loans. the president's remarks were from mccomb community college in michigan and runs about 30 minutes. [applause] >> hello, michigan! [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. first of all, give joe a big round of applause for the wonderful introduction. [applause] >> we've got some special guests here. now, if everybody has chairs, go ahead and use them. [laughter] >> feel free.

we've got some special guests here today that i just want to acknowledge. all of you are special but these folks i want to make sure that you have a chance to see them. first of all, one of the best governors in the country, please give jennifer granholm a big round of applause. [applause] >> the lieutenant governor, give him a big round of applause. [applause] >> one of my favorite people, former colleague of mine, still just a fighter on behalf of working families each and every day, senator debbie stabenow. [applause] >> i got speaker of the house, andy dillon in the house. [applause] >> we've got a lot of other elected officials and i just want to thank them -- a couple of people who are missing, carl levin, who is doing great

work -- he's in the senate right now fighting on behalf of a bill to make sure that we're not loading up a bunch of necessary defense spending with unnecessary defense spending. he's the point person on it. the only reason he's not here is because he is working alongside the administration to get this bill done. please give him a big round of applause. [applause] >> congressman sandy levin, also working hard on your behalf each and every day but is not here today. [applause] >> i want to go ahead and acknowledge the new mayor, since he's the new mayor, mayor dave bing, a great ball player. [applause] >> my game is a little like dave bing's except i don't have the jump shot or the speed or the ball-handling skills.

or the endurance. i also don't have the afro. don't think i forgot that, dave. i remember. i remember that. i also want to acknowledge that we've got the executive director of the white house council on auto communities and workers who's working hard, has a direct line to me each and every day. he's traveling constantly back here. ed montgomery. please give ed a big round of applause. [applause] >> and the chairman of the grand band of ottawa and chippewa band here. please give derek a round of applause. [applause] >> and finally the president of the college where we are here, jim jacobs. give jim jacob as big round of applause. [applause] >> and those of you who i've missed, you know how grateful i am that you're here.

and thank you, all. it is wonderful to be back at macomb. it was terrific visiting this campus as a candidate. but i have to admit it's even better visiting as a president. [applause] >> now, this is a place where anyone, anyone with a desire to learn and to grow, to take their career to a new level or start a new career all together has the opportunity to pursue their dream, right here at macomb. this is a place where people have all ages and all backgrounds, even in the face of obstacles, even in the face of very difficult personal challenges can take a chance on a brighter future for themselves and their families. there are folks like joe who just told us his story. when joe lost his job, he decided to take advantage of assistance for displaced workers. he earned his associate degree

here at macomb and with a pretty impressive gpa i might add, and with the help of that degree, joe found a new job working for the new henry ford west bloomfield hospital as a maintenance mechanics using the skills that he learned here and the talents that he brought to make a fresh start. there's workers like kelly coleman, who's here today. where's kelly? there's kelly right there. she's a uaw worker at a ford plant in sterling heights, michigan. [applause] >> she used to drive a forklift, right? but then she decided to train here at macomb for a job that required new skills and now she's an apprentice pipe fitter. it's a telling example even as this painful restructuring takes place in our auto industry, workers are seeking out training for new auto jobs. and joe and kelly's story make clear what all of you know. community colleges are an

essential part of our recovery in the present and are our prosperity in the future. [applause] >> this place can make the future better, not just for these individuals but for america. and since this recession began, 20 months ago, 6.5 million americans have lost their jobs. and i don't have to tell you michigan in particular has been hard-hit. the statistics are daunting. the whole country now -- the unemployment rate is approaching 10% here in michigan. it's about 5 points higher. and, you know, new jobs are going to be coming out and we're going to continue to see job loss even as the economy is beginning to stabilize. that's not just abstractions. those aren't just numbers on a page. those are extraordinary

hardships, tough times for families and individuals who worked hard all their lives and have done the right things all their lives. if you haven't lost a job, chances are you know somebody who has. a family member, a neighbor, a friend, a coworker. and, you know, that as difficult as the financial struggle can be, the sense of loss is about more than just a paycheck because most of us define ourselves by the work we do. that's part what it means to be a american. we take pride in work, the sense that you're contributing, supporting your family, meeting your responsibilities. people need work, not just for income because it makes you part of that fabric of the community that's so important. and so when you lose your job and when entire communities are losing thousands of jobs, that's

a heavy burden. that's a heavy weight. now, my administration has a job to do as well. and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. [applause] >> that's my job. [applause] >> and it's a job i gladly accept. i love these folks who help get us in this mess and suddenly say well, this is obama's economy. that's fine. give it to me. my job is to solve problems, not stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe. [applause] >> so i william the job. -- welcome the job. i want the responsibility. and i know that -- let's just take an example. many questioned our efforts to help save gm and chrysler from collapse earlier this year.

their feeling was these companies were driven to the brink by poor management decisions over a long period of time and like any business, they should be held accountable for those decisions. i agreed that they should be held accountable, but i also recognize the historic significance and economic prominence of these companies in economies all across michigan and all across the country. i thought about the hundreds of thousands of americans whose livelihoods are still connected to the american auto industry. and the impact on an already struggling economy especially right here in michigan. [applause] >> so i said if chrysler and gm were willing to fundamentally restructure their businesses and make the hard choices necessary to become competitive now and in the future, it was a process

supporting. now, today, after a painful period of soul searching and sacrifice, both gm and chrysler have emerged from bankruptcy. do you remember folks said there was no way they could do it. they've gotten it done already in record time. far faster than anybody thought possible. [applause] >> they've got a leaner structure. they've got new management. and a viable vision of how to compete and win in the 21st century. and those sacrifices were shared among all the stakeholders, workers and management, creditors, and shareholders, retirees and communities. and together they've made the rebirth of chrysler and gm possible. it was the right thing to do. but even with this positive news, the hard truth is that some of the jobs that have lost in the auto industry and elsewhere won't be coming back. they're the casualties of a changing economies, and just increase productivity in the

plants themselves means some jobs aren't going to return. and that only underscores the importance of generating new businesses and new industries to replace the ones that we've lost. and of preparing our workers to fill the jobs they create. for even before this recession hit we were faced with an economy that was simply not creating or sustaining enough new well-paying jobs. so now is the time to change all that. what we face is far more than a passing crisis. this is a transformative moment. and in this moment, we must do what other generations have done. it's not the time to shrink from the challenges we face, put off tough decisions. that's what washington has done for decades. and it's exactly why i ran for president to change that mindset. [applause]

>> now is the time to build a firmer, stronger foundation for growth that will not only withstand future economic storms but that will help us thrive and compete in a global economy. to build that foundation, we have to slow the growth of healthcare costs that are driving us into debt. [applause] >> we're going to have to do that. and there's going to be a major debate over the next three weeks and don't be fooled by folks trying to scare you saying we can't change the healthcare system. we have no choice but to change the healthcare system. [applause] >> because right now it's broken for too many americans. [applause] >> we're going to have to make tough choices necessary to bring down deficits. but don't let folks fool you. the best way to start bringing down deficits is to get control of our healthcare costs, which is why we need reform.

[applause] >> now is the time to create the jobs of the future. by growing industries including a new, clean energy economy and jennifer granholm has been all on top of this. [applause] >> as the governor of michigan. she is bringing clean energy jobs right here to michigan and we got to support her in that effort. [applause] >> i want michigan to build windmills and wind turbines and solar panels and biofuel plants, energy efficient light bulbs and weatherize all of 'cause, michigan, you know bad weather. [laughter] >> so you can be all on top of weatherizing. you need to weatherize. [laughter] >> i know about that in chicago, too.

but we also have to ensure that we're educating and preparing our people for the new jobs of the 21st century. [applause] >> we've got to prepare our people with the skills they need to compete in this global economy. [applause] >> time and again, when we've placed our bet for the future on education, we have prospered as a result by tapping the incredible, innovative and generative potential of a skilled american work force. that's what happened when president lincoln signed into law legislation creating the land grant colleges, which not only transformed higher education but also our entire economy. that's what took place when president roosevelt signed the g.i. bill which helped educate a generation and ushered in an era of unprecedented prosperity.

that was the foundation for the american middle class, and that's why at the start of my administration, i set a goal for america. by 2020, this nation will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. we used to have that. we're going to have it again. [applause] >> and we begun to take historic steps to achieve this goal. already we've increased pell grants by $500. [applause] >> we've created a $2500 tax credit for four years of college tuition. [applause] >> we've simplified student aid applications and ensured that aid is not based on income of a job that you just lost. [applause] >> a new g.i. bill of rights for

the 21st century is beginning to help soldiers coming home from iraq and afghanistan to begin a new life in a new economy. and the recovery plan has helped close stated budget shortfalls, which put enormous pressure on public universities and community colleges. at the same time, making historic investments in school libraries and classrooms and facilities all across america. so we've already taken some steps that are building the foundation for a 21st century education system here in america, one that will allow us to compete with china and india and everybody else all around the world. but today i'm announcing the most significant down payment yet, on reaching the goal of having the highest college graduation rate of any nation in the world. [applause] >> we're going to achieve this in the next 10 years. [applause] >> and it's called the american

graduation initiative. it will reform and strengthen community colleges, like this one from coast-to-coast, so they get the resources that students and schools need, and the results workers and businesses demand. through this plan, we seek to help an additional 5 million americans earn degrees and certificates in the next decade. [applause] >> 5 million. [applause] >> not since the passage of the original g.i. bill and the work of president truman's commission on higher education, which helped to double the number of community colleges and increase by seven fold enrollment in those colleges have we taken such a historic step on behalf of community colleges in america. and let me be clear. we paid for this plan. this isn't adding to the deficit. we're paying for this plan. by ending the wasteful subsidies

we currently provide to banks and private lenders for student loans. [applause] >> that will save tens of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. instead of lining the pockets of special interests, it's time this money went towards the interest of higher education in america. [applause] >> that's what my administration is committed to doing. [applause] >> now, i know that for a long time there have been politicians who have spoken of training as a silver bullet and college as a cure-all. it's not. and we know that. i can't tell you how many workers who have been laid off. you talk to them about training and they say training for what? so i understand the frustrations that a lot of people have, especially, if the training is not well designed for the specific jobs that are being created out there.

but we know that in the coming years, jobs requiring at least an associate degree are projected to grow twice as fast as jobs requiring no college experience. we will not fill those jobs or even keep those jobs here in america without the training offered by community colleges. that's why i want to applaud governor granholm for the no worker left behind program. [applause] >> it's providing up to two years worth of free tuition at community colleges and universities across the state. the rest of the country should learn from the effort. this is training to become a medical technician or a health i.t. worker or a lab specialist or a nurse. 59% of all new nurses come from community colleges. [applause]

>> this is training to install solar panels and build those wind turbines we were talking about and developing a smarter electricity grid. and this is the kind of education that more and more americans are using to improve their skills and broaden their horizons. now, many young people are saving money by spending two years at community college before heading to a four-year college. and more workers who have lost their jobs or fear losing a job are seeking an edge at schools like this one. at the same time, community colleges are under increasing pressure to cap enrollments and scrap courses and cut costs as states and municipalities face budget shortfalls and this is in addition to the challenges you face in the best of times. these schools receive far lest funding for student than typical four-year colleges and universities. so community colleges are an undervalued asset in our country. not only is that not right, it's not smart. that's why i've asked dr. joe

biden, who happens to be a relation of the vice president, joe biden, but who's also -- who's also a community college educator for 16 years to help community colleges and to help us make community colleges stronger and that's why we're putting in place this american graduation initiative. let me describe for you the specifics of what we're going to do. number one, we will offer competitive grants, challenging community colleges to pursue innovative results, oriented strategies in exchange for federal funding. we'll fund programs that connect students looking for jobs with businesses that are looking to hire. we'll challenge these schools to find new and better ways to help students catch up on the basics like math and science that are essential to our competitiveness and we'll put colleges and students that put together to programs that match curriculum

compatible to classroom. we've seen cisco working with community colleges to prepare students and workers to prepare for jobs ranging from work in broadband to health i.t. we know that the most successful community colleges are those that partner with the private sector. we want to encourage more partners to work with schools to build these types of relationships so when somebody goes through a training program they know there's a job at the end of that training. [applause] >> we'll also create a new research center with a simple mission. to measure what works and what doesn't. and all too often we don't know what happens when somebody walks out of a classroom and onto the factory floor or into the library or the laboratory or the office. and that means businesses often can't be sure what a degree is really worth. and schools themselves don't have the facts to make informed choices about which programs achieve results and which

programs don't. and this is important. not just for businesses and colleges but for students and workers as well. you know, if a parent is going to spend time in the classroom and away from his or her family, especially, after a long day at work, that degree really has to mean something. they have to know when they get that degree, this is going to help advance their goals. if a worker is going to spend two years training to enter into a whole new profession, that certificate has to mean that he or she is ready and that businesses are ready to hire. in addition, we want to propose new funding for innovative strategies that promote not just enrollment in a community college program but completion of that program. [applause] >> see, more than half -- more than half of all students who enter community college to earn an associate degree are transferred to a four-year school to earn a bachelor's degree. unfortunately, fail to reach their goal. that's not just a waste of a

valuable resource, that's a tragedy for these students. oftentimes, they've taken out debt and they don't get the degree but they still have to pay back the debt. and it's a disaster for our economy. so we'll fund programs that track student progress inside and outside the classroom. let's figure out what's keeping students from crossing that finish line and then put in place reforms that will remove those barriers. maybe it's become too difficult for a parent to be away from home or too expensive for a waiter or a nurse to miss a shift. maybe a young student just isn't sure if her education will lead to employment. the point is, we need to figure out solutions for these kinds of challenges. because facing these impediments shouldn't prevent you from reaching your potential. all right. so that's a big chunk of this first part of this initiative. the second part, we're going to back $10 billion in loans to

renovate and rebuild colleges all across the country. [applause] >> all too often community colleges are treated like the stepchild of the higher education system. they're an after-thought, if they're thought of at all. that means schools are years behind in the facilities they provide which means in the 21st century economy, they're years behind in the education they can offer. that's a mistake and it's one that we'll help to correct. through this fund, schools will have the chance to borrow at a more affordable rate to modernize facilities and they'll be building on the funds in the recovery plan that are already helping to renovate schools. including community colleges all across the country. and by the way, not only does this improve the schools and the training that they're providing, guess what? you also have to hire some workers and some trades men and women to do the work on those schools so it means it's putting

people to work in michigan right here, right now. [applause] >> number three, even as we repair bricks and mortar, we have an opportunity to build a new virtual infrastructure to complement the education and training community colleges can offer. we'll have the creation new online clearinghouse of courses so community colleges across the country can offer more classes without building more classrooms. and this will make a big difference especially for rural campuses that a lot of times have to struggle to attract students and faculty. and this will make it possible for a professor to complement his lecture with an online exercise or for a student who can't be away from her family to keep up with her course work. we don't where this experiment will lead but it's something we ought to try because it's a

possibility that online education can provide especially for people who are already in the work force and want to retrain the chance to upgrade their skills without having to quick their job. [applause] >> so let me say this. the introduced recovery, the road to prosperity is going to be hard. it was never, ever going to be easy. when i was sworn in, we were seeing 700 jobs lost that month. then we had the same amount lost for two more conservative months. -- consecutive months. now we've got an average of 400 jobs lost. we'll get to the point where we will not losing jobs but we have to get to the point where we're creating jobs. and it's going to take time. there are going to be false starts and there are going to be setbacks but i am confident that

we can meet the challenges that we face because that's what we've always done. that's what america does. we hit some challenges. we fuss and argue about it and then we go ahead and go about the business of solving our problems. that's what we see on display right here at macomb community college. that's what i've seen at colleges and universities all across this country. at every juncture in our history, when we'd been challenged, we have summoned the resilience and the industrious, that can-do american spirit that has allowed us to succeed in the face of even the toughest times. that's what we can and must do now. not just to overcome this crisis, but to leave something better behind, to lay a foundation on which our children and our grandchildren can prosper and take responsibility for their future, just as the students at this school, at this difficult moment, are taking responsibility for theirs. i am absolutely confident that

if i've got your help, that we can make it happen. and we are going to see a stronger, more prosperous michigan in the years to come. thank you very much. god bless you! god bless the united states of america! [applause] ♪ >> we take you live now to the u.s. capitol as the senate convenes. today senators resume consideration of defense department programs for fiscal year 2010. issues include military pay raises, f-22 fighter planes and rules of evidence for detainee trials. live senate coverage here on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our eternal god, we lift

grateful hearts for the great heritage of our nation. thank you for those who purchased our freedom with blood, toil, and tears. give us this day a vivid vision of what you expect our nation to become, as we accept the torches of integrity and faithfulness from those who have gone before us. give our lawmakers a reverence for your name and a determination to please you with their thoughts, words, and deeds. enable them to bear with fortitude the fret of care, the

sting of criticism, and the drudgery of unapplauded toil. direct them to the sources of moral energy so that your strength may be linked to their limitations. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the

clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, july 15, 2009. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable roland w. burris, a senator from the state of illinois, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

rye reid mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. reid it is my understanding the clerk going report the matter before the senate at this stage. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of senate bill 1390, which the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar number 89, s. 13 90, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i withdraw senate amendment 1469. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. the majority leader. mr. reid: in the absence of senator leahy -- in behalf of senator leahy, myself, and oh, i call amendment number 1511 at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid for mr. leahy and others proposes an amendment numbered 1511. at the end of the bill -- mr. reid: i ask further reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i now ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i now, mr. president, call up a

second-degree amendment, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the from nevada, mr. reid, for mr. kennedy, proposes amendment numbered 1539 to amendment number 1511. mr. reid: i ask further reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: now i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on leahy amendment, number 1511, to s. 1390, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010, signed by 17 senators as follows: mr. reid: mr. president, i ask reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, senator levin will give an explanation as to why the amendment was withdrawn, but of course the -- my friend, the republican leader, has the right

of first recognition. i'm not going to give a speech this morning. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: 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're spending about $500 million a day in interest alone on the national debt. it's as if every single american gets up in the morning, walks over to the window and tosses $2 into the wind every day for the next 10 years. it's not a bad analogy because that's what we're doing, and now the advocates of a government takeover of health care are talking about spending trillions more -- 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're 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 used to set its idea -- to sell its ideas to the public. we saw it with the stimulus, in selling one of the most expenses pieces of legislation in history, the administration said it had to be passed right away. with almost no scrutiny. if we didn't pass it right away, they said, the economy would collapse. here's what the president said about the importance of passing the stimulus bill as quickly as possible:

"if we don't act," the president said," 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." well, as it turned 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've lost 2 million jobs. it was supposed to save or create between 3 million and 4 million jobs. we passed it, and now the administration is back-pedaling on that prediction, too.

now is says it's 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 hasn't. despite all the predictions about the effect on the comirks the administration now says it expected 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 don't pass its health care proposal, then the economy will get even worse. it says that if we don't approve its health care proposal, then the quality of everyone's health care will be jeopardized. it says if we don't pass this trillion-dollar bill right now, then we'll miss out on the chance to caisson money on health care down -- to save money on the health care down

the road. i don't know if these claims are accurate, and i don't believe the administration is making the 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. sso at the very least, americans have a right to be very skeptical about the administration's latest effort to rush through a major piece of legislation without allowing us to evaluate it. it's a worthwhile question: why does the question say we need to send them a bill that would essentially nationalize one-sixth of the u.s. economy when many parts of the legislation itself wouldn't even go into effect for another four years? americans are right to be skeptical when administration officials say we can't fix the economy without fixing health care. or that the democratic plan for health care won't cause people

to lose their current insurance when the congressional budget office says that's exactly what'll happen. or that a government-run takeover of health care won't add to the ballooning national debt. after the stimulus, americans have a right to be concept cal about all -- skeptical about all of these claims, especially when they're 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've had in maine as a result of its attempt to create a government-run health plan, of what a disappointment that's 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 health care plan are making right now here in washington. yet six years later, the dirigo experiment has turn the out to be a colossal and extremely costly failure. despite initial promises, it has not covered most of the uninsured, and yet it's led to higher taxes on thousands of maine residents who were already struggling to pay for private coverage. in short, dirigo turned out to be a cause -- 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 don't want to give a green thriet 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 are going tgrg-- is going to cost se a reason to rush. it shouldn't a reason for us to take the time to get it right. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, let me explain where we're at. let me just take a few minutes, first of all, on the procedures, and then i want to go back and make some comments about the levin-mccain amendment, which will come back. this was administerial withdrawn because we couldn't get to a vote.

the bottom line here is that we were here all day yesterday. we attempted repeatedly to attain an agreement as to when we would vote on the levin-mccain amendment of. we had a lot of time yesterday for people to make speeches. we had time the day before. we have anytime, but we've got to get to a vote on that amendment. now, the reason we weren't able to get to a vote is because the next amendment which the majority leader indicated is going to be taken up on this bill, so-called hate crimes amendment. we have a law relative to hate crimes. this would have been an important amendment to the law to add a group that had been left out -- two groups that previously had been left out of 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 of years ago on the defense authorization bill. now the argument was made a couple of years ago that the bill, hate crimes bill should not be offered on a defense authorization. senator kennedy offered this 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, many, many nonrelevant amendments this year on legislation. on the american recovery and

reinvestment act there was an amendment relative to acorn. on the voting -- the d.c. voting rights bill we were debating there were amendments relative to guns and to the fairness doctrine. and on and on and on. so 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 career before, and i'm sure next year so first of all, it is not new. it is common in the senate to offer amendments which are not relevant to the bill that is pending that is allowed under our rules. now 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 that we strengthen our hate crimes law. there are senators who oppose the amendment and that's the reason we're here, to debate, to argue for it, to argue against but i don't think that one can argue that it is uncommon, unusual, improper to argue or to offer nonrelevant amendments to legislation which is pending and i think regardless of what one's position is on hate crimes it is very difficult to argue that is not significant legislation. thirdly, as senator kennedy so powerful argued, and those of us who joined with him a few years ago on this amendment surely agreed with him on, the values that are involved in this legislation, the effort to make america a better place, a lace e

freer of hate crimes is a value our men and women put their uniforms on and fight for. and 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. and 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 we stand for: for freedom from hate; for diversity; for freedom from intimidation and violence based on one's religion or ethnicity or attributes listed in our hate crimes legislation. it is important legislation and relates clearly to the values of this country, values which our

men and women take such risk for when they go into harm's way and the rules of this body allow for. but somehow or other the fact we were going to proceed to a hate crimes amendment on this bill, whether it was next in line or down in line in terms of amendments, it was made clear, 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 was made known in an open and honest way, two members of this body apparently precipitated a determination on the part of some they not allow us to get to a vote on the pending levin-mccain amendment so that prospect, that open statement that there was going

to be a hate crimes amendment offered on this bill, became the impediment apparently from all we can determine to our getting an agreement for a time for a vote on levin-mccain. so the question is: how to remove that impediment? there are 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, there is not a willingness not to offer hate crimes amendment. it is pending legislation that is before us. the amendment is an important amendment. and it has been offered before. there is precedent for offering it on the bill, on the defense authorization bill whether or not the rules -- let me strike

that. the rules allow it, we don't need a precedent but there is a precedent for doing this and there are dozens of precedents for offering nonrelevant amendments to legislation which is pending before the senate. now we're going to 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 a decision of the armed services committee on a close vote to add planes, f-22 planes which are uniform leaders and our civilian leaders of the military indicate they do not want and do not need. and we cannot afford. we have had some debate on this. 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 and to add the additional f-22's and i want to complement the senator from georgia for all the hard work he has done on our committee. it's another example of how the armed services committee works together and our presiding officer is a distinguished member of our committee and he knows this firsthand, how we work together, guided by one basic principle: the good of the nation; the good of the men and women in the armed services. we disagree, obviously, on the levin-mccain amendment. there's 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 our nation. so while there was disagreement in committee and on the floor on the question of whether additional f-22's should be produced, the disagreement is not along party lines and rarely, if ever, is along party lines in the amendments services commitittee. so i want to again compliment not just the senator from georgia but also the other members of the committee for sticking to that very important principle. and i want to 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 that are made in the bill that is sent to us by any administration and to act in accordance with our best judgments about what is

right and what is in the best interests of the nation. we are not a rubber stamp to every proposal which is offered by the executive branch and the congress, hopefully, never will. the senator from georgia pointed out a number of cases where we have acted as anything but a rubber stamp to a budget request. we added funds, for instance, in this bill to a -- 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 very and extraordinarily heavy burden for our country in 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 is called the mrap all-terrain vehicle.

the reason we did this is because we knew this was an emamericanning requirement for n emerging requirement to force our forces in afghanistan not reflected in the budget request so i don't believe any member of the armed services committee or any member of this body should act as a rubber stamp for any budget request and the evidence will show over and over again year after year that our committee does not act as a rubber stamp. the question is, whether or not in the levin mccain amendment, whether or not we are right. that the leadership of our military both civilian and uniform, made a sound judgment when they, like their predecessors in the bush administration, determined we should end the production of the f-22. so the debate is not about who we will have the capability of the f-22.

it's a debate about how many f-22 aircraft we should have and at what cost. we're talking about whether we will accept a recommendation of two commanders and chief, two secretaries of defense, plus the joint chiefs of staff and their chairmen that 187, f-22's is all we need, all we can afford, and all that we should buy. senator mccain and i have made a number of arguments why we believe that stopping the f-22 program at 187 is the right thing to do and i'm not going to repeat those arguments now. particularly since we have temporarily withdrawn this amendment. but it is important i clarify promptly the number of points that have been made by the senator from georgia during the debate yesterday so they do not remain uncontested. first, the senators said the air

force had not been involved in any of the studies that led to determining that 187 of the f-22's was the correct number of aircraft to boy. just a few a few days ago the committee heard testimony there are two studies that support the plans of the department including stopping the f-22 production. including a recently completed study. this is what he said: "there's a study in the joint staff that we have just completed and partnered with the air force on that, number one, said proliferating within the united states military 5th 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 the recent study, rather, 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. now, there is a strong analytical underpinning for the decision of the administration including the air force. the letter from the secretary of the air force and chief of staff of the air force on this matter are one of the strong evidences that the conclusion is correct. the letter is already part of the record so i'm just going to quote very 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 recommenderecommendf-22's be ine budget. this is a difficult decision but one with which we are comfortable." that's 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 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 that 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, 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-35*s over the next five years and more than 2,400 over the life of

the program. and so the key words in that sentence -- the secretary of the air force -- of the secretar sef 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." now, i think we all agree that our military needs to maintain air dominance, but as the secretary's letter points out, the f-22 aircraft is not the only aircraft that the department is relying upon to contribute to making that air dominance a reality. in fact, in certain areas like electronic warfare and combating surface-to-air missiles, the department of defense is counting on the f-35 fleet to meet those missions with greater effectiveness even than the f-22.

now, the senator last night urged that -- the senator from georgia urged last night that proposing cuts in a number of areas, just like the committee 13-11 derks us could me, 13-11 vote indicated and that his proposal would accomplish, 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. now, i've previously talked about the specifics relative to this issue. and i want to just summarize the difference on this point very briefly, because again we will be coming back to this issue. it is withdrawn temporarily, but obviously we will return to this 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 of these initiatives will yield savings. the senator from arizona and i are in support of our colleagues on the armed services committee. all united states of americaly supported acquisition -- all unanimously supported acquisition reform. at the time we adopted that and the president signed our bill, we indicated that 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 that it is in effect. as a matter of fact, its main thrust is to apply to new weapons systems, to make sure that 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're not going to see savings in fiscal year 2010, as the senator from georgia assumed in his amendment. it was adopted barely by the committee to fund the f-22 add-on p. add-on. the result is that the $500 million that he assumed from savings end up with across-the-board real program cuts. i also would point out, 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-22's, 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 d. o&m -- operations and maintenance conditions -- was developed in consistence. the deductions that were taken by the senator when he offered the amendment to add the f-22 goes far beyond what was indicated by the general accountability office's analysis and far beyond what is prudent. and finally, relative to the offsets which were taken, the $400 million cut applied to the military personnel funding top line will greatly complicated 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 appropriation, something that we wanted to get away from this year. and finally have. so, one other thing -- there are some who suggest, well, the f-35 is just a paper airplane. that's just the future. they got the f-22 now. the f-35 isn't here yes. it's here. -- the f-35 isn't here yet. it's here. there are in this budget alone, in fiscal year 2010 budget, which is the fourth year, by the way, of production of the f-35, there are 30 f-35's being produced for the military.

this is not a future deal when we talk about f-35's this is. this is a here-and-now deal. we're already into low-rate initial production. there are already at least five test aircraft flying, and we've got 30 f-35's funded in this bill, which is before this body now. let me summarize the situation relative to the amendment, the levin-mccain amendment, that would strike the additional fund forge the f-22 -- for the f-22's, 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. they are valuable. next, the air force has already

bought, paid for -- will pay for 187 f-22 aircraft, so the debate is not about whether we'll 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-22's are enough to meet the nation's requirements. two presidents -- president obama, 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-22's saul we need to buy and all we should buy. now, 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-22's, to pay for the $1.75 billion in the f-22 add. and sos cuts were $400 million to military personnel accounts,

$850 million to operation and may not accounts and $500 million across-the-board reduction to the department of defense budget. we received a letter from the president this week saying that 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's a lot of principle involved as to whether we should continue to be building weapons this we no longer need and that we have enough of. we need the f-22. there's no doubt about that. but we have enough of the f-22, according to all of our military leaders, civilian and uniformed leaders alike. but we can't get to a vote, and

that is the fact of the matter. we've waited here for an agreement to get to a vote on the levin-mccain amendment, repeatedly. i have asked whether we can set a time for the vote and the answer has come back, we cannot set a time for a vote. and it is clear that for some reason, reasons frankly i don't fully understand, that the reason that we're not permitted to get to a vote on the levin-mccain amendment is because of the pending prospect -- the fact: either the next amendment or somehow down the line, there's going to be offered the hate crimes bill. now, how that, why that should result in a denial of an

opportunity to vote on the levin-mccain amendment escapes me, i must say. because we're going to get to the hate crimes amendment, whether or not we'r we are a ald a vote on the f-22. not allowing us a vote, not agreeing to a time for a vote on the levin-mccain amendment does not obviate the fact that there's going to be a hate crimes amendment offered. as a matter of fact, it's now the actual amendment before us, and everyone knew that. so i don't understand the logic behind the repho refusal to pera vote on an amendment -- the levin-mccain amendment -- because of an objection to going to a vote on hate crimes, when we're going to that hate crimes amendment anyway, and when we're going to have to come back to the levin-mccain amendment.

everybody knows it. we're going to have to resolve both of those amendments. so the decision some made to deny us an opportunity to vote at this time on levin-mccain just simply sty my stymies thisy from doing what it is going to do. now, there are many people who disagree with the levin-mccain amendment. there are many people that disagree with the hate crimes amendment. that is their right. but what is undeniable is that we're going to resolve both, one way or the other. we're 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 can't argue, it seems to me, that we shouldn't allow a vote on the first amendment before us -- levin-mccain -- because of

opposition to another amendment that's going to be ompletdz i know there's strong opposition to hate crimes. i understand it. i understand why people say it shouldn't be on this bill. i respect the right to disagree with t but i don't understand the logic or the strategy which dense us the opportunity to vote -- 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 people object to when they know it's coming up. despite strong feelings that it shouldn't come up, it's coming up. it's now before us. everyone knew tbas going to come up. -- everyone knew tbas going to come up. so now we're stymied. we're stymied from resolving an amendment which has to be resolved one way or the other -- levin-mccain -- because of an 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 our 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 the right to fight against the amendments. but for the life of me i do not understand request we are denied an opportunity to vote on levin-mccain levin-mccain because of objection to another amendment. all it does is slow down this body and stymie this body from resolving issues which are going to be resolved as certain as this body is here this will be resolved like a lot of other amendments. i don't know how, that's not certain. it never is. but they will be resolved because that's the nature of the u.s. senate. to resolve these issues.

again, i want to thank my good friend from arizona. there's differences on the question of whether hate crimes ought to be offered on this amendment and 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 the levin-mccain levin-mccain i, nonetheless, have a great understanding of the feelings here and appreciate them and i respect them and i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, we have just seen, i know there are a lot of other issues that are consuming the interest of my colleagues and the american people such as the confirmation hearings of justice sonia

sotomayor, the "help" committee of which i amendment member is reporting out one of the most massive takeovers and expenditures of taxpayers' dolladollars in history and we e this bill on the floor and there are other issues so it has probably gone unnoticed we've 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 in a piece of legislation before this body that i think you could argue is probably of more importance than any other that 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 future threats that 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 who i highly respect and regard have 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 whatever with defending this nation. now, my friend from michigan just complained we haven't had time for a vote. of course we haven't had a time for the vote on the pending amendment because we have been made aware a hate crimes bill, 17 pages, encompassing piece of legislation before this body that has not moved through the judiciary committee.

the appropriate committee of oversight. so the majority leader of the united states senate comes to the floor after prevailing upon the distinguished chairman to withdraw his amendment -- an amendment of some consequence, $1.75 billion expenditure and a 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. now, hate crimes bill is not without controversy, i say. in fact, it's interesting that on june 16, 2001, the united states commission on civil rights sent a letter to the vice president, to the leaders of the congress, opposing -- opposing -- the hate crimes

bill. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent this letter be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: the united states commission on civil rights sends a letter saying dear mr. president, distinguished senators, we write today to urge you to vote against the matthew shepherd hate crimes prevention acted. that's basically the bill that the majority leader has just inserted into the process of the legislation designed to defend this nation's national security. and 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. while we have young americans fighting and dying in two wars we're going to take up the hate

crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that's more important -- more important than legislation concerning the defense of this nation. i'm 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'm sure the majority leader will file cloture and we'll go through 30 hours of debate and have another vote and all of this is unnecessary. why couldn't we move the hate crimes bill? remember, this is not a single shot amendment on a expect small issue. this is a huge issue, the whole issue of hate crimes is a huge issue. it citizens hearings. and debate. but what are we going to do? for reasons that i guess the majority leader can make clear because i don't get it, wants to

put it on the national defense authorization bill and pass it that way. now, probably succeed and he's call it bipartisan. the last time i checked it has 44 democrat sponsors and two republicans. that's the definition around here of "bipartisan" bills. that's the way the stimulus package was bipartisan. that's how the omnibus spending bill was bipartisan. and i'm confident if the health care reform -- "reform" -- it will reasonable be in another "bipartisan" fashion. so we'll have some hours of debate. we'll have more exacerbated feel ensure between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle. i would imagine that the hate

crimes bill, given the way, the makeup of this body, may even be put on a defense authorization. a huge issue. a huge issue. it will now be placed on a defense authorization bill and passed through the congress and signed by the president. that's a great disservice to the american people, mr. president. the american people deserve debate and discussion and hearings and witnesses on this legislation. they citizen it. they don't deserve to have a hate crimes bill put on this legislation which has no relation whatever to hate crimes. now, i'll probably have a lot more to say about this in the hours ahead but i've been around

this body a fair amount of time. i've watched the defense authorization bill move its way through congress and occasionally, including at other times i've seen amendments put on the bills which are nongermane. but i haven't seen the majority leader of th the -- 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 this legislation is. we're breaking new ground here, mr. president. let's have no doubt about it. it's one thing to have one member or two or others propose amendments that happen to be their pet project or their pet peeve, sometimes; it's an

entirely different thing, an entirely different thing and i have never seen it before that the majority leader of the united states senate comes to the near 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 and after 30 hours of debate we'll have a vote on closing that debate and including it in the legislation. i'm deeply, deeply disappointed. and i would question anyone's priorities, 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 presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be

suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: we are currently on the department of defense authorization bill and an amendment 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, senator mccain, came to the floor to question the wisdom of adding that kind of legislation to a bill rela relag to the department of defense. most people when that hear that argument would say, why don't they do these bills separately? well, it turns out that under the senate rules that oftentimes there are few opportunities to really move a bill forward and 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. well, this is legislation, hat the hate crimes legislation, which we believe is timely and important and want to make part of this debate and ultimately would like to offer it for the president for his signature. it is a bill that's been debated in the house of representatives and a bill that we can, i think, quickly come together with the house and agree on common terms. so it's an important opportunity. i might just 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 has also offered that same amendment to research bills. he's offered it to a bill involving the travel rights of blind individuals. he had a supermajority requirement to increase taxes add to a bill unrelated on the

subject of unemployment compensation. so it's not unusual. i've done it, nor mccain has done it -- senator mccain has done it and in fact this year we've 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, that had nothing to do with the stimulus package. it was his own personal feeling about that organization. -- that led to the amendment. senator ensign of nevada offered a controversial amendment which in fact has 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 did not have any direct bearing on the question of d.c. voting rights. senator demint raised the question of the fairness doctrine of the f.c.c., another

amendment to the d.c. voting bill. senator thune of south dakota offered an amendment relative to concealed firearms, again on the d.c. voting rights bill. the list goes on. i won't read it in detail. but 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 th the republican se of the aisle 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 amendment, and i'd like to speak to it, if i might. 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 vetoes. we are fortunate to have a new

president that 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, and i quote, "i urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all our citizens from violent acts of intolerance" -- end of quote. what a difference a year has made. when congress took up the hate crimes bill in a previous congress, president bush called it "unnecessary" and "constitutionally questionable." he promised to veto t the american people said last november they want add president who will take our country dm a different direction, and 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 can't be with us on the floor today, senator ted kennedy of massachusetts. he has been our leader on this issue for over 10 years. i wish he were here to make another impassioned speech for its passage.

there's no one who 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 his career in this senate. the kennedy hate crimes bill which is now before us is one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in our time. i am proud to cosponsor it. i generally believe that congress should be careful in federalizing crime, but in the case of hate crimes, there's a demonstrated problem and a carefully crafted solution. here's the problem. in fact, it is twofold. first, the existing federal hate crime law passed in 1968, after the assassination of dr. martin luther king jr., 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 comerks or applying for a job. the kennedy hate crime bill now currently be would expand coverage so that hate crimes could be prosecuted wherever they took place, as long as there is an interstate commerce connection which we use such as the use of a weapon. federal prosecutors would no longer be limited to the suc six narrow areas that i mentioned earlier. secondly, the bill would expand the categories of people covered under the federal hate crime 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 orientatio orientation ad

most common after those based on race or religion. about 15% of all hate crimes are based on sexual orntsation. -- on sexual orntsation. our laws cannot ignore this reality. let me address some of the arguments against this hate crimes bill. most of those who write in opposition to this bill are writing either personally or on behalf of churches. they are people who believe that this bill would be an infringement on religious speech. their concern is that a minister preaching against sexual orientation, the gay lifestyle and the like, could be prosecuted if he sermonizes against homosexuality and after that a member of his congregation and went out and assaulted someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. i understand their concern, but it's misplaced. the chair of the senate judiciary committee, pat leahy,

held a hearing last month on the hate crimes bill. attorney general eric holder was the star witness. i attended the hearing and i asked the attorney general point-blank whether a religious leader could be prosecuted under the facts that 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, to this question that i raised. he said, "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," the attorney general said, "but it not somebody who believed under the ambit of this statute." end of quote. 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've been writing is consistent with the interpretation of this hate crimes bill by the attorney general of the united states. it's 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 crime prosecution could be brought. i don't know how he could have been clearer or more definitive. i am certain that some who do not 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. now listen to the words of jeffrey stone, a first amendment scholar at the university of chicago law school. he said the following: "it is settled first amendment law that an individual cannot constitutionally be purchased pr incrieght oarsz to commit crimes unless the speaker incites such unlawful conduct and it occurs eminently. the last time the supreme court upheld a criminal conviction for incriement was more than a half-century asmght i would also note that 24 states, nearly half othose in the united states, hae hate crime laws on their books that include sexual orientation

and religious leaders are not being prosecuted in those states." that's just not the purpose of the hate crimes law. the 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 about 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 that intolerance and hate are not part of their spiritual message, that this law is a law that is a good one in support of their beliefs. this law would go beyond the six narrow areas i covered earlier. this would be an important consideration, since 20% of all hate crimes are committed on the basis of a person's religion. this hate crimes lawyer will actually protect those discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. 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 and for a long time. it's an argument about state rights. they argue there's 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's 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 1922 "congressional record" when congress debated whether to pass a bill making lynching a federal

crime. one member of congress said -- and i quote -- "the great body of the good people of the country know 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's estimated 95% of prosecutions for crime 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. there are over 4,000 federal crimes, 600 of which have passed in the last 10 years. hate crimes are a sad and tragic reality in america. last month's more s -- more sk c shooting at th at the holocaustm is a remainder. in the town of je in joliet beaa black man while 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 high home state that i'm proud to represent but i'm not proud of this conduct. i don't think america should be proud of this kind of intolerance and assault, physical assault, that has taken place. according to f.b.i. data which is based on voluntary reporting incidentally, there are about 8,000 rate crimes in america every year. some experts estimate the real number is closer to 50,000. the kennedy hate crimes bill won't eliminate hate crime but it will help ensure this these crimes don't go unpunished. when senator kennedy introduced the bill in april here is what he said -- and i quote -- "it's been over 10 years since matthew shepherd was left to die on a fence in wyoming because of who he was. it's also been 10 years since this bill was officially considered by congress.

in those 10 years we have gained the political and public support 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 willing to enforce it. we enough not delay the passage of this bill. now is the time to stand up against hate-motivated violence and recognize the shameful damage 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. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you, mr. president. it is my understanding we are now on the hate crimes amendment which takes the form of a hate crimes prevention act introduced

by senator kennedy and i would like to speak on that. i'd like to begin by commending and thanking senator kennedy for his leadership and dedication on this issue for a long, long time. he has been the leader. he has been persistent. i know he remains fully supportive. this has been offered as an amendment to the defense authorization bill, and the reason is because it is so long overdue. this bill would 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

was attacked because of hate and attacked while voting, attending a public school, serving on a injury, 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, for rein circumstance and prosecutorial -- forensic, and prosecutorial assistance to states and localities who prosecute these kinds of crimes and it would authorize the department of justice to begin programs that combat hate crimes committed by children and teenagers. and 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 that we know how big the problem is and can work to fight against it. let me give you a little bit of history. i've been working on hate crimes since i joined the senate and the judiciary committee almost 17 years ago. i know this amendment's history 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 really had an element of hatred to it relating to race, color, religion, national origin, eth nighs tirks 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 its 33 cosponsors. that was in 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, two 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 54-43. that was seven 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's time to pass this legislation. let me be candid and say that i still do not understand the opposition to the bill. it does not criminalize speech. it only applies to violent acts. and these are acts where the victim is targeted because of who they are, because of their race, their national origin,

their disability, their gender, or their sexual orientation. we should have passed this bill many years ago. now, according to the f.b.i., roughly one hate crime occurs every single hour of every day in the united states. f.b.i. statistics are not complete because they rely on valary 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 f.b.i. with a total of 9,535 victims. approximately 50% of the victims were attacked because of their race, 18% because of their

religion, 16% because of their sexual orientation, 13% because of their ethnicity or national origin, and 1% because of a disability. the nonprofit southern poverty law center estimates that if we had information about all of the hate crimes that occur in the united states, the total number would be close to 50,000. now, 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, texas, in 1958, 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 two miles to his death. his for so was found at the -- 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 spl kl ku kn supporters. a crime like this is not only tragic for the victim and his family but it makes an entire group of people terrified to leave their homes at night, and 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 that i find particularly disturbing. first, hate crimes targeting hispanic-americans rose 40% between 2003 and 2007. f.b.i. statistics show that these crimes are rising every single year. in 2003, 426 crimes against latinos. in 2005, 475. 2005, 522. see it rachetting up? 2006, 576. and 207, 595.

that's -- and 2007, 595. that's a 40% increase in four years. the leadership counsel on civil rights -- excuse me, the leadership conference on civil rights has reported that this increase in violence correlates with the heated debate over comprehensive immigration reform. and we've all heard the talk shows that preach hatred, and this is part of the result. regardless of the reason, though, for the trend, it is unacceptable for us just to stand by and let these crimes increase. another example: in shenandoah, pennsylvania, this year, a 31-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 two days later from those injuries. then just last week, a latino janitor in ladera ranch, california, was doing her maintenance round when two men hit her on the head, stabbed her with a switch bladblade, while - with a switchblade, while yelling racial slurs at her. another racial 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 attacker's hate and vengeance. there is a second troubling trend. the f.b.i. 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 f.b.i. 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, california, who happened to be lesbian was attacked bier four men when -- 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 seven 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, california, 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 shotgun -- excuse me, a handgun, and shot him in the head. larry king died in the hospital a few days later. so it's essential that we give law enforcement all of the resources we need to investigate, to solve, to prosecute, and to punish these crimes. finally, there is a third area i'm 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 black man. they injured this man so badly, he was left in a coma. in shan an dough washings the individual -- in sheen an dough with a, the individuals who beat a mexican immigrant to death were all 21 or younger and in oxnard, the boy who shot larry caning was 14 years old. can you imagine being consumed by hatred at 14 years old and when that means for the future

-- 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 terrifyi terrifying. these are americans' daily lives we're talking about, innocent people who are walking to work, driving home at night, working, or, yes, sitting in our nation's school classrooms. so this legislation is important. it will allow the federal government to prosecute -- to prosecute where states or localities are not will to. it will allow the justice department to assist states and localities who 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 commerce. 26 state attorneys general are advocating for it and so are more than 41 civil rights groupsps, 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 association, the international brotherhood of police officers, the united states conference of mayors, the americans veterans' committee, and many many others. mr. president, this legislation is long overdue. there is a problem out there. it deserves to be solved. it deserves to be deterred. it citizens to be punished.

this bill is long overdue. i want to inb end by thanking sr kennedy for his long history of leadership on this issue. and, indeed, if we are able to pass this bill today or whenever we vote, it will, in fact, be a major tribute to him. so thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i just want to repeat the unprecedented fashion 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 in it. i always thought that 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, taken off at the request of the majority leader the

chairman of the committee has taken 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 priority, the secretary of the air force and other administration officials. so what did we do? we come to the floor is withdraw the amendment so we can take up a major piece of legislation. now, i'm told that there are -- reminded there are amendments proposed by various members of this body that feel that their amendments need to be proposed and feel there's no other avenue than to put them on pending legislation. the majority leader of the senate can bring up legislation wherever he wants to.

that's the privilege of the majority. that's the right of the majori majority. so 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-22's 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 united states senate comes, has one very important amendment pulled and then puts a piece of legislation which is far reaching in its consequences, which is very controversial -- i had entered into the roar just a

little while ago the united states commission on civil rights opposes this legislation. doesn't this legislation deserve a hate crimes bill, citizen the amending and debate and process that legislation is supposed to go through committees and then on the floor of the senate, open to amendments? no. it's liste been inserted now one defense authorization bill and within a authority time i'm sure the majority leader will come to the floor and have, file a petition for cloture to cut off debate on an issue of significant importance to all americans. and railroad it through in a "bipartisan" basis with possibly two republican votes. it's not the way this body should work, mr. president. it is an abuse of power. it does not make for comity -- -

in fact, those of us who are committed seeing this authorization bill done as quickly as possible because we're worried about the security of this nation take good offense, great offense when we come to the majority leader of the senate whose job is to move legislation through the senate brings an extraneous and unrelated legislation to a bill as important for the men and women of this country and our nation's security and 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 and i resent it a great deal. it's not good for the health of this body, in my view. i have not seen -- wraps there

is precedent -- perhaps there is precedent for this, perhaps there is precedent when a defense authorization bill, an issue of the highest criticalness with an amendment on it that the president of the united states has fully weighed in and committed on is taken off the floor, taken away from consideration in order to put an extraneous and very controversial full package of legislation. mr. president, the hate crimes bill before us is not an amendment. it's legislation. it is an encompassing bill, 20-some pages long. so we're going to have about 30 hours of debate, a discussion on it, the majority leader will come and cut off debate and we will probable 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 can harm, in my view, the united states of america and its judicial system with that of defending the nation. i don't think that's fair to any member of this body. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. 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 a stand alone bill. this is not the first time we have worked together on legislation. i'd like to recognize and thank the junior senator from ohio for the bipartisan manner that both he and his staff have done on this particular issue. in addition, i would like to thank the nevada office of veteran services and the national association for state veterans homes for bringing this matter to our attention.

as stated, our legislation is both bipartisan and commonsense. currently, an individual is allowed into a state veteran's home if the individual is, one, an eligible veteran; two, the spouse of an eligible veteran; or, three, a gold star parent. the problem, though, arises in the way that the veterans department defines "gold star parent." under current regulations an eligible parent is one that has lost all of their children while serving their country. i know it doesn't make sense but that is the definition. as a consequence, state veterans homes are forced to deny admission to gold star parents if they have any surviving children. losing a child in war is a stunning and life-altering events 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 parents' elder care in a state veterans home later in life. our legislation would change this permit entry into a v.a. nursing home to any parent who lost a son or a daughter in war while fighting to protect our freedoms and hour very way of life. as most people are aware, state veterans homes were founded for service members following the american civil war. they have become institutions that our veterans and their depend exhave comdependents havr 150 years. there are veterans home in all 50 states and puerto rico. and on a daily basis they provide hospital, rehabilitation, long-term care,

alzheimer's care and end of life care to approximately 30,000 veterans and dependents. i take this opportunity to recognize the nevada state veterans home in bolder city for the great work they do. u.s. news and world report rated this veterans whom as a five-star facility and the top nursing home in my home state of nevada. i think it is only fair that the parents of those who have lost a son or a daughter have access to first-class facilities like this. i'd like to thank, once again, the junior senator from ohio and ask my other colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. shaheen: i have 12 unanimous consents for committees to meet with the approval of the majority and minority leaders and i ask nab the consent be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: today i rise in support of strengthening our federal hate crime laws to include crimes motivated by a victim's sex you'l sexual orien,

gender, or whether the person has a disability. by passing the matthew shepherd hate crimes protection action we take a long overdo step to ensuring 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 want to 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'm proud to join them as an original cosponsor of the matthew shepherd hate crimes prevention act. i truly hope my colleagues will join me to pass this amendment. in 1998, matthew shepherd, 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 and i had the opportunity a couple years ago to meet judy shepard, matthew's mother. and i applaud her willingness to try and make something positive out of such a terrible tragedy. she's been a tireless advocate to try and get hate crimes legislation passed and to point out what the impacts of these violent acts have been on families across this country.

the matthew shepard attack sent a message of hate and intolerance to lgtb youth 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. now, it's impossible to know for certain the full effects 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. now, while reducing bigotry and

increasing tolerance will require a comprehensive effort, it's 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 law 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. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, pending before the senate at this moment is this national defense authorization act which is an annual bill considered by the senate which basically authorizes the spending of money

and certain policies for the department of defense. there's a lot of work that goes into this bill put in primarily by the chairman of the committee, carl levin of michigan, and john mccain of arizona. this bill looks to me -- i'm trying to find a page number here -- to be over 1,000 pages long. they 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. now, whenever a fighter plane is being built and is being discontinued, there are people who resist it because each one of these defense projects involve a lot of people, a lot of jobs, a lot of contracts that are important to businesses and families and communities.

and 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 his veto which is not likely to occur. so it's a promise or a threat from a president you have to take very seriously. so the bill currently contains an amendment which expands the number of f-22 fighter planes that was adopted narrowly in the armed services committee. now, the chairman, carl levin, and the ranking republican, john mccain, both have the same position as president obama. they want to reduce, or at least 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

to delete the section of the bill which would call for more planes. and that amendment, amendment 1469, was offered on monday to be considered by the senate, and a number of people have come to support the amendment. and i want to -- and i'm one of them. i support the president's position. i support the position of senator levin and the position of senator mccain. there are others who oppose this amendment clearly. and at one point senator levin said let's move this to a vote. senator mccain said let's have a vote on this, as we should. it had been pending for two days. everyone knew what's at issue. it is contentious and clearly controversial, but we deal with those issues. that's part of our job. and then at that point the process broke down and the republican side of the aisle objected to calling the amendment. and that's when the bill came

grinding to a halt. and that's when senator levin said we know that after this amendment on f-22's, we're going to an amendment on hate crime legislation on the same bill, so he withdrew this amendment. i think clearly the answer to this, and one that i hope we can work out at the leadership level, is for the republicans to agree that we have a vote on this f-22 airplane. we should. senator mccain is anxious for that to happen so the bill can move forward. once that vote's out of the way we should also 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, and 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 crime legislation offered by senator reid will be considered and voted upon.

i hope both those things occur. there's no reason why they shouldn't. those who think they might lose the f-22 amendment are resisting to calling it for a vote. there will come a day when we'll have to come to a vote. i might say that the argument about nonrelevant amendments which has been made on the floor by my friend from arizona and others is a hard argument to understand in light of what we've been through. i'm going to ask unanimous consent, madam president, to enter into the record at this point a long list of nonrelevant amendments offered this year by the republican side of the aisle to a series of bills that have been considered on the floor. and i ask unanimous consent that this be entered into the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. and i would say that they go, 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 that was put on the voting rights bill.

an amendment relating to the fairness doctrine and telecommunications on the same d.c. rights bill. an amendment related to congressional pay on the omnibus appropriations bill. the list goes on and on, and i won't go beyond putting it into the record. but i would say to the senator from arizona and others, 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. and ultimately these came to a vote. they were considered and voted on, and that's all the majority leader is asking for, is to bring the hate crimes legislation to a vote as well on this legislation. there's clearly a way out of this. it's for the senate to do its job. it's to vote on the amendment on the f-22 sraoeurts up or down, let's see who prevails, understanding if levin-mccain fails, the president will veto the bill. that is a pretty ominous

prospect to keep in mind during the course of that debate. also keeping in mind that the hate crimes legislation is timely. it has passed the house of representatives and should be considered by us. i'd like to say a word on it and ask unanimous consent to put into 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. i ask unanimous consent to place that in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. those who spoke in favor of the bill, i think, should be noted. their identities should be noted because there is some argument, at least in the mail i've received from some religious leaders, against the bill. dr. david gushee, professor of christian ethics at mercer university, has a well thought out statement in support of the bill. reverend derrick harkins, senior past of the 19th street church

at washington, d.c., the same. dr. hunter has come out in support. reverend gabriel sagaro, advisor of the latino 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 the american values in this country. and secondly, those who argue that if you include swal orientation in this bill, that a pastor who sermonizes against homosexuality based on his interpretation of the bible could be arrested for it. that's not true. as i quoted earlier, the attorney general of the united states said clearly hate crimes legislation is focused on physical violence, not words, not harassment, but physical

violence. and 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, i think, has been made clear by the attorney general in 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 all consistent. i look forward to the senate coming to a conclusion here, but i think that those who have come to the floor and criticized the majority leader for the situation have not told the whole story. the whole story is the f-22 amendment by 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 made it clear to the sponsors. and 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. so i would 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 this opportunity to work these two things out, perhaps bring a vote on the f-22 amendment, which now that the senator is on the floor i've said a couple times i do support. the amendment by senators levin and mccain 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 call this and dispense with it one way or the other up or down. 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 take up other matters pending on the defense authorization bill which i know the senator from arizona and the senator from michigan have worked on so hard. mrs. boxer: would the senator yield for a question before anyone takes the floor? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you, i have a question while my friend has the floor. i've been waiting to speak on the hate crimes bill, and i'm wondering if it would be possible, because i'm not sure if senator mccain has a lengthy statement, or if the senator can work with you and me to get a time certain to make that statement. mr. durbin: i'm going to yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. durbin: i could yield to the senator from arizona with the understanding that after he has spoken, you can pick the time that the senator from california would be recognized? mr. mccain: that would be fine. mr. durbin: would the senator like to give me an indication? mr. mccain: i'm not sure because i'm not sure what the

senator from illinois' reaction will be to what i have to say. i can't give you a specific time agreement. i'm sorry. this is a very vital issue we're addressing right now. mrs. boxer: well, madam president? madam president? -- mr. mccain: -- i will make my remarks as quickly, as shortly as possible -- mrs. boxer: madam president? mr. mccain: i believe the senator from illinois has the floor, is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois has the floor. mrs. boxer: i will ask -- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois has the floor. mrs. boxer: i'm trying to be collegial. i know all senators know we have obligations to our various constituents. i'm wondering if i should speak first. my opinion statement's only about 6 minutes. then i can yield to senator mccain because i think the hate crimes legislation is landmark legislation. mr. durbin: i think senator mccain has asked to be recognized first. i will try to make my response to him 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. mr. durbin: and i yield the floor to the senator from arizona. 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 levin-mccain amendment. and 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. and 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 t