One final point on all of these supposed studies about the F-22: We 
have been through this before with the approval of the multiyear and 
are going through it again. I have been briefed on both classified and 
unclassified studies, and while the range of numbers varied, each study 
concluded that 183 F-22s is not enough. So we need to continue to build 
the F-22s and look at exporting this aircraft to our allies. 
Fortunately, some of that is taking place today. Japan, Australia, and 
Israel have expressed considerable interest in the purchase of F-22s.
  Nations around the world realize the F-22A Raptor is the only 
operational fighter-bomber available that can successfully defeat and 
destroy air and ground threats of today and tomorrow.
  So what we are talking about is--in the markup, we increased the 
number by seven aircraft. The chief mover of this, I have to say, was 
Senator Saxby Chambliss. As I told him, this is not enough. He agreed, 
but it was the most we thought we could do.
  I believe when the time comes for an amendment to cut that number 
down, we need to give serious consideration to that amendment and not 
allow it to pass.
  There is an expectation of the American people--and I have gone 
through this before with other airframes and other ground platforms--
the American people think we give our kids who go into battle the very 
best of everything. I can tell you that is not true. I gave an example. 
There are five countries, including South Africa, that make a better 
non-line-of-sight cannon than we have today.
  To me, that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the American 
people when we explain that is the situation. The F-15, F-16, and the 
F-14 have done a great job, but they need to move on to the fourth and 
fifth generation, and the only way to do that is with the F-22, which 
has been a success story.


                             Guantanamo Bay

  I have another interest I want to share today, and that has to do 
with Gitmo. People are probably tired of hearing me talk about Gitmo, 
but I think we are about to make a mistake. The administration is 
making the demand that we close Gitmo. I have stood on the floor of the 
Senate many times and talked about my experiences there--the fact that 
anybody who wants to close Gitmo, if you ask why, they will say that 
for some reason people associate that with the types of torture that 
allegedly went on at Abu Ghraib and all of that.
  This has nothing to do with that. There has not been a documented 
case of waterboarding at Gitmo. It is a state-of-the-art prison.
  When President Obama talked about the 17 locations in America where 
we can take terrorists and relocate them from Gitmo to America, one 
happened to be Fort Sill in my State of Oklahoma. I went down to Fort 
Sill, and there was a lady in charge. She is a young major in charge of 
the prison where they would put these terrorists.

[[Page S7537]]

  She said, ``I don't understand what people are thinking.'' This young 
lady, named SMA Carter, said she had two tours at Gitmo, and it is 
designed for terrorists. They have a court system where they can do 
tribunals.
  We have six classifications of security in Gitmo. It is one of the 
few good deals the government has. We have had it since 1903. I have 
told the Presiding Officer this before. We only pay $4,000 a year for 
it. Do you have a better deal than that in government? There isn't one.
  I have to say the terrorists are still at war with the United States, 
and we are legally entitled to capture and hold enemies and fighters in 
the hostilities. We detain terrorists and supporters to prevent them 
from returning to the battlefield, saving the lives of our service men 
and women and the lives of civilians who are innocent victims. I have 
spent a lot of time there. I am familiar with some of the terrorists 
there who are really bad people. They want to kill everybody who is 
listening right now. That is their mission in life.
  We have had about 800 suspected al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists who 
have been sent to Gitmo since 9/11--people who are really bad. I looked 
through there, and we saw Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was the architect 
of 9/11. There was also the guy who was the explosives trainer for 9/
11, who provided information on the September 2001 assassination of the 
Northern Alliance leader, Masood, and on the al-Qaida organization's 
use of mines. There was also the terrorist financier who provided 
detailed information on Osama bin Laden's front companies. There was 
the Taliban fighter linked to al-Qaida operatives connected to the 1998 
East Africa Embassy bombings. Remember that, in Tanzania and Kenya? 
Down there we also had an al-Qaida explosives trainer who designed a 
prototype shoe bomb for destroying airplanes, as well as a magnet mine 
for attacking ships.
  These people are unlike the types of prisoners we have had in other 
wars. If we look back during any of our wars, we had soldiers fighting 
for their countries. These people are not soldiers fighting for a 
country. They are fighting for a cause, and that cause is to destroy 
us.
  To date over 540 prisoners have been transferred or released, leaving 
approximately 230 at Gitmo. They include members of al-Qaida and 
related terrorist organizations, planners of major terrorist attacks 
worldwide, including 9/11. These are the types of people there.
  The intelligence gained from detainees at Gitmo helped the United 
States and its allies identify, exploit, and disrupt terrorist 
operations worldwide, saving untold lives. There have been a number of 
terrorist attacks. For a long time, they were classified, but most are 
no longer classified.
  In 2007, the Senate voted 94 to 3 on a nonbinding resolution to block 
detainees from being transferred to the United States, declaring:

       Detainees housed at Guantanamo should not be released into 
     American society, nor should they be transferred State-side 
     into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.

  On May 20, 2009, the Senate voted 90 to 6 on a bipartisan amendment 
by myself and Senator Inouye to prohibit funding for the transfer of 
Gitmo detainees to the United States. Unfortunately, the supplemental 
appropriations conference report deleted that provision, allowing 
detainees to be transferred to the United States for trial.
  If we put them into our Federal system--I can speak this way because 
I am not an attorney, so I can stand back and cite the obvious. If we 
do that, then the rules of evidence are different.
  There are a lot of these guys who are picked up, and even now they 
talk about Miranda rights. That blows my mind when I think about it--
when this goes on now and we have the opportunity to get these people 
and extract information from them. Thinking about the idea of trying 
them in the Federal court system where, if they cannot get a 
conviction--and many times they could not for one reason, which is that 
the rules of evidence are different.
  When they were captured, they went by the rules of evidence for 
military tribunals. So we could have some who would be turned free, and 
many of them in the United States.
  Recent polls show that a majority of Americans oppose closing Gitmo 
and moving detainees to the United States. By a margin of 2 to 1--which 
is huge in polls--those surveyed said Guantanamo should not be closed, 
and by more than 3 to 1 they oppose moving some of the accused 
terrorists housed there to prisons in the United States.
  Again, one of the prisons the Obama administration talked about of 
the 17 prisons happened to be in Oklahoma. It should be obvious to 
everybody if we have 17 locations where we are housing terrorists, that 
becomes a magnet for terrorism--17 magnets in the United States.
  A recent Fox News poll said President Obama made a mistake when he 
signed the order to close Gitmo. Seventy-seven percent of all Americans 
say that was a mistake, that Gitmo should not be closed, 60 percent of 
all Americans, up from 53 percent in April and 45 percent in January. 
You can see the trendlines. The vast majority--nearly two-thirds--is 
saying he should not close Gitmo and Gitmo prisoners should not be 
transferred into prisons in the United States. Sixty percent of all 
Americans say that is true. Sixty percent in polling is a huge number, 
a vast majority.
  I encourage Senators who will be voting on this significant amendment 
to keep that in mind. Since President Obama announced he intended to 
close Gitmo, it has become widely circulated that these detainees could 
be transferred to American prisons for prosecution in U.S. criminal 
courts and potentially released in the United States. Moving detainees 
to prisons here would require significant investment in restructuring 
existing facilities and would cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
  Currently, the United States only has one Supermax facility located 
in Florence, CO. According to the Bureau of Prisons, as of May 21, 
``only 1 bed was not filled at Supermax.'' So if we want to give 
maximum security to these people, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we 
better decide who is going to be in that one bed because we don't have 
the capacity. The capacity of all the high security Bureau of Prison 
facilities at the beginning of this month was 13,448 inmates, while the 
total prison population was approximately 20,000.
  So what we are talking about is they are overcrowded, and that is 
flat not going to happen. Despite claims by Senator Durbin that the 
Supermax prisons in the United States are ready to receive Gitmo 
detainees, the Supermax prisons in the United States are at or above 
their maximum capacity.
  FBI Director Robert Mueller said there is the very real possibility 
that the Gitmo detainees will recruit more terrorists from among the 
Federal inmate population and continue al-Qaida operations inside the 
walls of prison. That cannot happen in Gitmo because they are all 
terrorists there. That is how the New York synagogue bombers were 
recruited, in our own prison system.
  In 2002, an entire wing of a jail in Alexandria, VA, was cleared out 
for the 9/11 ``20th hijacker,'' Zacarias Moussaoui, to be housed for 
his trial--just for one detainee. Bringing Gitmo detainees to the 
United States could also place America and its citizens at risk by 
inevitably creating a new set of targets for the jihadist terrorists. 
Gitmo, on the other hand, is a state-of-the-art prison. I cannot find 
anyone who has gone over there, including unfriendly media, media that 
was bent on closing Gitmo--once they go over there and see it, almost 
all of them change their mind. It is a state-of-the-art facility that 
provides humane treatment for all detainees. It is fully compliant with 
the Geneva Conventions and provides treatment and oversight that exceed 
any maximum security prison in the world, as attested to by human 
rights organizations, the Red Cross, Attorney General Holder, and an 
independent commission led by Admiral Walsh. This is state of the art, 
and this is not a place where torture takes place. It is the only 
facility of its kind in the world that was specifically designed to 
house and try these types of dangerous detainees.
  If President Obama ever decides to visit Gitmo, I am sure he would 
equally

[[Page S7538]]

be impressed as everyone else, including, I might say, Attorney General 
Holder. He came back and gave a glowing report and said how great this 
was and, at the same time, said the President still wants to close it.
  When you look at the Gitmo situation, there are, on average, two 
lawyers for every detainee. There are 127 doctors and nurses. The ratio 
is 1 to 2 in terms of health care specialists to take care of these 
prisoners. Here we are talking about health care in this country. Maybe 
they want to go to Gitmo. They would be a lot better off. Current 
treatment and oversight exceeds that of any maximum security prison in 
the world.
  There is also a $12 million expeditionary legal complex. This is very 
significant because if we are going to do tribunals, we cannot do 
tribunals in our court system in the United States because it is not 
set up for that. Obviously, there are some things in testimony that 
takes place that have to be private. You cannot have these things go 
out because that would endanger American lives. We spent $12 million on 
this complex. It is a courtroom at Gitmo to try detainees, and 
specifically that is what it is there for. It is the only one of its 
kind in the world, and it provides a secure location to try detainees 
charged by the Federal Government. They have full access to sensitive 
and classified information, full access to defense lawyers, and 
protection by the full media, access by the press. But it is set up to 
take care of that specific type of an incarcerated individual.
  Senator Harry Reid declared, in a press conference after my 
bipartisan amendment was adopted, that ``We will never allow terrorists 
to be released into the United States.'' I applaud Senator Reid for 
that statement and hope he will stay with that because that is 
something the American people are not willing to tolerate.
  He went on to say he opposes imprisoning detainees on U.S. soil, 
saying:

       We don't want them around the United States . . . I can't 
     make it any more clear than the statement I have given to 
     you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the 
     United States.

  Senator Durbin said:

       The feeling was at this point we were defending the 
     unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn't 
     been announced.

  I think Senator Durbin was correct then and is correct now.
  There are lots of questions, very few answers. What is the impact? 
Let's say we close Gitmo. What is the impact of placing detainees in 
the U.S. prison system--pretrial and posttrial? Has an assessment been 
done to determine the risk of escape, as well as potentially creating 
targets in the United States for terrorist attacks? Will Gitmo 
detainees be segregated from the regular prison population? Keep in 
mind, these guys are trained to recruit. That would be a garden spot 
for them to get into the American prison system to recruit people to 
become terrorists. What facilities exist in the United States today 
that can hold these detainees? We talked about that. They tried to 
locate 17 facilities, and it will not work.
  By the way, the State legislatures in each one of those States that 
have one of these facilities have passed resolutions or some type of a 
document saying: We don't want them in our States. That is what they 
are saying from the States, and we need to listen to them. One might 
ask, where will the military commissions be held--at Guantanamo or the 
United States? Obviously, if you close Guantanamo, you lose that 
facility. Assuming military commissions are held in Guantanamo, where 
will detainees who are convicted serve out their sentence, if not 
there, because there is no other place that has the capability of doing 
that. There are all these questions.
  What additional constitutional rights will a detainee gain if they 
are tried in the United State versus Guantanamo?
  Are there differences in the rights awarded to detainees tried in a 
Military Commission versus civilian court? Could location or geography 
affect the right afforded to detainees--somewhere in the U.S. versus 
Gitmo?
  How do we handle protection of classified information during trials?
  What are the long-term implications on future conflicts of trying 
these detainees in a civil court versus military commissions?
  Why is the administration reading Miranda rights to some detainees 
captured or held in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many are being read 
Miranda rights? How many have invoked their rights?
  What is the impact of requiring the reading of Miranda rights to 
terrorists captured on the battlefield and advising them they have the 
``right to remain silent''?
  What if a detainee is found not guilty--where will he be released?
  What does the administration plan to do when a Federal judge orders 
the release of a detainee but the administration knows is too dangerous 
to release of transfer?
  What do you do with a detainee you cannot try or release due to 
national security concerns?
  Despite not having a plan, the administration continues in its quest 
to empty Gitmo regardless of the cost or the risk.
  The Obama administration initially talked with the small South 
Pacific island of Palau, population 20,000, to accept transfer of a 
group of 17 Chinese Muslims currently at Gitmo, called Uighurs, at the 
cost of some $200 million. That is $11.7 million per individual. This 
is not a cheap thing he is talking about doing. The total cost to build 
Gitmo was only $275 million. As I said, it has been on lease since 1903 
for $4,000 a year. The Wall Street Journal just yesterday had a 
government official who said that well over 50 detainees have been 
approved for transfer to other countries and that negotiations are 
continuing with Saudi Arabia to take a large group of Yemeni detainees. 
Attorney General Eric Holder has estimated that more than 50 detainees 
may end up on trial by U.S. authorities. This news comes as more and 
more Americans are growing opposed to the closure of Gitmo, placing 
them unnecessarily at risk in order to satisfy political goals.
  I think we need to stop, sit back, take a deep breath, and look at 
some of the things that are going on today. The idea that we would have 
Miranda rights for terrorists, people who have killed Americans, is 
pretty outrageous.
  Finally, on June 9, the Obama administration again went against the 
will of the Congress and the American people by transferring the first 
Gitmo detainee to the United States for his trial in New York City.
  Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani has been indicted for the 1998 al-Qaida U.S. 
Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 224 
people, including 12 Americans. Ghailani was later captured in Pakistan 
in 2004 while working for al-Qaida, preparing false documents. 
Intelligence shows he met both bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 
Afghanistan and remained a close associate with al-Qaida until his 
capture in 2004.
  This bonafide terrorist will have the privilege of a U.S. civilian 
court trial in the United States--I think it is New York. To me, it is 
inconceivable that could happen. The press reported that Ghailani was 
smiling when the charges were read to him in New York.
  Despite the Obama administration's intentions, they will find 
themselves in a position where they cannot even try or safely transfer 
or release Gitmo detainees. As of May 2009, 74 transferred/released 
detainees have returned to the fight--74. These are the ones we 
captured again. We know they returned to the fight. How many more are 
there out there? If you release these people, they go right back to 
their practice of killing Americans. Former Guantanamo Bay inmate 
Mullah Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is leading the 
fight against the U.S. Marines in the Helmand Province in Afghanistan. 
He surrendered in north Afghanistan in 2001, was transferred to Gitmo 
in 2006, and then released. He is out there killing marines today. That 
is what is happening currently. There is no alternative to Gitmo.
  I go through all this not to be disagreeable with anyone except to 
say there is an answer, and there is only one answer.
  Today, we are considering the Defense authorization bill. I have an 
amendment to that bill. I now have, in a matter of 3 hours, 22 
cosponsors. This is amendment No. 1559 to the Defense authorization 
bill, S. 1390. This does something very simple. I like simple bills 
because they cannot be misunderstood. They are not like the health 
insurance bill with over 1,000 pages no

[[Page S7539]]

one has read. They are not like the cap-and-trade bill that passed the 
House with no one reading it, over 1,000 pages. This is just two pages. 
That is all. It is easy to read. Let me tell you what it says. I am 
wrong, it is one page. It says an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe:

       Sec. 1059. Prohibition on transfer of Guantanamo Detainees.
       No department or agency of the United States may
       (1) transfer any detainee of the United States housed at 
     Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to any facility in the 
     United States or its territories.

  That is No. 1.
  No. 2 is, we cannot ``construct, improve, modify, or otherwise 
enhance any facility in the United States or its territories for the 
purpose of hous-
ing any detainee described in para-
graph (1) . . .''
  No. 3: We cannot ``permanently or temporarily house or otherwise 
incarcerate any detainee described in paragraph (1) in the United 
States or its territories.''
  That is a very simple solution. It is all in three sentences on one 
page.
  I have a feeling there are going to be many people who know that we 
are on the right side of this issue, know that the American people are 
overwhelmingly, by more than two to one, in support of an amendment 
such as this, and are going to offer some amendment full of loopholes 
that will still allow them to close it. It will sound good. But this is 
the only one out there.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, if their interest is to really 
do something about keeping Gitmo open, there is only one vehicle out 
there. We are on it right now--the Defense authorization bill. That is 
amendment No. 1559. All it does is prohibit us from transferring any 
detainee from Gitmo to any facility in the United States of America or 
its territories; it prohibits us from constructing, improving, 
modifying, or otherwise enhancing any facility in the United States or 
its territories for the purpose of housing any detainee described in 
paragraph 1 above--that is the terrorist; and No. 3, it prohibits us 
from temporarily or otherwise incarcerating any detainee described in 
paragraph 1 in the United States or its territories. Period. That is 
all it does.
  I say to those two-thirds people of America, there is a vehicle now 
we can use to make sure that facility, one of the really true state-of-
the-art resources we have in this country, stays open and keeping those 
detainees, those terrorists out of America. If you want to keep them 
out of America, this is the way to do it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Global Warming

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I notice no one else is on the floor right 
now. I was only going to address those three subjects, but I do want to 
make a couple of additional comments. If anyone comes in and seeks the 
floor, I will come to a close.
  There is one other major issue that we are dealing with right now--we 
have had a number of hearings--and I would like to kind of put it in 
perspective so people will understand.
  There are a lot of complaints around the country about the cap and 
trade bill that was passed by the House of Representatives--
interestingly by one vote over the majority--which is 219. Most of the 
bill actually was written at about 3 o'clock in the morning and passed 
the same day--a thousand pages. I applaud John Boehner over there for 
saying that we want to establish some kind of a program whereby 
anything we are going to consider on the floor should be on a Web site 
so all of America can read it at least 72 hours before it is voted on. 
I applaud that, and I hope we will be able to do that.
  I certainly hope we will be able to do that with a bill that I am 
sure will be passed from the Environment and Public Works Committee of 
the Senate--the cap and trade bill that has yet to be drafted. The 
chairman of that committee, Senator Boxer, has stated it is going to 
basically be the framework of the Waxman bill from the House that was 
passed by a margin of 219 votes to 212, I think it was.
  Anyway, that at least gives us something to talk about. I would like 
to go back historically to my first exposure to this whole issue. Back 
about 10 years ago, when we had the Kyoto Treaty, the Kyoto Treaty was 
a treaty the Clinton-Gore administration was trying to get us to ratify 
in the Senate. It was a treaty that would establish a cap-and-trade 
type of arrangement to limit the number of CO2--and the 
proper term is anthropogenic gases--anthropogenic, man-made gases, 
methane, CO2.
  The theory behind that, and I believed it at that time because 
everyone said it was true, was that these man-made gases were causing 
global warming. I assumed the science was there and was settled. As I 
say, everybody thought it was. It was at that time that the Wharton 
School of Economics came out with the Wharton econometrics survey. That 
survey quantified how much it would cost America in taxes if we in the 
United States ratified the treaty and lived by its requirements. The 
result was in the range between $300 billion and $330 billion a year.
  Now, I have often said one of the most egregious votes ever taken in 
the Senate was the vote that took place in October of 2008 when we gave 
an unelected bureaucrat the $700 billion to do with as he wished. It 
was just unconscionable. I voted against it. I was opposed to it, but 
we lost. We did it, and now, most of the people who voted for it, are 
sorry. I tried to equate at that time what $700 billion was, and I said 
if you take all of the families who file tax returns and pay taxes and 
do your math, it is $5,000 a family--$5,000 for every American family, 
not just the ones in Oklahoma but everywhere. So I thought, as bad as 
that was, that was a one-shot deal. If we pass cap and trade, we are 
talking about a $300-plus billion tax increase every year, not just 
once.
  So at the time we looked at this, and the Wharton School came out 
with these figures, I thought, let me be sure in my own mind, as a 
member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that the science 
is there. So I looked into it, only to find out this whole thing came 
from the United Nations' IPCC--the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change. All we have seen are just the reports not from scientists but 
from politicians on the summaries they give policy donors. So we 
started talking to real scientists only to find out that really well-
established scientists--and this is 10 years ago--who looked at this 
said: Well, yes, there could be a connection between man-made gases, 
CO2, and global warming. However, it is not a major 
significant contribution.
  Now, to fortify this, then-Vice President Gore was trying to build 
his case on why we should ratify this convention and he did his own 
study. He hired a guy--one of the top scientists in America--named Tom 
Wigley to do an analysis. Now, here was his challenge. If all of the 
developed nations in the world--America, France, Western Europe and the 
rest of the developed nations--would ratify this treaty and would live 
by its emission requirements, how much would that lower the temperature 
in 50 years? So if all the countries in the developed nations did this, 
how much would it lower it in 50 years? The result of the study was 
seven one-hundredths of a degree Celsius. Well, I said that is not even 
measurable. And I said, if his own scientist says that, we have to have 
a wake-up call here in America. And that is when I made this statement 
that people have been throwing at me for 10 years--the idea of the 
notion that man-made gases significantly contribute to global warming 
is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
  Well, when we stop and look back now at what has happened in the 
scientific community, many members of the community were the recipients 
of grants and had those grants held up unless they would come in and 
say, yes, we are going to have to do something about CO2 in 
order to stop global warming.
  By the way, I have to just say that at this time we are in our ninth 
year of a global cooling. People seem to forget we have been going 
through these ups

[[Page S7540]]

and downs all throughout recorded history. God is still up there, and 
we are going to have warming and cooling periods.
  The same individuals who are so hysterically behind this idea of 
passing a cap and trade--putting a huge tax on America at this time--
are the same ones in 1975 that were saying we are going to have to do 
something because another ice age is coming. Well, anyway, this has 
been going on for a long period of time.
  So as we have progressed through the years, more and more scientists 
have come over who were on the other side. And I call to mind now, just 
from memory, Claude Allegra, from France. Claude Allegra is a socialist 
over there--very prominent scientist. He was marching through the 
aisles with Al Gore 15 years ago, and he has now reversed his position 
and said, wait a minute, everything we thought from the modeling didn't 
happen. This thing is not real. He is solidly on the skeptic side now, 
saying I was wrong back then. This Claude Allegra is the guy Sarkozy 
now is talking about putting in as the environmental minister of the 
country of France. Now that is the caliber of people we are talking 
about.
  David Bellamy was the top scientist in the U.K. and David Bellamy was 
solidly on the other side 10, 12 years ago. He is now saying, we have 
looked at the modeling and we have changed and this is just flat not 
true.
  A guy named Nir Shaviv from Israel, another top scientist, he was on 
the other side of this issue and he has now come over.
  And for my colleagues who want to really see the fortification, see 
the numbers we are talking about in terms of scientists who have 
reversed their position, go to my Web site, Inhofe.Senate.Gov, and look 
it up. There are a lot of speeches I have made from the floor of the 
Senate, but one was about the 700 scientists, most of whom were on the 
other side of the issue and are now saying the same thing as Claude 
Allegra, David Bellamy, Nir Shaviv, and others have said because they 
have changed their minds on this thing.
  So clearly the science has turned around, and that gives a sense of 
urgency for some people who want to respond to some of the extremists--
mostly in California, and mostly in Hollywood--to go ahead and pass 
something. Get something passed and get it passed quickly. It is kind 
of like health care. They want to get it passed before people have a 
chance to read it.
  So now we have a bill that is going to be put together and drafted in 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, which was going to be 
coming to the floor of the Senate prior to the August recess--just a 
few weeks from now--but Chairman Boxer has now decided to put it off 
until after the recess. I applaud her for that, because time is not the 
friend of the people who are trying to make believe we are going to 
have to pass an expensive tax to address what they consider to be a 
more serious problem than I consider it to be. And during the August 
recess, during those 30 days, you are going to have a lot of Members of 
this Senate be approached by people--such as people in the agricultural 
community.

  I had the opportunity of going and talking to the National Farm Coop 
the other day and discussing with them what would happen if we were to 
pass a cap-and-trade system and what that would do to the farmers of my 
State of Oklahoma and all throughout America. Stop and think about it. 
Seventy-one percent of the cost of a bushel of wheat is in fertilizer 
and in energy costs. That is what would go up. So you would be talking 
about doubling the price of wheat, or I could use soybeans or any other 
commodity. It would be disastrous for our farmers in America.
  So the years have gone by, and slowly people have caught onto this 
thing, and that is why there is such a sense of urgency by people who 
want to pass this before the public realizes what it is. Fortunately, 
the public already understands, and the vast amount of recent polling 
shows that, just like the issue of closing Gitmo, which I talked about 
a few minutes ago, they are solidly on the side of not passing a cap-
and-trade tax which would constitute the largest tax increase in the 
history of America to address a problem that people aren't really sure 
exists to start with.
  So I think we will defeat that in the Senate. It will, of course, 
pass out of the committee. It is a very liberal committee. I love 
everyone on that committee, but they will pass anything that has to do 
with a cap-and-trade package, so it will be on the floor of the Senate. 
But it will not pass the Senate. And the reason I say that is we have 
had several votes in the Senate--the House had never had any votes. We 
have considered this five times, and actually voted three times--2003, 
2005, and 2008.
  In 2003, it was called the McCain-Lieberman bill. At that time, I was 
the only one on the floor. For 5 days, 10 hours a day, I talked about 
this and was trying to defeat that thing. For 50 hours, only two or 
three Senators came down for a short period of time to help me. Now, 
fast forward from 2003 to 2005 to 2008. The bill was called the Warner-
Lieberman bill. We had 23 Senators who came down, and it didn't take 5 
days to defeat it; it was just 2 days.
  So I think in terms of passing the tax increase called cap and trade, 
they have about maybe 34, 35 of votes, and it takes 60 votes in the 
Senate to pass it. Really, I am happy our forefathers were divined and 
inspired when they thought of the two Houses so we could have checks 
and balances.
  So I think that is what will happen. I know there are other names I 
could mention but cannot because some of the things I know are at a 
level of confidence. But some of the new Senators who have been 
elected, they don't really want to go back and say--whether Democrats 
or Republicans, but, in fact, it is the Democrats I have in mind--
saying to the people who have just elected them: Aren't I doing a good 
job for you, coming back from my first session and passing the largest 
annual tax increase in the history of America? That isn't going to 
happen, Mr. President. People are so sensitive right now with the level 
of spending that is going on in this country.
  I can remember in 1993, it was the first year of the Clinton 
administration, and I was complaining at that time on the floor--I was 
serving in the House of Representatives--of the huge tax increase he 
was pushing, and all of the things that were going on--with gun 
control, the Hillary health care, which we all remember. At that time, 
I remember complaining on the floor: He even has a budget of $1.5 
trillion. Well, guess what. This one is $3.5 trillion. We can't sustain 
that. We can't do that in America.
  So I think one at a time we are going to have to stop these expensive 
programs, one being the health care program--I know we can't afford 
that--another being cap and trade. I think we will defeat that, and I 
believe America is now going to look a lot more carefully, and they are 
going to applaud the efforts being made to make sure any bill that 
comes up for consideration of this magnitude should be on a Web site, 
as Mr. Boehner suggested, and several other Senators have suggested, 
including myself, for at least 72 hours so we and the American people 
can read and see what it is going to be. I can assure you, if that had 
happened when the cap-and-trade bill passed the House, it would not 
have passed the House.
  With that, I see there is someone else on the floor wanting to have 
the floor, so I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what is the status of the Senate right 
now?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is in consideration of 
S. 1390.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the pending 
amendment. Let's all imagine a situation. You are a 25-year-old, a 
father of two, it is night and you are walking home across a park. A 
group of teenagers come near and they throw a slur at you. When you 
respond and their verbal attacks escalate, they are nasty. They seek to 
dehumanize you because of where you were born, how you look or how you 
speak. There is a fight, four on one, in which you are pummeled to the 
ground and kicked in the skull repeatedly.
  As you lie on the pavement in convulsions, foam oozing from your 
mouth, life slipping away, there is one more insult. They yell a 
warning to anyone who looks like you or talks

[[Page S7541]]

like you that they will do the same thing.
  Imagine you are this man's two little children. Your father spends 2 
days in intensive care, his face bruised and swollen, his head 
bandaged, tubes everywhere, and then he passes on from this world. You 
will never remember your father holding you or feeding you or kissing 
you; you are too young. What you will remember is growing up without a 
father. He was the victim of a needless death from a senseless beating, 
a beating fueled by red-hot hatred for the type of person he was.
  The one hope for some small measure of fairness so that these two 
young children will one day know that justice was served after their 
daddy was killed would be an appropriate conviction for this 
unthinkable crime. But in the courthouse the verdict is read. The most 
serious charges, the most appropriate charges, are discarded. At most, 
two of the four young men who committed this murder in a bigoted rage 
will spend less than 2 years--less than 2 years--behind bars. But they 
could be there for as little as 6 months--6 months in jail. But this 
man, this father, he is gone forever.
  It is as sad and heart wrenching a situation as you can imagine. How 
we wish it was only that, a horror story we simply imagined. But it is 
not a figment of our imagination, it is a dose of reality. This 
nightmare scene actually happened, and it did not happen in a society 
less open than ours, nor did it happen 100 or 200 years ago. It 
happened exactly 1 year ago in Shenandoah, PA, less than 150 miles from 
where this Chamber is; less than 50 miles from my home State of New 
Jersey.
  Luis Ramirez was the target of the vitriol and the beating; struck in 
the chest so hard he bore a bruise in the shape of Jesus Christ from 
the medallion he wore on a chain around his neck. As he lay, seizing 
from the deadly blows, if he had still been conscious what he would 
have heard were words that, uncensored, do not befit the Senate.

       Tell your [expletive] friends to get the [expletive] out of 
     Shenandoah or you will be [expletive] laying next to him.
       Tell your [expletive] friends to get the [expletive] out of 
     Shenandoah or you will be [expletive] laying next to him.

  This in the 21st century, in the United States of America, the land 
of the free--all men created equal--life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. Not for Luis Ramirez. He may have been born originally in a 
different country, but he was just as human as you or I. It did not 
matter. He was cursed and battered and put down like an abused animal 
would be, in the United States of America.
  The people who did this, the people who beat their fellow man to 
death, treating him as subhuman--this gang gets a veritable slap on the 
wrist.
  We can change that--no more circumstances such as that, not with this 
legislation. There is no better prosecutor of hate crimes in our 
country than Federal law enforcement. They are tough on these hate 
criminals and they are determined to serve justice in each and every 
one of these cases. If we are to make sure hate crimes are treated with 
the seriousness they deserve, if we are to make sure would-be 
perpetrators think twice, Federal law enforcement must have a greater 
involvement.
  I can hear opponents of this legislation, this particular amendment: 
This is 2009. The President is African American. It is a reaction to an 
insignificant problem.
  Ask Luis Ramirez, if you could. I would ask them to consider this, 
from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Between 2003 and 2007, 
hate crimes reported against Hispanics increased not just a little bit 
but by 40 percent. In 2007, Hispanics were the target of 60 percent of 
hate crimes committed based on ethnicity, signifying an increasingly 
sharp rise.
  But this is not just a problem confined to the Hispanic community. 
The man who packed up his rifle, got in his car, drove to Washington, 
entered a building, opened fire, and claimed the life of a noble 
security guard--he didn't just do that at any building. He did it at 
the Holocaust Museum, because this murderer hates Jewish people, hates 
them enough to kill.
  Let's never forget the namesake of this legislation, Matthew Shepard, 
a University of Wyoming student who had his whole life ahead of him 
before it was snatched away on an October night in the countryside near 
Laramie. Two men, uneasy with Matthew's sexual orientation, drove off 
from a bar with him, only to beat him mercilessly with a pistol and 
rope him to a fence, as if a warning to the gay community. They hated 
Matthew because he was gay. He lost his life because he was gay.
  I ask those who would argue against this legislation, how many more 
tragic stories do we have to hear before we make our laws tougher? How 
many more? Do we have to hear another story, such as the one of Jose 
Osvaldo Sucuzhanay, a father of two and native of Ecuador who ran a 
real estate agency, who was headed home with his brother from a bar 
after a church party. These brothers walked around the Brooklyn street 
with arms around each other, like men in Latino cultures often do.
  Up drove three men, yelling slurs that were both homophobic and 
racist, they belted Jose on the head with a glass bottle. They smashed 
his head in with a metal bat. They continued to beat him and kick him 
and beat him and kick him. He clung to life for 2 days in a hospital 
and then he died.
  How many more stories? Do we have to hear another story such as that 
of Marcelo Lucero? He, too, was born in Ecuador and he, too, was a real 
estate professional and he, too, was killed simply for the way he 
looked and the way he spoke, the innocent victim of a senseless gang of 
teenagers on Long Island, driving around in search of ``some Mexicans 
to [expletive] up.''
  Here is how the prosecutor described this assault:

       Like a lynch mob, the defendant and his friends got out of 
     a car and surrounded Mr. Lucero.

  Like a lynch mob--in the 21st century in the United States--they beat 
Marcelo and stabbed him to death.
  How many more of these stories? How many more? Do we have to hear 
another story such as that of Walter Sanchez? His horrific story 
happened earlier this year and it happened in my home State of New 
Jersey.
  Walking to a restaurant with his cousin, a car with five men pulled 
up. Calling Walter a Hispanic son of a [expletive], they beat him 
senseless. He was one of the lucky ones, escaping with his life, but he 
still underwent hours of reconstructive surgery to put many of the 
bones in his face back together.
  Again, how many stories do we have to tell? It is time to stop asking 
and it is time to start acting. We can pass this legislation and know, 
while there is still a ways to go until we have wiped our society clean 
of bigotry and hatred, we will have made it harder for the perpetrators 
of these evil acts to escape justice. As the law is written now, there 
are too many ways in which those who commit hate crimes can escape the 
kind of justice Federal law enforcement is prepared to bring.
  Sometimes these loopholes are bewildering, even perverse. Remember 
the story of Luis Ramirez, whose murderers will serve as little as 6 
months in jail? The cruel irony is that the deadly beating he suffered 
occurred in the street, not in the park 100 feet away, the park where 
Luis had walked minutes, if not seconds, before he was battered. If 
this murder of a hate crime had taken place in that park, it would have 
been Federal law enforcement's business. The delivery of justice may 
have been different. As it turned out, local law enforcement, some of 
whom were related to the assailants, took 2 weeks to arrest the four 
men, and we know how the rest of the process turned out.
  We can all agree, a hate crime is a hate crime--whether it is in the 
park or in the street, on the grass or on the pavement, 100 feet this 
way or 100 feet that way. A hate crime is a hate crime.
  I sponsored, when I was back in the New Jersey legislature, the law 
that became one of the first landmark pieces of legislation on hate 
crimes in our country. I said then that we cannot eliminate hate with 
the passage of a law, but we can send a clear societal message that we 
do not tolerate such crimes against individuals because of their race, 
because of their religion, because of their ethnicity or, for that 
matter, their sexual orientation.
  Hate crimes are hate crimes. They are all an affront to the set of 
values

[[Page S7542]]

upon which this great Nation stands, and they all deserve the full 
scrutiny of our Federal law enforcement.
  It is time to pass this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the amendment and make sure each hate crime is met 
appropriately with justice.
  I ask you to remember, as I started this speech, that father kicked 
to death, with the two children who will never ever know their father 
as so many of us are fortunate to know ours. Remember when you cast 
your vote. Think that, but for the grace of God, it could be you. That 
is how momentous this decision is. That is how important this 
legislation is. That is why justice is served with the passage of this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the facilities and services located at 
Ohana Nui and Camp Catlin, and designated as excess, were established 
at the behest of the U.S. Navy in the 1950s for the benefit of our 
military and their families. Not-for-profit organizations responded to 
the needs identified by the Navy to assist our military. The 
relationships formed between the military and surrounding community 
have grown over the past 50 years at Ohana Nui and Camp Catlin 
including schools for children in prekindergarten through high school. 
It is my hope the Department of the Navy will consider the Federal Real 
Property Management Regulations regarding adjusted fair market value 
when making their determination for the Ohana Nui and Camp Catlin 
property.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. president, today I submitted amendment No. 1572 to S. 
1390 that would provide for earned retirement payments to be restored 
to a group of selfless heroes in Alaksa.
  In 1942, after the Alaska National Guard was called overseas, a group 
of brave Alaska Native men formed a group called the Alaska Territorial 
Guard, ATG. These men helped protect the territory of Alaska during and 
after World War II by conducting scouting patrols and constructing 
military airstrips. The brave men received no pay or benefits for their 
sacrifices during their time of service in the ATG. After disbanding in 
1947, many of these former ATG members continued their service in the 
army and Alaska National Guard and other services.
  Recognizing the heroic and patriotic actions of the ATG members, in 
2000 Congress passed a law that made former members of the ATG eligible 
for veterans' benefits. In 2008, approximately 25 of these guardsmen, 
mostly Native Alaskans in their mid-to-late eighties, were issued 
military retirement credit for their period of service in the ATG and 
began receiving a modest $500 a month in retirement pay.
  However, in January of this year, the Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service abruptly ended these payments based on a finding that a 
misinterpretation of the law had resulted in erroneously awarding these 
payments. These men, who live in remote areas and rely on this payment 
for day-to-day needs, were devastated by the unexpected decrease in 
their monthly income.
  Understanding the significant financial impact experienced by these 
heroes and their contributions during World War II, the Secretary of 
the Army provided them 2 months of pay from the emergency and 
extraordinary expense fund. The Alaska Legislature, further cushioning 
the economic loss experienced by this courageous group, enacted a bill 
that temporarily restores the entitlement to the ATG members until the 
earlier of the date that the Federal Government restores the 
entitlement or February 1, 2010.
  My amendment permanently restores the earned Federal entitlement 
benefit to members of the ATG for their service. As Members of the 
Senate, it is our responsibility to take care of those who have served 
and sacrificed. Earlier this year, this body supported restoring this 
entitlement to the ATG in the Senate-passed budget resolution, S. Con. 
Res. 13. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to honor those 
who have served.
  Mr. President, amendment No. 1573 to S. 1390 would authorize the 
Department of Defense to reimburse military families for costs incurred 
for transport of a second personally owned vehicle on a change of 
permanent duty station to or from Alaska, Hawaii, or Guam.
  Current law only authorizes servicemembers to be reimbursed for the 
cost to transport one personally owned vehicle. As with their 
counterparts in civilian life, many military families today own and 
rely on a second vehicle. For example, a significant number of military 
members live off base and commute to work, while their spouses work as 
well, making ownership of just a single vehicle impractical for most 
families.
  Some military families ship their second vehicle back to the lower 48 
States or Alaska, Hawaii, or Guam at their personal expense. Shipment 
of a second personally owned vehicle to Alaska, Hawaii, or Guam, or to 
the lower 48 States from these locations can cost our servicemembers as 
much as $2,000 out of pocket.
  Other times, they opt to sell their second vehicle prior to the move 
and repurchase a second personally owned vehicle upon arrival of duty 
station. This is a costly option resulting in severe financial loss.
  The current policy of reimbursing military families for only 
transport of one personally owned vehicle is an outdated policy that 
unfairly impacts the finances of these families who rely on a second 
vehicle to sustain their needs.
  Authorizing reimbursement for a second privately owned vehicle will 
greatly enhance the quality of life for our servicemembers and their 
families stationed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam, and those returning to 
the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia from those locations, 
and will alleviate the unnecessary financial burdens on these families. 
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I have listened to the debate all day 
with regard to the national defense authorization bill, and, frankly, 
it is one of the frustrating aspects of serving in this great body, to 
sit here and debate an issue like we have debated over the last couple 
of days and to think that you are going to come to the floor of the 
Senate and to cast a vote on a very important measure that has been 
characterized by Senator McCain earlier as one of the most important 
pieces of legislation or amendments that we will have--and I agree with 
him that is the case--and all of a sudden we are thrown into an 
entirely different atmosphere with regard to what has taken place on 
the floor.
  All of a sudden we are not talking about defense, we are not talking 
about our troops, we are not talking about the national security of the 
United States, we are talking about hate crimes.
  We are in some very difficult times with respect to the national 
security of our country. While Senator McCain and I disagree on the 
issue of the F-22 and this amendment, he and I agree strongly--and it 
is why he is my dear friend and why we agree on most things--about the 
fact that we ought to be here debating defense issues and voting on 
defense issues.
  It truly is frustrating. I know our soldiers in the field can't 
understand what in the world is going on in the Senate now, when they 
thought we were going to be debating and voting on amendments that 
pertained to them--issues such as their pay raise, their quality of 
life, weapon systems--and all of a sudden we are thrown into doing 
something else. So I just want to associate myself with the remarks of 
my friend, Senator McCain, with respect to why we are here.
  With regard to what Senator Levin said, frankly, Senator Dodd, on the 
other side of the aisle, who has been working very closely with me on 
the F-22 amendment, he and I had a meeting with Senator Levin and 
Senator McCain on Monday, and informally--or actually formally agreed 
between the four of us--which is an informal agreement--that we would 
have a vote on the Levin-McCain amendment on Wednesday morning. We 
thought that was kind of a done deal.

[[Page S7543]]

  Now, all of a sudden we have debated and we have talked about this, 
we have debated it again, we have talked about the amendment, and now 
we are thrown into an entirely different scenario on the Senate floor 
when we have been prepared to vote. I would hope we still have the 
opportunity to vote in the short term on the issue of the F-22.
  On that point, just very briefly, Mr. President, I want to state a 
couple of things with regard to that issue. I made a very long 
statement yesterday, and I am not going to go back into all the detail 
with the reference to the why-fors of the F-22 and its value to the 
national security of the United States, but there have been some 
comments made on the Senate floor that I think are important to 
address.
  One of those comments made by Senator Levin was that I had made a 
statement that there had never been a study by the Air Force which 
validated the requirement that 187 aircraft be the top line number for 
the F-22.
  What I said was there have been dozens of studies out there over the 
years on the F-22, and there has only been one study--and it was an 
internal study at the Department of Defense, without the input of the 
Air Force--that said 187 is the number. I want to make sure everybody 
in this body understands every single other study done internally, as 
well as outside the Pentagon, outside the Air Force, outside the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense, or inside, has concluded that the 
requirement for the number of F-22s we need far exceeds the number of 
187. The minimum number that has ever been referred to is 243, which is 
some 56 airplanes more than the 187 we are talking about now.
  Last week, in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
we had GEN James Cartwright, who is a Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice 
Chairman, and I asked General Cartwright if there was any study or any 
analysis done at the Pentagon that validated the number 187. General 
Cartwright told me:

       There is a study in the Joint Staff that we just completed 
     and partnered with the Air Force which validates the number 
     of 187.

  Well, on Monday afternoon, a reporter asked a Pentagon official, and 
the top spokesman from the Pentagon, Geoff Morrell, made the statement 
in response to that reporter's inquiry about that study as follows:

       Well, it is not so much a study as work products. What I 
     think General Cartwright was referring to is two different 
     work products, one by the Program Analysis and Evaluation 
     shop and one by the Air Force. Not so much a study.

  So what has happened is there have been discussions within the 
Pentagon to attempt to validate the number of 187. It is pretty obvious 
what I said on the floor of the Senate remains true, and that is that 
of all the dozens of studies that have been done on the F-22 
requirement, the minimum number that has ever been validated is 243. 
The number goes up from there all the way to 781, which I think was our 
original number. The number of 381 is the number that has been used in 
most of the recent studies as the number we need.
  Also, with respect to other statements regarding the Secretary of 
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and others who are saying 
that 187 is the number, that is leadership at the Pentagon. The 
leadership at the Pentagon has the responsibility for sending a budget 
to the Senate and to the House, but it is our obligation as Members of 
the Senate and the House to review that budget--sometimes to agree with 
it; sometimes to disagree with it. We often disagree with it.
  In this case, a number of us disagree with the number of 187 as being 
the top line for the F-22. That is not unusual. But with respect to 
what the leadership at the Pentagon has said, let me go back to a 
letter I talked about yesterday, and it is a letter that has been 
received from Rebecca Grant, the Director of the Mitchell Institute for 
Airpower Studies. What she says in her letter to me is: In the letter 
of July 13 from Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates, the 
characterization of F-35 as a ``half-generation newer aircraft than the 
F-22 and more capable in a number of areas such as electronic warfare 
and combating enemy air defenses'' is incorrect and misleading.
  Air Force Secretary Donley and General Schwartz have repeatedly 
stated: ``The F-22 is, unquestionably, the most capable fighter in our 
military inventory.''
  The F-22 was designed with twice the fighting speed and altitude of 
the F-35 to preserve U.S. advantages in the air even if adversaries 
contest our electronic countermeasures or reach parity with us.
  She also States in that letter:

       If electronic jamming fails, the speed, altitude and 
     maneuverability advantages of F-22 remain. The F-35 was 
     designed to operate after F-22s secure the airspace and does 
     not have the inherent altitude and speed advantages to 
     survive every time against peers with counter electronic 
     measures. Only five F-35s are flying today. The F-35 has 
     completed less than half its testing. Developmental tests 
     will not be completed until 2013. It is impossible to assess 
     the full capabilities of the F-35 until operational test is 
     complete in 2014.

  The Secretary of Defense and others in the administration are putting 
all of their tactical air eggs in one basket, Mr. President. That is a 
very dangerous road down which we should not travel with respect to the 
national security of the United States and the safety and security of 
our men and women.


                   Appointment to the HELP Committee

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under an order of May 5 and under the 
auspices of S. Res. 18, I made a temporary appointment of Sheldon 
Whitehouse to serve on the HELP Committee, while retaining my authority 
to make a permanent appointment to the HELP Committee. I now announce 
that as of today, Senator Al Franken is appointed to serve on a 
permanent basis to the slot that was occupied by Senator Sheldon 
Whitehouse.


                           Senator Whitehouse

  Mr. President, Sheldon Whitehouse, since coming to the Senate, has 
truly been a workhorse. There isn't anything I have asked this fine man 
to do that he has not come forward with enthusiasm to do it. We have 
seen the brilliant work he has done on so many different occasions as a 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  His other assignments in the Senate have been just as auspicious as 
his work on the Judiciary Committee. His background is significant. He 
has a real interest in health care. His work on the bill that was 
reported out of the HELP Committee today was essential. All members of 
the committee, Democrats and Republicans, are astounded at how good he 
was.
  I repeat, he enthusiastically accepted this temporary assignment 
while we waited for the long, never-ending situation in Minnesota to 
come to a close. Senator Whitehouse was far from just a seat-warmer. He 
dove into the issues and, to no one's surprise, was a substantive 
contributor to one of the most important bills the committee has ever 
marked up in the history of this country.
  Without belaboring the point, on behalf of the entire Senate, I 
greatly appreciate his service on the committee, and I personally thank 
him, as does the entire Democratic caucus. I bet if a poll were taken 
of those who serve as Republicans on the HELP Committee, they would 
acknowledge his brilliance and hard work. I know Senator Kennedy, whom 
we have missed on that committee and the vital work he has done for 
decades in the Senate, is someone who has watched from afar and 
applauded Senator Whitehouse.
  Mr. President, I came to the House of Representatives in 1982. In 
that class of 1982 was a young man from Arizona, someone who came with 
a certain degree of fame. His name is John McCain. He had served our 
country valiantly during the Vietnam conflict and spent 5 years in a 
prisoner-of-war camp in Vietnam. I have great admiration and respect 
for him. I want the record to reflect that my respect for John McCain 
is very deep. Not only did we come to the House together, but we also 
came to the Senate together. We were elected together in 1986. Our 
seniority is as close as it can get. We both have the same amount of 
service in the House of Representatives, so seniority is determined by 
how many people are in the State of Nevada and the State of Arizona. 
There are more people in the State of Arizona than in the State of 
Nevada, so he is one up on me in overall seniority in the Senate.
  Having said that, recognizing who this man is, he was proudly the 
nominee for Republicans in the last election. I watched his campaign 
and admired his courage, the stands he took. While I may not have 
agreed with him,

[[Page S7544]]

I recognize he has strong feelings. But so do I.
  The senior Senator from Arizona today said he was ``deeply, deeply 
disappointed'' that what he considers an unrelated amendment; that is, 
the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill, has been added to this bill, the 
Defense authorization bill. I wonder on which recent morning did the 
Senator from Arizona wake up and suddenly feel so strongly. Where has 
he been in the past? Let me make a couple of comments about the remarks 
of my friend from Arizona.
  First, his is a new outrage over a very old issue. The hate crimes 
bill was first added to the Defense authorization bill in a previous 
Congress. I didn't do it. The amendment today was an amendment I 
offered on behalf of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and other 
sponsors of this legislation. Senator Leahy would have been here, but 
he is a little busy with the Supreme Court nomination. The hate crimes 
bill was first added to the Defense authorization bill when George Bush 
was President, a Republican. Where was the Senator's disappointment 
then? I heard no big statements at that time, and no one else did.
  Second, the Senator from Arizona has evidently not always held the 
belief he discussed today. This is a new conversion. He has evidently 
not always believed that bills must only contain amendments that relate 
directly to the underlying legislation.
  It was just a while ago a bill came before the Senate known as the 
motor-voter bill, a bill to make it easier for people to register to 
vote. When they got their registration changed on their car, they would 
at the same time have the opportunity to register to vote. It was a 
unique and good idea, and it has allowed millions of people to register 
to vote who ordinarily would not register.
  On that legislation, motor-voter, Senator McCain offered a line-item 
veto amendment. It had nothing to do with registration to vote. So it 
is hard to understand how his was the kind of related amendment he 
demands today. In fact, that issue went to the Supreme Court, where the 
Supreme Court declared it illegal, unconstitutional.
  It was a year before that that Senator McCain offered the same 
amendment to a research bill. Again, it is hard to understand how his 
was the kind of related amendment he demands today.
  Additionally, Senator McCain offered an amendment that would change 
Senate rules about tax increases to a bill about unemployment 
compensation. It is hard to understand how his was the kind of related 
amendment that he suddenly today demands.
  He also offered his line-item veto amendment to a bill that would 
give more rights to blind Americans. It is hard to understand how the 
line-item veto had anything to do with the visually impaired. But it 
appears this was the kind of amendment he demands today.
  Again, Senator McCain offered an amendment about Medicare to a bill 
funding energy and water development, having no relation, obviously. It 
is hard to understand how his was a kind of related amendment that he 
demands today.

  The third point I want to make is that the Senator from Arizona is 
not alone in offering such unrelated amendments. His Republican 
colleagues do it all the time. In fact, they are quite fond of doing 
it.
  Where has his outrage been when that has happened, Mr. President? 
Where has the outrage been from the Senator from Arizona when, for 
example, one of his Republican Senator friends twice offered an 
amendment about the ACORN group? This is an organization around the 
country that is involved in a lot of different things. But he wanted to 
do an amendment on the economic recovery package related to the ACORN 
organization. That was a bill, of course, that had nothing to do with 
voting registration.
  Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about prescription 
drugs to a bill that funds homeland security--no relation whatsoever. 
Where was the outrage of my friend from Arizona about that?
  Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about the fairness 
doctrine--a fake issue meant exclusively to excite a very small segment 
of our population--to a bill that would give DC residents, finally, the 
right to vote. Where was the outrage of my friend from Arizona about 
that?
  Another Republican Senator offered the same amendment; that is, the 
fairness doctrine; another Senator, same amendment, on the same 
conjured issue to the Omnibus appropriations bill. That is the bill we 
passed to keep our government running and complete unfinished business 
from the Bush administration. Where was my friend's outrage about that?
  Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about union dues to 
that same Omnibus appropriations bill, having nothing to do with what 
we were trying to accomplish here.
  Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about congressional 
pay to another appropriations bill, having no relationship whatsoever.
  Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about rules 
surrounding charitable donations to the national service bill--no 
relationship whatsoever. I did not hear my friend say one word about 
that. The Senator from Arizona did not complain 1 minute about that.
  Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about national 
language to a bill that helps us crack down on mortgage fraud. Now try 
that one. That is something that might stir up a little outrage but not 
from my friend from Arizona.
  Another Republican Senator offered an amendment on auto dealers to a 
bill that funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where was the 
outrage on that--an amendment on auto dealers on a bill that funds our 
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the supplemental appropriations bill?
  Mr. President, there are lots of other examples. Those are just a 
few. It is hard to understand how any of these amendments were the kind 
of related amendment Senator McCain demands today. But it is even 
harder to understand why the Senator from Arizona did not feel the need 
to express, as I have said, the outrage he did this morning.
  Finally, I want to say that I would gladly, as a matter of principle, 
keep each of these bills separate; that is, hate crimes, Defense 
authorization. But the reality is, the Republicans' relentless and 
reckless strategy of slowing, stopping, and stalling has made it 
impossible for us to do so. My friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, 
knows the most recent example of this all too well. His Republican 
colleagues refuse to let us vote on his amendment, which I support. I 
support the F-22 amendment. I support that. Why can't we vote on that? 
This could have been done yesterday, the day before, today, but for the 
stubbornness of the Senate Republicans.
  We have lots of work to do, a lot of priorities to fulfill, and a lot 
of mistakes in the last 8 years to correct. And we are trying to do 
that. The bottom line is, we would not have to take the time for such 
steps if the Republican minority would not waste the American people's 
time and money by making us jump through procedural hoop after 
procedural hoop just to do our jobs. Last Congress, 100 filibusters; 
this Congress, I think we are at 21 already this year--21.
  To my knowledge, Senator McCain has never supported hate crimes 
legislation. If I am mistaken, it certainly would not be the first 
time, but that is the information I have. It is my understanding he 
does not think there probably is ever a good time to pass this 
important and overdue bill.
  This is an issue here, a very important issue. And that is the real 
reason the Republicans, I assume, do not like to talk about the Matthew 
Shepard hate crimes bill. But I am not afraid to talk about the issue.
  A man by the name of Luis Ramirez was picking strawberries and 
cherries to support his three children and a woman he wanted to marry. 
When he was not working the fields, he worked a second job in a local 
factory in Shenandoah, PA. It is a coal town of only 5,000 people.
  As he was walking home one Saturday night, six high schoolers jumped 
him in a park. They taunted and screamed racial slurs at Luis, who came 
to this small town in the middle of Pennsylvania from a small town in 
the middle of Mexico. But the boys did not stop with the taunting and 
screaming racial slurs. That was not enough.

[[Page S7545]]

They punched, beat, and kicked him. When Luis's friend pleaded with the 
teenagers to stop, one yelled back: Tell your Mexican friends to get 
out of town, or you'll be lying next to him.
  These boys stomped on Luis so hard that an imprint of the necklace he 
was wearing was embedded into his chest. They beat him so badly and so 
brutally that Luis never regained consciousness. He is dead. On July 
14, 2008--2 days after the beating and exactly 1 year ago yesterday--
Luis Ramirez died. He was 25 years old.
  Hate crimes embody a unique brand of evil, and that is why the 
legislation is so important. It is terrorism; it is just a different 
kind than we normally see or think of. A violent act may physically 
hurt just a single victim and cause grief for loved ones. But hate 
crimes do more. They distress entire communities, entire groups of 
people, and our country.
  Our friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, has for many years courageously 
fought for the legislation Senator Leahy and I offered as an amendment 
today to the Defense authorization bill. Senator Kennedy has correctly 
called hate crimes a form, I repeat, of domestic terrorism. It is our 
obligation to protect Americans from this domestic terror.
  The hate crimes bill will help bring justice to those who 
intentionally choose their victims based on race, color, religion, 
nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or 
disability. Disability--there are examples all the time of someone who 
may not be what ``normal'' may be; maybe they are mentally challenged. 
There are all kinds of examples of people for that reason taking 
advantage and hurting them. That is a hate crime.

  Hate crimes are rampant and the numbers are rising. The Department of 
Justice estimates that hundreds happen every day. Now State and local 
governments are on their own when it comes to prosecuting even the most 
violent crimes and conducting the most extensive and expensive 
investigations. State and local governments will always come first, as 
they should, but if those governments are unwilling or unable to 
prosecute hate crimes--and if the Justice Department believes that may 
mean justice will not be served--this law will let the Federal 
authorities lend a hand to State and local authorities.
  I spent some time yesterday with Judy Shepard. I have five children. 
I have four boys. I had never met Judy Shepard until yesterday. My 
wife, within the past few months, had lunch with her and a number of 
other people and sat next to her. She told me what a wonderful person 
she is. When I met with her yesterday, the thing she said that was so 
traumatic to me was: I only have one boy left. Two children; Matthew is 
dead.
  The bill we have is named after Matthew Shepard, Judy's son. He was a 
21-year-old college student when he was tortured and killed for being 
gay--and did they torture, did they torture. And that was not good 
enough for them. In the cold Wyoming night, they took him, before he 
was dead, and hung him on a barbed-wire fence.
  When Wyoming police pursued justice in Matthew's murder, they needed 
resources they did not have. Laramie, WY, is where it is. Police could 
not call in Federal law enforcement for help--the law would not allow 
it--and their expensive investigation devastated that small police 
department. It was a police department of 40 people--not all police 
officers. As all police officers, some of them took care of the little 
jail, did jail duty, and they were responding to phone calls. Out of 
this 40-person police department, they had to lay off 5 people so they 
could prosecute this crime, this vicious crime, this hate crime. But it 
cost that little town a lot. When this bill becomes law, that will 
never happen again in Laramie, WY, or anyplace else in the country.
  We must not be afraid to call these crimes what they are. The 
American people know this is the right thing to do. Hundreds of legal, 
law enforcement, civil rights, and human rights groups know this is the 
right thing to do. The U.S. Senate knows this is the right thing to do.
  This bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between 
assaulting someone to steal his money or doing so because he is gay or 
disabled or Latino or Jewish; that there is a difference between 
setting fire to an office building and setting fire to a church, a 
synagogue, or a mosque; that there is a difference, as we learned so 
tragically last month, between shooting a security guard and shooting 
him because he works at the Holocaust Museum.
  It is a shame that we often do not discuss our responsibility to do 
something about horrific hate crimes until after another one has been 
committed. It means we always tend to act too late. But does this mean 
we should not act now? Of course not. It means, in fact, the opposite: 
it means we must act before another one of our sons or daughters or 
friends or partners is attacked or killed merely because of who they 
are.
  We must act in the name of people such as Thomas Lahey, who, in 2007, 
was beaten unconscious in Las Vegas. Why? Because he was gay.
  Not far from my hometown of Searchlight, NV, is a place called 
Laughlin, NV--25 miles away. It is on the river, a little resort 
community. We must act in the name of Jammie Ingle, who, in 2002, was 
beaten and bludgeoned to death in Laughlin, NV. Why? They thought he 
was gay.
  We must act in the name of Tony Montgomery, who was shot and killed 
in Reno. Why? Because he was an African American.
  We must act in the name of those who worship at Temple Emanu-El in 
Reno, a synagogue that has been firebombed time and time again by 
skinheads. We must act in the name of Luis Ramirez, whom I already 
talked about who died 1 year ago this week. We must act in the name of 
Judy Shepard, of her son, Matthew Shepard, whose family has fought 
tirelessly since his brutal death, his brutal murder, so others may 
know justice. If their country doesn't stand for them, if we don't 
stand for them, who will?

  The F-22 is an airplane I have seen. A number of them are stationed 
at Nellis Air Force Base. Nellis Air Force Base has almost 15,000 
people who are involved in that air base, civilian and military 
personnel. We are so proud of that. Nellis Air Force Base is named 
after Bill Nellis from Searchlight, NV. Bill Nellis was a war hero in 
World War II. He joined then the Army Air Corps, already having two 
children, was way beyond the age when he would be drafted, but he 
volunteered. He served 69 missions before a dive bomber went down in 
Belgium where he is now buried. We are proud of Nellis. We are proud 
the F-22s are there. But we have had enough F-22s at Nellis Air Force 
Base. We have enough F-22s anyplace else.
  The F-22 is a Cold War weapon that has not flown a single mission 
over Iraq or Afghanistan--not one; not a training mission, not any kind 
of a mission. It is a powerful plane built to fight superpowers. But as 
we all know, the wars we fight today are not against superpowers. This 
generation of our military bravely fights a new generation of warfare 
against terrorists and insurgents. For today's national security needs, 
the F-22 is an overpriced and underperforming tool. And the nearly 200 
we already have in our fleet is sufficient. It is a sufficient 
deterrent to the potential of conventional war. But some want us to 
spend at least $2 billion to keep making more of them. That is only the 
first step. Actually, it is $1.75 billion. I rounded it off to $2 
billion. It is a very expensive plane to build and a very expensive 
plane to fly. It costs taxpayers $42,000 an hour to operate.
  This technology is not suited for today's warfare. The radar in the 
F-22 means that when it flies over heavily populated cities such as the 
ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, its position is easily given away. We 
have at Nellis Air Force Base in the ranges there what we call red flag 
activities.
  A couple times a year, we bring our fighting forces there, our air 
fighting forces, and they do mock exercises. It is a wonderful place, 
one of the few places in the world this can take place. They do all 
kinds of good things. Aircraft from all over the world come there to 
participate in these war games. If the F-22's radar is turned off to 
avoid being so easily detected, its agility is significantly 
compromised. We know that. This was proven recently in a recent 
exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, when an F-16 brought down in a war 
game an F-22 that simply had turned its radar off in a test fight.

[[Page S7546]]

  There is broad bipartisan consensus that ending the F-22's production 
is in our national security interests. Here is a list of some who 
agree: Chairman Levin; Ranking Member McCain; Commander in Chief Barack 
Obama; the previous Commander in Chief, President Bush; the Secretary 
of Defense; the previous Secretary of Defense; the chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, I repeat; the ranking member, I 
repeat, of the Senate Armed Services Committee; the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; 
the Secretary of the Air Force; the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. 
Can you believe that? And we are going to try to move forward in doing 
this, and no one wants it in the military. All of those have prudently 
pointed out that buying more F-22s that we don't need means doing less 
of something we do need.
  Some have encouraged us to continue making this Cold War-era plane 
because it creates jobs for those who build them. Being a little bit 
personal here, the stealth airplane was developed in the deserts of 
Tonopah, NV. It was a wonderful thing our country did. Each of these 
airplanes had its own hangar up in the desert because the Soviet 
satellites came over, and they couldn't come out in the daytime. These 
pilots were trained so efficiently; everything they did was in pitch 
darkness, but that is where these airplanes were developed and flown.
  There came a time after it became public that we had these stealth 
aircraft that they had to put them someplace. They put most of them at 
Nellis Air Force Base. The Pentagon, after they had been stationed 
there for a matter of months, made a decision: That is not good. We 
need to move them to New Mexico to an airbase. Pete Domenici, my 
friend, was concerned about whether they should go to New Mexico or 
Nevada. I said: Pete, I got a deal for you. I, personally, don't 
believe that what we do for the military is a jobs program. I think it 
is to make our Nation more secure. Let's have the General Accounting 
Office do a study, and if they come back and say it will save the 
country money and it will make our country more secure if they move 
them to New Mexico, I am not going to say a word about it. It took the 
General Accounting Office a matter of a few months to do this. They 
came back and said these stealth aircraft would be better off in New 
Mexico, and it will make our country more secure; they can train better 
there because of how much activity there is at Nellis, and it will save 
the country money.
  That is how I feel about the military. I think we have to have the 
most sophisticated, secure weapons systems that exist, but it has to be 
something that is good for our country. It is obvious--with all these 
people from President Obama to President Bush to the Secretaries of 
Defense in the past to now--these airplanes are not necessary. They 
prudently point out that buying more F-22s that we don't need means 
doing less of something else that we do need.
  I repeat: Some have encouraged us to continue making this airplane 
because it creates jobs for those who build it. I don't believe that is 
the purpose of why we are here. I understand the importance of jobs, 
but a more advanced jet, the F-35, which can be used by all branches of 
the military service, would create similar jobs--jobs that actually 
will enhance our national security. That is what this is all about. 
That is what this bill is about, the Defense authorization bill.
  Finally, President Obama has pledged to veto this Defense 
authorization bill if it includes continuing to build this obsolete 
airplane. And he will veto it. That is a risk, and why would anyone 
want to take it? I spoke to the President's Chief of Staff yesterday. 
The President is going to veto this bill. This is kind of an: Oh, he 
will never do that. He will.
  Cutting funding for wasteful programs is good for our economy, good 
for our workers, and good for the continued military dominance of our 
country. I oppose continuing to build a weapon that will compromise our 
national security. I oppose continuing to fund a program that will 
jeopardize our economy. I oppose wasting billions of dollars of 
taxpayer money on a plane that doesn't defend us in our wars that we 
fight today and will not defend us in tomorrow's wars. I support moving 
our military into today's century the 21st century, not go back to the 
last century.

  Now, finally, let me say this: I have called my friend, the 
Republican leader, and he will call in just a minute when he has some 
time because I didn't call him while he was in a meeting. I wanted to 
speak to him before I came to the floor, but I have something else I 
have to do tonight. We are going to vote on invoking cloture. We will 
see if we can get 60 votes on this hate crimes amendment that is on 
this bill. I would like to work it out so we can do it conveniently for 
everyone, sometime tomorrow. What I would like to do is set aside some 
more time if we want to debate more the hate crimes, set aside more 
time to do that, and if people want to do the F-22, let's do that. 
Let's get these two out of the way. I can't force an amendment vote on 
the F-22, but I can force a vote on cloture, and we are going to do 
that. We will do that tomorrow. Tomorrow may spill over until a little 
after midnight Friday morning, but we are going to do this. So everyone 
should understand the hate crimes bill is going to be voted on either 
tomorrow or very early Friday morning. I have said Friday there will be 
no votes, and that is by day. This will be in the middle of the night. 
I hope we don't have to do that, but that is when time runs out on 
this.
  I think these two amendments are important. I understand the anxiety 
of those who would rather not have hate crimes legislation on this 
bill. I accept that. But I spent a lot of my time here on the floor, as 
I have outlined, wondering why in the world other people don't complain 
when they offer these ridiculous amendments on legislation that is so 
important. I have indicated that we are going to go back to the way we 
used to do business in the Senate. I have done that during the time I 
have had this job. We have this--this year we have had an open 
amendment process except on rare occasions. I have stood here when we 
have done abortion amendments, gun amendments, you name it. I have told 
Senator McConnell I wish this were not the case, but that is why we are 
here, to make tough votes and easy votes both.
  So I hope we can work something out, where we can resolve this matter 
tomorrow during the daylight hours; otherwise, we will do it tomorrow 
night.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his words 
concerning the parliamentary situation we are in. Of course, I am very 
appreciative of his words about the long service we have shared 
together, both in the other body and in the Senate. Since I have 
returned from the campaign trail, I have appreciated his kind words 
about my service to the country. I must say, while the majority leader 
is still on the floor, I might point out that they are dramatically 
different from the comments he made about me during the campaign--not 
just our political differences but my qualifications to serve and other 
statements about my character. All those things are said in political 
campaigns, but I am certainly glad to see sort of a significant change 
in his comments concerning me, and I am always very grateful.
  Can I also say that the distinguished leader said he couldn't 
understand that I couldn't understand. Well, the thing I can't 
understand is the fact that the majority leader can, by virtue of being 
majority leader, put legislation at any time before this body. I have 
never been majority leader, and in all candor I never want to be 
majority leader. I think the majority leader in the Senate has a very 
tough job. I appreciate the hard work he does in trying to move 
legislation through the Senate. My former colleague and one-time 
majority leader, Senator Lott, once said that being majority leader of 
the Senate was like herding cats, and I certainly agree with that 
assessment.
  So let me say I appreciate the work the majority leader does, but if 
I had been majority leader, I would never have had to do any of those 
amendments. The majority leader sets the agenda for the Senate. All he 
has to do if he wants the hate crimes bill up is to schedule it to be 
taken up and debated and discussed and amended--but in the

[[Page S7547]]

regular order of the Senate. Instead, he chooses to put it on the 
Defense authorization bill, a bill that is vital to the future of the 
security of this Nation.
  I understand his passion concerning hate crimes. I have heard 
speakers come to the Senate floor all day, and they, in very graphic 
and moving terms, described events, as I am sure the next speaker 
will--about the terrible crimes committed in this country by some of 
the worst of the worst people who have ever inhabited this country.
  But the question remains: Why should a bill of this importance--the 
hate crimes legislation--not have been, at the majority leader's 
direction, moved through the Judiciary Committee, reported out, and 
reported to the floor of the Senate? We have been in session since 
January. I am sure the Judiciary Committee has a lot to do. This has 
been described by proponents, as they come to the floor, as one of the 
most important issues of our time. If it is, why not move it through 
the Judiciary Committee, move it to the floor, and allow us to amend, 
debate, and discuss the issue? Instead, it is put, as an amendment, on 
the Defense authorization bill.
  That is not right, Mr. President. The fact is, the amendment the 
majority leader just, very rightfully, extolled, the Levin-McCain 
amendment--and I appreciate his strong remarks about the importance of 
it--is the one he wanted withdrawn. The reason we are not debating it 
now is because the majority leader told the chairman of the committee 
to withdraw the amendment.
  I appreciate his passionate advocacy of this issue. I also want to 
reemphasize this isn't just about $1.75 billion. This amendment is 
about whether we are going to change, fundamentally, the way we do 
business.
  If the opponents of the amendment succeed, and we fund additional F-
22 aircraft, which as the majority leader pointed out has never flown 
in Iraq or Afghanistan, that signal to the military industrial complex, 
which President Eisenhower warned us about is business as usual in our 
Nation's Capitol.
  So this is an amendment that has transcendent importance. The 
President has guaranteed a veto. The Secretary of Defense came out and 
staked his reputation on succeeding here and eliminating, bringing to 
an end the F-22 production line and moving forward with the F-35 
production line.
  A lot of my friends ought to understand this is not just about 
cutting or eliminating or ending production of the F-22. It is also 
about the F-35 aircraft. If I had been majority leader, I would have--
when he described those amendments I put on bills that were before the 
Senate, it was because I could not get them up in any other way.
  Let me say this: Hate crimes legislation deserves the attention of 
the Senate in the normal legislative process with amendments, debate, 
and discussion. If it is so important, and speaker after speaker, 
including the majority leader, came to the Senate floor talking about 
how important and vital it is and all of the terrible things that have 
happened as a result of, in their view, not having this bill--although 
that is not in agreement with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But 
the fact is, then you would think we would want to take it up in the 
regular fashion and debate it, and that we would want to improve it and 
make it more effective through the amending process. But, no, we are 
not going to do that. We are going to take down the pending amendment 
that is probably one of the most significant amendments we have had in 
recent history of the Senate--at least as far as defense is concerned--
and replace it with a piece of legislation that is complex, certainly 
controversial, and certainly deserves the full attention of the Senate.
  I proposed earlier a unanimous-consent request, which was rejected by 
the majority, that we move back to the F-22 amendment, that we dispose 
of this legislation, and then that we move to the hate crimes bill, the 
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, even bypassing the 
Judiciary Committee, which is not a normal thing to do given the 
complexity of the issue.
  I am deeply moved by the stories the majority leader told, and both 
Senators from California came to the floor, and many others have given 
very graphic and dramatic and compelling stories recounting terrible 
things that have happened to our citizens--horrible, awful, horrifying 
things. I understand that and my sympathies and thoughts and prayers go 
out to their families. We must do everything in our power to make sure 
these kinds of horrendous acts are never repeated.
  Let me point out another thing, if I could. There are also men and 
women in the military who are in harm's way now and who have been 
gravely wounded. The sooner we enact this legislation, we will make 
preparation and be able to better care for them.
  Mr. President, I don't usually tell these anecdotes. I heard a lot 
today, and I sympathize with them. Before the majority leader took the 
floor, I was outside the Senate Chamber. There was a young man there 
who said he wanted to meet me--a young marine in a wheelchair, badly 
wounded. He was there with his family. He was escorted by Congressman 
Kennedy. I was gratified and moved that he wanted to meet me.
  Do you know what. That made me want to come back here and pass this 
legislation as quickly as possible because this legislation, No. 1, 
provides fair compensation and first-rate health care and addresses the 
needs of the injured and improves the quality of life of the men and 
women of the All-Volunteer Force--Active Duty, National Guard, Reserve, 
and their families. That is the No. 1 priority of this legislation.
  Instead of moving this legislation as quickly as possible through the 
Senate, we have now withdrawn the amendment and moved on to a piece of 
legislation that has nothing to do with the purpose and our obligation 
to the men and women serving this country.
  I understand what numbers are, and I understand what the outcome of 
elections is. I understand there is a majority on the other side of the 
aisle. But what is being done by withdrawing an amendment that has 
transcendent importance and putting another totally unrelated piece of 
legislation in--it may set a dangerous precedent for this body.
  This is not a one-shot deal; this the hate crimes bill. This is not 
an amendment to say you can carry a gun in a national park. This is not 
a single specific issue bill--hate crimes. We are talking about a very 
large, encompassing piece of legislation that, by any rational 
observation, demands to be considered through the proper committee and 
on the floor through the proper process.
  We are now holding up the progress of legislation that is important 
to the future security of this country and the men and women who serve 
it, to give them the resources, training, technology, equipment, force 
protections, and authorities they need to succeed in combat and 
stability operations.
  I understand and appreciate the passion of the advocates of hate 
crime legislation. They have made it very clear and told compelling 
stories on the Senate floor. I believe we must take it up and enact it 
as immediately as possible. What we should be doing is taking up the 
hate crimes bill in the Senate for full debate and discussion as soon 
as we finish the Defense authorization bill. There is no connection 
between the Defense authorization bill and hate crimes. It is a complex 
and detailed--26 pages, as I recall--piece of legislation.
  Again, I appreciate the kind comments of the majority leader, who 
came to the floor and said he couldn't understand certain things I have 
done. I hope the majority leader understands better now. If he doesn't, 
I will be glad to come to the floor again and point out that what we 
are doing is wrong. It is wrong for us to get off the legislation that 
provides for the defense and security of this Nation. It is wrong to 
take up a piece of legislation that should go through the appropriate 
committee.
  This is what we teach kids in school in Civics 101--that a bill is 
proposed and goes through the proper committee, is reported out, and 
then it comes to the floor of the Senate for debate and amendment. 
Instead, we are violating the fundamental rules of procedure of the 
Senate.
  As we continue and vote at 2 a.m.--or whatever it is that we are 
going to do--

[[Page S7548]]

all we will have done is delay the responsibility we have, which is to 
provide for the security of this Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after my 
remarks, which will be no more than 5 minutes, Senator Brown be 
recognized for up to 10 minutes, and then Senator Chambliss be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, my dear friend from Arizona has 
spoken very eloquently about the transcendent importance of the Levin-
McCain amendment. I could not agree with him more. We tried for 2 days 
to get an agreement to vote on that amendment. It is a critically 
important amendment for the reasons he has given and for the reasons I 
hopefully have given persuasively around here, and others have as well.
  We have this President, the previous President, this Secretary of 
Defense, the previous Secretary of Defense, this Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, the previous Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the 
Secretary of the Air Force saying we have enough F-22s. We have to move 
on to the F-35, which is under production, by the way. We have 30 F-35s 
funded in this bill.
  We have tried to get the Levin-McCain amendment to a vote. We tried 
to reach an agreement and a time. We could not get an agreement on the 
time. That is what has then precipitated the decision of the majority 
leader to move on to the hate crimes amendment. We have simply tried, 
day after day, to get a vote, without success.
  I could not agree more that this is a critically important amendment, 
and we have to end production of a weapon system that we no longer 
need, according to top civilian and military experts, and focus more on 
the F-35, which is going to be used by all three of the services, not 
just one. It will have greater capabilities in very critical areas than 
the F-22, and it will cost significantly less than the F-22. But we 
could not achieve that.
  I don't understand the logic or the strategies involved that say we 
cannot have a vote on the amendment that is pending--Levin-McCain 
amendment--and then when faced with the majority leader's amendment on 
hate crimes, forces that to a cloture vote, which is going to be held--
in other words, everybody understands both of these amendments are 
going to be addressed on this bill one way or the other. Nobody can 
guarantee the outcome on these amendments. But what can be guaranteed 
is that these amendments are going to be debated on this bill because 
the majority leader has made that clear for a long time. The procedures 
of this body allow for it.
  The precedents of this body are full of amendments such as this. As a 
matter of fact, the hate crimes amendment was adopted on the Senate 
Defense authorization bill 2 years ago, after the same kind of debate. 
Debate is fair. Debate is important. Every one of us should protect the 
right of everyone else to debate. Whether it should go on this bill or 
another, we can debate that. But it is offered on this bill, as was 
noticed by the majority leader days ago. It is what we have done years 
ago. It is totally consistent with the rules of the Senate. As a matter 
of fact, it has been done repeatedly in the Senate.
  Maybe we should adopt a new rule that says you have to be relevant or 
germane to offer an amendment to a pending bill. We don't have that 
rule, never had that rule, and probably never will have that rule.
  But that is the way the Senate operates. These are important 
amendments. Again--and I am going to close with this--I don't get the 
logic of not allowing us to proceed to the Levin-McCain amendment 
because another amendment that some people don't like and don't think 
should be offered is going to be offered on this bill, when what is 
certain is that both amendments are going to be offered on this bill. 
Nothing is accomplished by refusing that vote on the Levin-McCain 
amendment except delay. That is the only thing accomplished by the 
refusal of whoever it was who refused to agree to a time to vote on 
Levin-McCain, nothing was accomplished except delay. And that, I don't 
think, is in anybody's interest, for the reasons Senator McCain gave.
  We want to get this bill passed. We want to get it conferenced. We 
want to get it to the President, hopefully, by the time this fiscal 
year is over because the troops deserve us to act.
  I am going to vote for the hate crimes amendment. I believe it is 
very appropriate that it be on this bill. I spoke 2 years ago to this 
effect, and I will speak again at the right time, perhaps tomorrow if 
there is time, as to why the hate crimes amendment belongs on this 
bill. It is an important amendment. It involves acts, as the leader and 
others have said, of domestic terrorism. The values reflected in the 
hate crimes legislation are values which our men and women who put on 
the uniform of this country fight for and put their lives on the line 
for, a country which believes in diversity, a country that believes you 
ought to be able to have whatever religion you want, be whatever ethnic 
group, whatever religious group, whatever racial group you are part of, 
whatever your sexual orientation, whether you are disabled, regardless 
of your gender, that you should be free from terror and physical abuse.
  That is what the hate crimes law does now, except it does not include 
some groups who should be included, including the disabled and 
including people who are gay. That is what is involved here.
  It is not a new debate. We debated it 2 years ago. It is not new on 
this bill. It was added in the Senate 2 years ago.
  I hope we can reach an agreement to get to a vote on both these 
amendments. They are both going to be resolved on this bill. That is a 
certainty. Again, how they are going to be resolved no one knows. We 
can guess as to what the outcome will be. They will both be close 
votes, I believe. Let's get on it and get through those votes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Affordable Health Choices Act

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I grew up in Mansfield, OH, a middle-class 
town of about 50,000 people, halfway between Cleveland and Columbus, in 
north central Ohio. It is a town similar to thousands of other cities 
in Ohio such as Marion, Zanesville, Xenia, Springfield, Portsmouth, 
Chilcote, and Ravenna. It is a town not much different from dozens of 
cities around our Nation.
  My dad was a family doctor. He practiced into his late seventies. He 
lived to be 89 and died about 9 years ago. My dad for years made house 
calls, caring for his friends and neighbors, regardless of their 
ability to pay. One patient, I remember, gave my dad a little arrowhead 
collection after my dad had done very important work for his health.
  Today the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee passed 
historic health reform legislation that restores my dad's sense of 
quality and compassion in our health care system.
  This legislation was not written for the insurance industry. It was 
not drafted by the drug industry or any other segment of the health 
care industry. We remember not that long ago in this Chamber--I 
remember it more intensely at the other end of the Hall in the House of 
Representatives where I sat on the Health Committee--we remember in 
those days the drug companies wrote the Medicare laws, and the health 
insurance industry wrote health care legislation. Those days are gone. 
This bill is not for them; it is for the American people.
  The health care industry does not like this bill that much. That is 
because they did not get their way on issue after issue. They did 
sometimes. They did dramatically on occasion in our committee. But, by 
and large, this bill is not for them. This bill is for the American 
people. It is for American families who are afraid that unaffordable 
health care costs will deny their children a chance for a healthy life.
  Everybody in this Chamber has met dozens of children such as that who

[[Page S7549]]

needed the Children's Health Insurance Program to keep their families 
from going bankrupt and to keep their health care going. Children who 
need this health care legislation, families who need this bill too 
often choose between medicine and food, between heating their homes in 
the winter and cooling their homes in the summer on the one hand and 
going to the doctor on the other.
  This bill is for American families that do not have health insurance 
at all. Maybe they work for an employer who cannot afford to provide 
health insurance. Maybe they lost their job. Maybe they cannot afford 
their share of the premium for employer-sponsored coverage. Maybe they 
have a preexisting condition that makes them undesirable to the 
insurance industry. Maybe they cannot pay their mortgage, feed their 
children, and pay for nongroup health coverage. Unfortunately, for many 
Americans, something had to give. But not anymore. This bill is for 
them.
  Two weeks ago in Columbus, I was having breakfast with my daughter 
and a friend--a young woman who teaches voice lessons. She just 
graduated from college. She is working at this restaurant part time 
while she finds more and more students to teach voice lessons as she 
begins her business. She does not have health insurance. She came up 
and said: Are you going to give me health insurance this year?
  I said: Yes. It is a commitment of the President of the United 
States. We are going to finish this bill this year.
  I am going to send her a note tonight telling her what we did today.
  Not too long ago, I was at a grocery store in Avon, OH, near my home. 
My wife asked me to find water crackers. I didn't know what water 
crackers were. I was standing in the aisle, and I asked a guy: Do you 
know what water crackers are?
  He said: They are right there. This is a gentleman who is self-
employed and sells food products, mostly crackers and cookies, for a 
national company. He sells them to local grocery stores in Lorain 
County. He said to me: I am self-employed. Are you going to pass the 
public option I need to make sure you can keep the health insurance 
industry honest and I can get decent health coverage?
  I said: Yes, we are--because we are.
  This bill is for them. It is for the young woman in Columbus, it is 
for the younger man in Avon, the man approaching middle age, it is for 
him.
  This bill was developed with a few core principles in mind. First, 
Americans who like their current health coverage should be able to keep 
it. If you have good insurance, if you like your employer-based 
insurance, by all means keep that insurance. Keep what you have. This 
bill is designed to protect existing coverage while putting downward 
pressure on health insurance premiums. What is going to happen to those 
people who now have insurance? Right now if you have decent insurance, 
you are also paying the cost; when you go to the emergency room with 
your insurance, you are also paying the cost of somebody who goes to 
the emergency room without insurance. You are paying the cost that 
doctors and hospitals and, frankly, taxpayers provide for those people 
without insurance. You are absorbing those costs.

  So when this bill passes, when the President signs this bill in 
October or November, there is a reasonably good chance that the cost of 
your insurance, whether you are the employer, whether you are the 
employee, will stabilize. The costs will stabilize and maybe go down.
  I mentioned this bill was developed with a few core principles in 
mind. No. 1, people who like their current insurance can keep it. No. 
2, people underinsured or uninsured should be able to find good 
coverage and pay a reasonable premium for it. They will have full 
choice of private insurance or, the third point is, Americans should 
have choices they want. This bill includes a strong public health 
insurance option designed to increase price competition in the health 
insurance industry and to help keep private insurers honest.
  And speaking of honest, another principle behind this bill is that 
health insurers should do what they are paid to do. This bill includes 
new rules to prevent insurers from denying you coverage for preexisting 
conditions, terminating your coverage just to save money or excluding 
you from coverage because of your age or health history.
  There are two things going on here: One, we are putting rules on the 
insurance industry so they cannot keep gaming the community rating 
system, can't keep imposing preexisting conditions on potential people 
they insure, can't lock people out who are too sick and they don't want 
to cover.
  First is the rules. Second is creation of a public option, which will 
mean competition. We make sure insurance companies are doing the right 
thing by the rules, but we also inject competition, so public option 
will compete with private insurance companies.
  This bill was written for American families, for American patients, 
for American businesses, and for American taxpayers. This bill is a 
victory for the thousands of Ohioans who shared with me their struggle 
for our health care system. It is about retiree Christopher from 
Cincinnati. He is worried his shattered retirement savings and small 
pension won't keep up with rising insurance premiums.
  This bill is about breast cancer survivor Michelle from Willoughby, 
OH, Lake County, east of Cleveland, who should no longer live, in her 
words, ``for the sum of my work is to pay for insurance.''
  It is about the children that Darlene, a school nurse from Cleveland, 
treats each day who struggle in school because they are worried about a 
sick parent or grandparent who cannot get the health care they need.
  It is about small business owner Kathleen from Rocky River, who is 
trying to do right for her employees but whose small business is being 
crushed by exorbitant health insurance costs.
  It is about Karen from Toledo, whose adult son has advanced MS, and 
for 5 years she has seen her savings drained, forcing her to drop out 
of college.
  It is about these Ohioans. It is about Ohioans in Lima, Springfield, 
Volare, St. Clairsville, Pickaway, and Troy. It is about people around 
this country, the millions who work hard, play by the rules, who still 
struggle each day with disease and despair. It is about their stories, 
those who have inspired us to stand with them and not be intimidated by 
the special interests that are spending $1 million every single day 
lobbying to try to write this bill--the insurance companies, the drug 
companies that have had such a huge influence in the Halls of Congress 
over the last several years but this time did not have the kind of 
influence they wanted.
  Because of this bill, more Americans will be able to afford health 
care. Crucial national priorities will not be crowded out by health 
care spending. No longer will exploding health care costs cut into 
family budgets, wear down businesses, drain tax dollars from local 
governments, from State governments or from Federal budgets.
  This bill uses market competition and common sense to squeeze out an 
efficiency, to maximize quality to ensure every American has access to 
quality, affordable coverage.
  More work is yet to be done. We have taken a long step toward the day 
that generations before us have prepared us for, that pushed this 
government to do more and do better.
  This started in the 1930s when Harry Truman wanted to include 
Medicare or some version of national health care with Social Security 
but thought he could not get it passed and settled for Social Security. 
Harry Truman tried in the late 1940s. Lyndon Johnson successfully 
pushed through Congress, with strong Democratic majorities in each 
House, to create Medicare. We have tried ever since. This is the time.
  I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership of the HELP Committee over 
the last few weeks. It was an impressive and productive process from 
beginning to end. We worked in a deliberate, bipartisan manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. We worked in a deliberate, bipartisan manner, spanning 13 
days, 287 amendments were debated, and 161 Republican amendments were 
included in this bill. We worked hard to make sure this bill reflects 
broad

[[Page S7550]]

ranges of views and best serves the American people.
  A special thank you to my friend and colleague, Chairman Kennedy, 
whose Senate career has been dedicated to providing health care to 
those in need. Senator Kennedy's activism and determination made this 
day possible. My Senate colleagues and I and millions of Americans who 
may finally see the day when there is quality affordable health care 
owe him our gratitude and thanks.
  In closing, of all injustices, Martin Luther King once observed: 
``Injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.''
  This day is a victory for Ohio families, it is a victory for seniors 
and middle-class families around the Nation who deserve the humane 
justice of an affordable health care system that works for all of them.
  We have a historic opportunity to make fundamental improvements to 
our Nation's health care system. We must not squander it--not in this 
Nation, not at this time.

                          ____________________