[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 157 (Tuesday, October 27, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S10774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  VOTE EXPLANATION--DOD AUTHORIZATION

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my decision to vote 
no for the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.
  Throughout my career I have always been a staunch supporter of our 
men and women that serve our Nation. Their courage in the face of 
danger to preserve our freedom is inspiring. And my vote on the Defense 
authorization bill does not change that belief at all. In fact, I was 
pleased to include legislation in this years bill that will require the 
Secretary of Defense to review and establish a long-term plan to 
sustain the solid rocket motor industrial base. This review will be 
vital to ensure we maintain a robust industrial base and our ultimate 
strategic defense for decades.
  I have always been impressed with the great working relationship I 
have enjoyed with my esteemed colleagues on the Armed Services 
Committee and their professional staffs. My vote by no means diminishes 
my respect for the Armed Forces.
  Unfortunately, the congressional majority has decided to needlessly 
inject controversy into what should have been a bipartisan effort to 
fund and support our troops in a time of war. I am, of course, speaking 
of the decision to attach the unrelated hate crimes provisions to this 
legislation. For one reason or another, the Democrats have once again 
decided that, even with their overwhelming majorities in the House and 
Senate, the Federal hate crimes legislation cannot be debated and 
passed on its own merits and that, instead, this divisive legislation 
should become part and parcel with our efforts to provide our military 
with much-needed resources.
  I have long been opposed to this approach with regard to hate crimes. 
Make no mistake, none of us are indifferent to the problems associated 
with violence motivated by prejudice and violence. However, I believe 
that the approach provided for in this bill would needlessly expand the 
powers of the Federal Government at the expense of the traditional 
police powers of the States. Worst of all, it would do so without a 
demonstrated need. Indeed, a few months back, I asked the Attorney 
General--who supports this legislation, by the way, in a hearing 
whether there was any evidence of a trend that these crimes were going 
unpunished at the State level. He stated without reservation that there 
was no such evidence and that, in fact, the States were, by and large, 
doing a fine job in this area. If that is the case, what is the purpose 
of this legislation? Why are we going to expand the law enforcement 
powers of the Federal Government into what are essential State crimes 
when these crimes are already being handled adequately by the States? I 
have yet to hear a decent answer to that question.
  Now, some of us may be tempted simply to vote for the Defense 
authorizations bill with the hate crimes provisions attached simply 
because the balance of the bill is good and worthy of support. Well, I 
worry that if we go along with this now, what will they add to so-
called ``must pass'' bills in the future? I believe that when it comes 
to funding our troops, we should do our best to speak in a unified 
voice. By taking this path, it seems that the majority would rather 
make a political statement than offer the military our bipartisan 
support. For that, I am greatly disappointed.

                          ____________________