frankly, i do not think is an appropriate way of using the defense authorization bill. in fact, i think it is highly inappropriate. why don't we do this, i ask my friend from illinois, agree as soon as the defense authorization bill is complete, we take up the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act under the regular order and do business the way the senate should do business. so, therefore, mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be immediately withdrawn, that no amendments on the topic of hate crimes be in order to the pending legislation. further, i ask when the senate completes action on the department of defense authorization bill, that it be in order for the senate to proceed to s. 099, the matthew shepard -- 909, the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act under the regular order. the presiding officer: is there an objection?

mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. mr. president, i would say that the senator from arizona knows that on 16 different occasions this year republican senators have offered nonrelevant amendments to pending legislation. the senator has done that himself. i've done it myself. it is not unusual or beyond the custom and rules of the senate and i believe senator reid has the right to do it on this critically important legislation which we can move to dispatch. based on that, i do object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mccain: here's the facts, the fact is, the majority leader whose job it is to move legislation through the senate is now blocking progress of defense authorization. that progress through the senate by proposing an unneeded, irrelevant, amendment which is a large piece of legislation which is highly controversial. the senate majority leader will come to the floor and he will

file cloture and then after some hours there with -- with no amendments, because he'll probably fill up the tree, the senate will pass a highly controversial, highly explosive piece of legislation to be attached to the authorization for the defense of the security of this nation. that's wrong. and why -- let me put it this way. it is unanswerable that we don't just take up the hate crimes bill in the regular order and allow the senate debate and discussion. that's how the senate's supposed to work. not put a piece of major legislation. i would point out to my friend from illinois, something he knows. it is one thing for someone who sits back there to propose an amendment to the pending legislation, because they feel that's the only way they can get their argument heard. the majority leader of the united states senate has the authority to move whatever legislation he wants and the majority leader of the united

states senate should move the hate crimes bill if he wants it considered. rather than give it priority over the -- the legislation that accounts for the national security of this country and the men and women who serve in. it so i'm sure that -- that there will be all kinds of comments about the republicans blocking a vote, blocking this, blocking that. why don't we take up legislation in the regular order that it could. hate crimes has been opposed by the united states commission on civil rights. this is a very, very controversial issue. and we're not -- by putting it on the d.o.d. bill, we're not going to have the adequate debate, discussion on an amendment that this issue deserves. there's passion on both sides of the aisle. so it's obvious that what -- whether it is the intention or not, what's happening here is the whole process of debate amendment will be short circuited because we on this side of the aisle are more than

willing to take up the legislation as a separate piece of legislation, debate, amend, and discuss it and let the american people decide. instead, the men and women in the military right now today are being shortchanged by putting an irrelevant legislation that is highly controversial and highly complex on a bill designed to defend this country and the men and women who serve it. mr. durbin: will senator yield for a question? mr. mccain: i will be glad to yield. if you want to have a colloquy, go ahead. mr. durbin: i want to make sure that senator boxer has her chance. if i could make two points. senator reid offered this amendment on behalf of senator r leahy, now presiding over the sotomayor hearings. i know he supports it. i support it as well, the hate crimes legislation. mr. mccain: could i respond to that? it is one thing to have the chairman of the committee support it. it's another thing to have the legislation go through the committee with the proper debate and discussion on the amendment.

but go ahead. mr. durbin: the second point i would like to make to the senator from arizona is that when we asked for leave or unanimous consent from the republican side november to the hate crimes -- move to the hate crimes legislation, there was objection. it isn't as though we haven't tried to go through regular order. this is the only path we can use to bring this matter to a conclusion. and it can be done in a responsible way quickly. it doesn't have to drag out over a matter of days. the senator knows that. if we can get an agreement on both sides to go to a reasonable time for debate and vote on the bill, i think that would meet the needs that you've suggested to get back on the substance of the defense authorization bill. mr. mccain: in deference to the senator from california, i'll make my answer brief. just to say that i don't think, as i said, my previous argument that it does not belong on a defense authorization bill. particularly so moved by the majority leader the -- of the senate. but, mr. president, the senator from california is waiting and i

yield the floor. mr. durbin: if the senator from california would allow me to make an unanimous consent before she speaks. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at 12:00 noon on thursday, july 16, the senate proceed to move to the motion to invoke cloture on the leahy amendment with the time equally controlled between the leaders or designees, if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and amendment 539 be agreed to and and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, upon disposition of the hate crimes amendment, senator levin be recognized to offer the levin-mccain amendment, the time until 5:30 july 15, be with respect to the amendment, and all time equally divided between chambliss and levin and the senate proceed to the vote on the amendment during the f-22 further that the mandatory

quorum be waived with respect to rule 22 and the purpose of this unanimous consent is to achieve just what the senator from arizona asked for. a timely consideration of both amendments will be back on the bill on his amendment and i ask unanimous consent that we accept this schedule cruel and move forward. mr. mccain: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: is there an object? mr. mccain: i will object. i'm not asking that there be a time agreement on hate crimes. i'm asking that the hate crimes bill be brought up as a standing bill. the senator has 06 votes. the senator could bring it up on whether this side of the aisle objects or not as a free standing piece of legislation. i don't object to it being made part of the -- of the -- i object to it being considered on the department of defense authorization bill. it has no place for it. it shouldn't be there. the longer we wait, the longer the delay is between priefght men and women of the military the tools that they need. so i do object.

and we should take this up and i'm sorry that my unanimous consent agreement was not agreed to that. we would take it up as a free standing bill after the consideration of the department of defense bill. and i yield the floor and i thank the senator from california for her courtesy. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i thank senator mccain and senator durbin for moving through their debates swiftly so i would have this opportunity to speak in support of a landmark piece of legislation that has been offered as an amendment, the hate crimes prevention amendment named after matthew shepard. this bill is a long time coming. and i know that we could make a process argument. we do it well around here. but it seems to me we can move this defense bill through quickly. we are doing that. we will do that.

it has strong support. but we can also take care of this long neglected important piece of legislation, whose passage will protect and defend our citizens from hate crimes. so it's funny because technically speaking, of course, the defense bill is about our military and we all support doing what we have to do to keep it strong and to be prepared, that's why i will support that. but there is no reason why we can't take, you know, a little time to look at the fact that it is time for the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act to really be passed. it won't -- it won't slow us up really. we've just seen that senator durbin has asked for unanimous consent agreement to do this quickly. it's not going to delay. and my republican friends don't seem to mind it when they offer nonrelevant amendments to bills.

they've done it 16 times this year. oh, they tonight have a problem. but if it's something they don't like, suddenly they make this process argument. you know, rather than debate process, why don't we just get on with it? we can do a couple of important things this week. one of them, the defense bill and the other pro integritying our citizens from hate crimes. now, the importance of the amendment that was offered by senator leahy through our leader is that it would strengthen the ability of federal, state, and local authority to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. mr. president, it has been more than 10 long years since the -- since the senseless death of matthew shepard, a tragedy that showed us that we have a long way -- a long way to go before we can truly say in this country

there is equal justice for all. let's look back at what happened to matthew shepard 10 long years ago. two men offered matthew shepard, a gay man, a ride in their car. subsequently shepard was robbed, pistol whipped, he was tortured, he was tied to a fence in a remote rural area, and he was left to die. mr. president, this wasn't a robbery. this wasn't a spur of the moment situation. we know from the girl fends who testified -- girlfriends who testified under oath that the two men plotted beforehand to rob a gay man in particular. that crime -- that crime occurred because matthew shepard was a gay man.

well, they robbed him, they tortured him and they killed him. and this crime should be a federal crime. and, yes, we have tried to pass that hate crimes legislation for years and years. there's always an excuse. we don't have the time, it's not relevant to the bill. well, matthew shepard -- matthew shepard's family, what happened to them will never -- will never go away. the loss that they carry in their hearts will never disappear. but the one thing we can do to ease their burden is to pass this legislation. now, look, we have offered this on defense bills before. this isn't the first time and we dealt with it and we voted and

we moved on. so the only thing you can say as to why there's all of this objection is because people don't want to vote on this bill. and they're make it more and more difficult for us to be able to get to it. and i hope we will, in fact, stick to it and get this done. again, it isn't going to weigh down the defense authorization in my mind, again, it is something that we need to do and we can do with no harm to the underlying bill. we should be proud to support this legislation. not afraid to vote on it, not trying to postpone a vote on it. hate crimes are particularly offensive because they're propelled by bias and by bigotry. they not only inflict harm on the victims, but they instill

fear in entire communities. that is why i have -- and i ask to put into the record a strong letter of support from my sheriff from los angeles, lee bacha. i would ask unanimous consent that thereby put in the record at had -- that this be put in the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i want to note that lee bacha happens to be a republican. i want to note that this law enforcement individual is very strong on this. he says that this hate crimes deals with a civil rights issue, and he quotes president obama to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance and lee bacha adds in his own words: hate crimes are a scourge in our society and have no place in humanity. mr. president what we're dealing with is not a republican issue

or democratic issue. there are gay people who are republicans. there are gay people who are democrats. there are gay people in the closet. there are gay people out of the closet. but i can tell you that many gay people live in fear -- live in fear that two people or one person could attack them simply because they are gay. and that is not right in this, the greatest country in the world, and we can fix it. i also want to point out that this bill also protects women -- women who are attacked simply because of their gender. so this bill is about make makig sure that women are protected and gays protected. i wish there was no need for

this law. i wish we lived in a world where such a law would be unnecessary. we all do. but one of our founders said, you know, if people were perfect, we wouldn't need a government. people are not perfect. and there has to be right and wrong and it has to be spelled out, and people who are innocent need to be protected. a man gets in a car. the two people who claim to be his friend and he winds up robbed, tortured and killed and put on a fence, i might add. so attorney general holder, when he testified before the senate judiciary committee, reported that the f.b.i. said that there were 7,624 hate crime incidents in 2007. that's the most recent dated a.

7,624 hate crime incidents. now, if we pass this bill, we send the signal that the federal government will not stand by and watch this sort of thing happen. we sent a message that we will be a backup, that we will supply the law enforcement personnel, the forensics assistance, anything that the local prosecutor needs and the local police needs to help them. eric holder also testified that between 1998 and 2007, more than 77,000 hate crime incidents were reported by the f.b.i. that is one hate crime for every hour of every day for a d.c dec. one hate crime every hour of every day for a decade. and senator mccain -- and i have full respect for him -- says that let's just do this another day.

mr. president, we shouldn't wait another day. this should receive unanimous support from everyone across party aisle. and i believe that it will receive tremendous support across the party aisle. i do. so let's get to vote on it. statistics are one thing. the individual stories are horrifying. i'll give you another example. the case of lawrence. >> larrylawrence, larryking. a 15-year-old boy from oxford, california. larry, an eighth grader, was killed by a fellow student in the middle of a classroom in february of 2008. according to news reports, the shooting occurred the day after the students had a verbal altercation about larry's sexual orientation. the police and the district attorney classified the murder as a hate crime. the district attorney said there had never been a violent shooting like this before in

ventura county in my state. a young life ended too soon by a violent act of hate. yes, my state is not immune from these crimes. in richmond, california, four men were arrested and charged for brutally gang raping a young lesbian. according to news reports, one of the attackers taunted her for being a lesbian during the attack. and after that heinous incident, a young black man in richmond was attacked. according to the young man's police report, his attackers yelled racial epithets and slurs as they broke six of his bones. and finally, another example, in 2006, a man walked into an amish school in pennsylvania taking several female students hostage and releasing all the male students. he shot ten of the girls, killing five.

killing five. before shooting himself. the age of these girls, from 6 to 13 years old. these girls lost their lives because of a despicable act of hate based on their gender. mr. president, there's no reason to come to the floor and say we can't do this bill because we have other very important business on our plate. of course we do. of course we need to do the defense bill. of course we will do the defense bill. last i checked, defense authorization usually passes practically unanimously. this isn't a problem. so we can deal with this. we've done it before. these stories demonstrate that if america is to serve as a model for tolerance and justice, we must do everything in our power to fight hate motivated violence. and this amendment is an

important step in that fight. so to summarize what this amendment does, it would add gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability as protected categories under our hate crimes laws. second, the amendment removes the requirement that a victim be engaged in a federally protected activity such as serving on a jury or attending a public school before the federal government can act. and third and very important, the amendment provides additional federal assistance to state and local authorities to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. i talked about the letter from my sheriff in los angeles county. our law enforcement people need all the help they can get when they are trying to solve a crime, a hate crime, and then trying to prosecute a hate cri

crime. and this bill will give them the assistance that they deserve to have if they ask for such assistance. and if they don't act, this is a backup law. this says it is a federal crime. there's a nexus with interstate commerce, but as we know, that is not too hard to make. so this basically that says we are going to protect these individuals in our society who may be disabled on -- and if they're discriminated against because they're a woman or a m man, gender bias. or because of their sexual orientation. now, opponents of this amendment will say it punishes free speech and thought and that every crime will become a federal hate crime. that is patently untrue. the hate crimes prevention amendment, as i said, is narrow and we know, we know that these crimes do occur.

this isn't about punishing speech. this isn't about punishing thoughts. if all that matthew shepard had to deal with were taunts about his sexuality, his sexual preference, that would be one thing. he had to deal with murderers who tortured him. that's different. if they had said something to him and walked out, that would be one thing. they acted on their hatred, and that is un-american. it is un-american. this amendment doesn't attempt to federalize all crimes or even hate crimes. the certification provision prevents the federal government from stepping into a case unless it can certify that doing so is necessary to secure justice and is in the public interest. thus, prosecutions that normally

take place at the state and local level will continue to be handled there. the difference is, we will then give them as a federal government all the tools they need from us. this amendment is an important step as we continue to form a more perfect union. and we can't rest until we do this and more. we can't rest until we pass laws to create a fair workplace for all. and we can't rest until we pass a law that repeals don't ask/don't tell and allows our capable americans and our patriotic americans to serve our country. we are losing some of the best and brightest from our military because they don't want to live a lie. we can't rest until we pass laws to end racial profiling in our society. we can't rest until we pass comprehensive laws to protect our children from violent

crimes. years ago i wrote the violence against children act. i am still waiting to get it passed. when you take up a hand against a child and you injure that child and hurt that child, that's un-american too. and if there's a violent crime against a child, i believe the federal government ought to care and ought to help the local governments who are trying to solve that crime and punish that crime if they need help. so we have a lot of work to do to form that more perfect union. and, you know, instead of arguing process today, why don't we have our friends come to the floor and say, this is a wonderful opportunity now to take a step forward and pass this hate crimes prevention act which we have been trying to do for so long and, of course, not

slow down the defense bill. there's no need to slow down the defense bill. we can do both. and i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and any kind of procedural vote it takes to make it available to us on the floor of the senate. i thank you very much. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: mr. president, i have sought recognition to speak briefly on the hate crime legislation. the details of the bill have been explained. the statistics have been enumerated by quite a number of my colleagues. perhaps the most impressive statistic is the one from the attorney general on 77,000 hate. i do believe it is time we act acted. this issue first came before the senate back in 1997, so 12 years

ago. senator kennedy was the originator. at that time, he searched for cosponsors among republicans and i believe it is accurate to say that i was the only one who would support cosponsorship, and we moved the legislation forward by publishing an op-ed piece in "the washington post." and i would ask consent that that op-ed piece be printed at the contribution of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i'm glad to say that in the times this issue has come before the senate, there are now 18 republican cosponso cosponsors. my sense is that there will be widespread if not unanimous support among the democrats so that there's a very, very solid statement respectively in the united states senate.

ordinarily matters of criminal prosecution are left to the states. the offense is prosecuted in the jurisdiction where it occurred. and i have a strong bias for local prosecutions as a generalization and developed that concern from my own experience as a district attorney for the city and country of philadelphia. law enforcement ought to be local, but the brutal fact of life is that when you deal with hate crimes, and there are many, many examples, in 1997 when senator kennedy and i first introduced the bill, there was the case of racial matters, dragging an african-american through the streets of a texas town. there have since been many other

brutal cases. one highly publicized, a gay young man the victim of a hate crime in wyoming. regrettably, discrimination for race or national origin continues until this day. there has recently been a publicized matter that occurred in huntington valley, a suburb of the city of philadelphia, on a swim club, where the swim club operators negotiated with a group representing hispanic and african-american children ages 5 to 11 to occupy a swimming pool, swimming pool permission. when the youngsters, hispanics and african-americans, went to swim, there was, according to the media reports -- and i've talked to people on both sides personally to find out what we want on -- there was aroun an a,

hostility, racial comments directed at african-americans and hispanics, conduct which you would have thought america would have passed long ago. but it's as current as two weeks ago in the suburbs of my hometown of philadelphia, pennsylvania. the matter has moved forward. it has resulted in lawsuits being filed. it would be my hope that a way could be found to handle the matter to the satisfaction of all parties. but i can understand if the parents of the children involved want to pursue remedies, this is a matter which could be handled by the civil rights division which has prosecutorial

authority. it also has authority for mediation and reconciliation. but i cite that as an illustration of a matter which is as current as today's news on animus based on race, african-americans, national origin on hispanics. so it is my hope that this matter will receive prompt attention in the senate, will be part of the pending legislation, and that it will go to conference and become the law of the land. in the absence -- i ask consent that floor privileges be given to linda hoffa, who is a detailee in my office. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i hadn't noticed senator schumer because i don't have eyes in the back of my head, but i yield the floor to him. mr. schumer: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: he's so astute

that most of us think he does have eyes in the back of his head, because he sees and knows all. anyway, it is good to be here, and i rise today in support, madam president, of vital legislation that's long overdue. more than a decade has passed since matthew shepard was brutally murdered and yet the bill that bears his name is still not law. the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act has broad bipartisan support here in the senate. it passed handily in the house and has the unequivocal support of the president and the attorney general. indeed, attorney general holder recently told the senate judiciary committee that passage of this legislation is one of -- quote -- "his highest personal priorities." it's essential that we act now to pass this amendment and make the matthew shepard act the law of the land. according to f.b.i. statistics more than 9,000 violent hate crimes were perpetrated in 2007. experts tell us that hate crimes often go unreported, so the

actual number is in order of magnitude high tpher all probability. whatever the number, all hate crimes are unacceptable. they are crimes inflicted not merely on individuals, but entire communities much as mr. holder put it -- quote -- "perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the god to whom we pray or whom we choose to love." let me be clear, this legislation does not criminalize speech or hateful thoughts. it seeks only to punish action, violent action that undermines the core values of our nation. this legislation strengthens the ability of state and local governments to prosecute hate crimes by providing grants to help them meet the often onerous expenses involved in investigating these crimes. it also enables the justice department to assist state and local governments in prosecuting hate crimes or to step in when

these governments fail to act. even though the aggregate number of hate crimes has slightly decreased nationally over the past decade, the number of crimes against certain groups has risen. hispanic americans have increasingly become the targets of bigots rage. according to a recent a.p. story, the number of fatal hate crimes increased by a shocking 30% last year. indeed, late last year there was a particularly chilling hate crime perpetrated in new york against an ecuadoran man named jose esvaldo. jose, a father of two, was walking home with his arms around his brother and was viciously attacked with an aluminum baseball bat while his perpetrators yelled antigay and anti-immigrant slurs. this sends a clear message to those perpetrators and all others, in america we do not tolerate acts of violence

motivated by hate in vulnerable communities. in america, you are free to be yourself and you should never be attacked for doing so. what message will it send to americans if we fail to pass this legislation? i wonder. i worry. i urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation. madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president, i take this time to speak in favor of the pending amendment, the matthew shepard hate crime prevention act. this is similar to an amendment that we considered last year to try to advance the modifications of the federal hate crimes statute. mr. cardin: some have questioned whether we need this act. they claimed that the instances of hate crimes in america have

diminished. i wish that were the case, madam president. i wish we didn't need to have a separate law to deal with hate motivated violent acts in america. all we needed to look at is what happened at the holocaust museum on june 15 of this year, where steven johns was murdered, a security guard. he was murdered by someone who had extreme views. look at lawrence king, a 15-year-old who died on february 12, 2008, because he was gay. or look what happened after the last elections when two men went on a killing spree to find african-americans. but what happened in july of 2008 when four teenagers were brutally beaten up because they were immigrants. all we need to look at is the f.b.i. statistics that indicate in 2007, there were 7,767 hate

crimes reported in america. madam president, that's the reported hate crimes. and we know that many of these acts go unreported. the numbers are much larger. ethnic communities are reporting an increase in violent acts motivated by hate. so unfortunately this law is needed and we need to strengthen the law so that it can effectively accomplish its purpose. now, what do i mean by that? this amendment, this law builds on federalism. it builds on what our states are already doing to combat these crimes. 45 states have separate laws that deal with hate crimes. 31 deal with violence against someone because of their sexual orientation. 27 include gender violence. what we need to do is strengthen our federal laws so that federalism, in fact, can work.

the federal government has resources which the states don't always have in order to be able to pursue these types of violent acts this amendment to the federal straught would strengthen the federal statute so it would apply to gender acts, based on somebody's jerpd or sexual orientation or -- gender or sexual orientation or disability. and it would go beyond the current federal law which only allows federal involvement if the crime occurs during some protected activity. it also provides the resources to help our states. by that, the bill provides grants to state, local and tribal law enforcement entities for prosecution, programming and education related to hate crimes prosecution and prevention. the bill contains a requirement that the department of justice certify that federal prosecution is necessary because the states cannot or will not effectively prosecute the state.

this is to supplement the actions of the state, to work with our states, to respect what federalism should be about. most of these matters will be handled by the state. the federal government may be able to help the state, and this bill will allow us to do exactly that. the bill also contains provisions broadening the categories of hate crimes tracked by the f.b.i. so these are improvements in the law that will maintain our ability to deal with this type of outrageous activity. some of us have questioned, well, isn't every violent crime a hate crime? the answer is no. a hate crime occurs because the perpetrator intentionally selects the victim because of who the victim is. like acts of terrorism, hate crimes have a greater impact because they cannot only affect the victim, they affect our entire community.

we're all diminished when someone in our community is violated because of his or her ethnic background or because of race or because of sexual -- being attacked on sexual orientation. we need to speak to our national priorities. this amendment speaks to what america should stand for, that we will not permit or tolerate someone to be victimized because of that person's gender or race or because of that person's sexual orientation or disability. this is a bill that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in this body. many of us have worked for many years in order to improve the federal government's ability to respond in these areas. this is the next chapter that needs to be done. i hope my colleagues will do what we did in the prior congress and pass this amendment to the defense authorization bill so that we can move forward

to strengthen our resolve against this type of hate activity in america. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. a senator: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: watching the senate floor during debate on health care reform, i can't help but feel some of my colleagues are a little confused. it's almost as if they've forgotten this discussion is going on in america, not canada. they don't want to talk about the 22,000 americans who died in 2006 because they don't have insurance. they don't want to talk about the more than 500,000 americans who file for bankruptcy after

incurring unpayable medical bills. and they don't want to talk about the millions of other americans who worry that they are one layoff away from losing coverage and one heart attack away from losing everything. no, they want to talk about canada. now, i'm not saying we shouldn't sympathize with our neighbors to the north, but i want to talk about how we can fix the health care system for the american people, for the people of new mexico. since none of the plans we are considering would set up a canadian system. let's look at how we can pass an american solution to the problems faced by americans. if you like the coverage you have, you should be able to keep it. and none of the plans we are considering would take away the options that americans already have. but the status quo is not enough. we need to give consumers another option.

we need to give them the freedom to choose a quality, affordable public health option. after all, what's more american than competition and choice? even if our private market functioned perfectly, it would make sense to give consumers another choice. but our health care system doesn't function perfectly. our system provides too little choice and too little quality at too high a price. too many of america's health care markets are effectively monopolies or, at best, dualopolis. according to a recent study by the american medical association, most american areas are dominated by one private insurer, and others are largely dominated by just two. in new mexico, the top two companies have 65% of the

market. to put that in perspective, dell, compaq, gateway, h.p. and i.b.m. combine for less than 54 of the u.s. personal computer market. i have to believe we can offer our consumers more than two choices of health plans. my state is a rural state, and in rural areas like ours, consumers often have less choice. they get to pay whatever the local health care plan wants or go without insurance. insurance companies have used this monopoly power to offer less and to charge more. as consolidation has increased since 2000, insurers have raised deductibles and copayments without increasing coverage, and they have continued to make healthy profits while their customers struggle to keep up with rising costs.

premiums for employer-sponsored health care have almost doubled since 1999. but rising costs haven't hurt health care companies c.e.o.'s. the top ten c.e.o.'s manage to pull down $85.4 million in 2008. even worse, what competition we have doesn't keep companies honest. instead, they compete to avoid the poor and the sick. in new mexico, an insurance company can charge a customer more because of a health problem from five years ago or because he happens to be 45 years old and not 44. they can even charge a woman more because she might get pregnant. they have every incentive to do so. when a private insurance company turns down somebody who needs

help, its profits go up. when it denies needed care, it has more money for its shareholders. that's a broken system. in new mexico, we have seen the impact of unaffordable health care. almost one in four new mexicans is uninsured, and nearly half of our citizens have inadequate coverage. the vast majority of these people are employed, but they and their employers simply cannot afford coverage. a constituent of mine from cedar crest, new mexico, wrote me just the other day to explain that she and her husband cannot afford to offer their employees' health care at a small manufacturing company they own. the rates for small businesses like theirs are just unaffordable. and our high numbers of censured citizens cost the rest of us money. the average family with insurance pays an additional

$2,300 just to cover the price of the uninsured. $2,300. if a mexican with diabetes has insurance, his insurance company can pay a small amount to have him receive routine tests and treatments from a podiatrist. but if the new mexico is uninsured, he's less likely to receive checkups. as a result he is more likely to miss the telltale signs of a circulatory problem and twice as likely to need an amputation. diabetes amputations cost almost $39,000. and new mexico did 366 of these procedures in 2003, for a total of $4.2 million. and when a diabetic has a limb amputated, the operation is only the beginning of the medical services he will need. for the uninsured, those costs fall on every family with

insurance. now some of my colleagues admit that the status quo does not work, but they claim a government regulator can keep the private h.m.o.'s in line. we will not need more regulation if open competition can be more effective. others just claim that a public health care option won't work. but the evidence suggests otherwise. experts have developed a newspaper of viable plans to give americans the choice of a quality, affordable public option. more than 30 state governments offer their employees a choice between private insurance and a state-backed public option, including my state of new mexico. these states have not found this strategy unworkable. they have not seen public or private coverage dominate the market. their employees just have another choice. what would be wrong with that? the truth is that this congress has a very simple decision to

make. we can stick with our current system or we can give americans another option that guarantees quality affordable care. opponents of reforeman don't want to talk about that decision -- opponents of that reform don't want to talk about that decision so they talk about canada, but the decision before us has nothing to do with canada. it is about the american people. they have been stuck in a broken system too long, and it's time to give them another choice. thank you, madam president, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: .

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i ask to proceed as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, i'd like to take a few moments to address the situation in burma. it's faded from the headlines but the outrageous detention and

trial of aung san suu kyi, that astonishingly courageous burmese leader continues. miss suu kyi spent the last decades under house arrest and has been held at the notorious hin sang -- i may have to correct that procee pronunciati- prison compound. she was charged with crimes following the arrival at her house of an uninvited american man and swam across a nearby lake. he then reportedly stayed on her compound for two days despite requests to leave. based on this occurrence, the regime charged miss suu kyi with crimes and ordered her to stand trial in late may. since then, she has been jailed and awaits possible conviction and up to five years in prison. let's recall that this long-suffering woman is, in fact, the legitimately elected leader of that country.

to this day, the generals refuse to recognize the 1990 election in which miss suu kyi's national league for democracy was victorious. instead, they plan to proceed with -- quote -- "elections" to be held next year that they evidently believe will legit muse their ill legitimate rule. the ruling regime seeks ways to ensure miss suu kyi and other n.l.d. members are not free to participate in these elections since it's the n.l.d. and not the military junta that has the support of the burmese people. as an estimated 2,100 political prisoners, including aung san suu kyi, fill burmese jails, the international community should see this process for the sham that it represents. as i have said on numerous occasions, i once had the great honor of meeting her. she is a woman of astonishing

courage and incredible resolve. her determination in the face of sear any inspires me and every individual who holds democracy dear. her resilience in the face of untold sufferings or courage at the hands of a cruel regime and her composure despite years of oppression inspire the world. burma's rulers fear that aung san suu kyi, because of what she represents -- peace, freedom, and justice for all burmese people -- the thugs who run burma have tried to stifle her voice but they will never extinguish her moral courage. earlier this month the united states secretary general traveled to burma in an attempt to press the regime on its human rights abuses. the ruling generals reacted in their typical fashion. they stage managed ban ki-moon's visit, even refusing his request

to speak before a gathering of diplomats and humanitarian groups. instead, before leaving, he was forced to speak at the regime's drug elimination museum. he was also refused a meeting with aung san suu kyi. burmese officials stated that their judicial regulations would not permit a meeting with an individual currently on trial. incredible. following his visit to burma, the secretary general pointed out that allowing a meeting with ms. suu kyi would have been an important symbol on the government's willingness to embark on the kind of meaningful engagement essential to credible elections in 2010. he's right. and the regime's refusal is simply the latest sign that meaningful engagement is not on its list of priorities. it's incumbent on all those in the international community who care about human rights to respond to the junta's out

rages. the work of aung san suu kyi and the members of the national league for democracy must be the world's work. we must continue to press the junta until it is willing to negotiate an irreversible transition to democratic rule. the burmese people deserve no less. this means renewing the sanctions that will expire this year and it means vigorous enforcement by our treasury department of the targeted financial sanctions in place against regime leaders. and it means being perfectly clear that we stand on the side of freedom for the burmese people and against those who seek to abridge it. the message of solidarity with the burmese people should come from all corridors, and that includes their closest neighbors, the asean countries. the united states, european countries and others have condemned ms. suu kyi's arrest and call for her immediate

release. the countries of southeast asia should be at the forefront of this fall. asean now has a human rights charter in which member countries have committed to protect and promote human rights. now is the time to live up to that commitment, and asean could start by dispatching envoys to rangoon in order to demand an immediate unconditional release of aung san suu kyi. following the visit of the u.n. secretary general, the burmese representative to the u.n. stated that the government is planning to bring amnesty to a number of prisoners so that they may participate in the 2010 general elections. asean states should demand the implementation of this pledge to include all political prisoners currently in jail, including ms. suu kyi. secretary of state clinton will travel to thailand later this month to participate in the

asean regional forum. i urge her to take up this issue with her southeast asian colleagues. too many years have passed without the smallest improvement in burma. though the situation there is replete with frustration and worse, it is not hopeless. we know from history that tyranny will not forever endure and burma will be no exception. aung san suu kyi and all those burmese who have followed her lead in pressing for their own inalienable rights should know all free people stand with you and support you. the world is watching not only your brave actions, but also those of the military government whose cruelty and incompetence know no bound. burma's future will be one of peace and freedom, not violence and repression. we as americans stand on the side of freedom, not fear, of peace, not violence, and of the millions of people in burma who

aspire to a better life, not those who would keep them isolate and oppressed. the united states has a critical role to play in burma and throughout the world as the chief voice for the rights and integrity for all persons. nothing can relieve us of the responsibility to stand up for those whose high man rights are in peril, nor the knowledge that we stand for something in this world greater self-interest. should we need inspiration to guide us, we need look no further than to that astonishingly courageous leader, aung san suu kyi. the junta's latest actions are once again a desperate attempt by a decaying regime to stall freedom's inevitable progress in burma and across asia. they will fail, as surely as aung san suu kyi's campaign for a free burma will one day succeed. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to include in the record

a article from bbc news, "inside burma's insein prison." and the other, myanmar stage management by u.n. chief, be included in the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: the story from the burmese prison, human rights campaigners say incarceration at the top security prison known as the darkest hell hole in burma could be tantamount to a death sentence especially as the 63-year-old's health -- referring to aung san suu kyi -- health is known to be fragile. bol key join for political prisoners. burma has firsthand experience of life in insein jail. he was jailed for years for political dissent, kept in

solitary confinement for more than a year in a concrete cell that was about 8 feet by 12 feet. there is no toilet in the cell, just a bucket filled with urine and feces. he slept on a mat. he says he was tortured by prison guards, shackled in heavy chains with a heavy bar between his legs which made it difficult to work. every morning for about two weeks he was made to -- quote -- "exercise," forced to adopt awkward positions and if he failed he was brutally beaten. during this time he was not allowed to shower and was forced to sleep on bare concrete. it goes on and on. and so she's there in that prison. i hope and pray that the treatment that she is receiving is not anywhere along the lines of what this prison is well known for. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota.

ms. klobuchar: mr. president, first i wanted to commend my colleague from arizona, senator mccain, for his great leadership and for his important words about burma. no one would know better than senator mccain would about the human rights violations, of someone held in a prison like that. as he's aware on a bipartisan basis the woman senators have come together to support aung san suu kyi and her plight in burma. i recently met with the burmese community in my state, and they're concerned about their relatives there and everything that's happening in that country. we have someone in our office whose relatives are in burma. and so i thank you for your words and also, senator mccain, for your leadership on the amendment, the levin-mccain amendment to strike the $1.75 billion added to the bill that's on the floor to purchase additional f-22 aircraft that have not been requested by the pentagon. this is a very difficult issue for many people in this chamber,

including the senator from arizona. but we all know in the end what counts here is to do the right thing for our troops and for our nation security. and this amendment truly gives us an important choice where we continue to pour billions into unproven weapons systems despite repeated cost overrun and program delays. are we going to make the hard choices necessary to ensure that our troops in the field have what they need to fight present and future conflicts? not one of these f22's, as they do, we know possess unique flying capabilities. but not one has ever flown over iraq or afghanistan *fplt we have much more pressing needs, both the past president and current president support this amendment, and i hope that my colleagues will support it as well. today, mr. president, i'm actually here to speak in support of the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act. i'm a cosponsor of this

legislation which will help us fight hate crimes and make our communities safer. among other things the bill would impose criminal penalties for targeting a victim on the basis of race, sexual orientation or disability. i want to thank senator leahy for his work on this bill and of course stphorb kennedy for his work and leadership on the issues over the year. i have been involved with this piece of legislation for many years. you go way back to 2000 when i was the county prosecutor for minnesota's largest county. i was called to washington for the first time to take part in a ceremony in which the bill was introduced. i remember this moment well, mr. president, because there i was with the president at that time, president clinton, and attorney general reno, and we were ready to walk in to, for the ceremony to introduce the hate crimes bill. and i was standing outside and the military band struck up "hail to the chief" because the president was entering the room. and i started to walk, and all

of a sudden i felt this big hand on my shoulder and this voice said i know you're going to do great out there, but when they play that song, i usually go first. it's something i'll never forget. here i am now, mr. president, nine years later with this same bill. we are working very hard to get this bill passed, and i'm hoping that we will be able to do that. what i remember most about that day back in 2000, however, was the meeting i had with the investigators in the matthew shepard case. they were two burley cops from wyoming, and they talked about the fact that until they had investigated that horrible crime, they hadn't considered what the victim -- matthew shepard's -- life was like about that. when they got to know the family in the case, when they got to know the mom and they got to know the people surrounding matthew shepard, their own lives changed forever. i hope by passing this bill we

can prevent other matthew shepards from being targeted. attorney general holder appeared before the senate judiciary committee to talk about his support for this bill and gave somber statistics. he reported there have been over 77,000 hate crime eus dents reported to the f.b.i. from 1998 to 2007, or nearly one hate crime every hour, every day for the past decade. in my state of minnesota, there were 157 reported offenses in 2007. but when i think about this issue, it's not just about the statistics. it's about the victims of these crimes. when we had -- when i was prosecutor, we had a number of cases that were clearly motivated by hate, and that was one of the reasons actually that i was chosen to go out to washington. and part of it is we had worked well with the federal prosecutors on some of the

cases. we had a case of a 14-year-old african-american boy minding his own business, and a guy who did have some mental health issues told his friends, "i'm going to go out" and he used a different word, "and shoot a black kid on martin luther king day, and he did and almost killed this 14-year-old boy. he survived and we prosecuted the case. i think about a young hispanic man. he was working in a factory and his boss got mad at his because he didn't speak english and he was speaking spanish in world. his boss took a two-by-four and hit him over the head resulting in brain damage. i think of a case with the hindu temple that was severely vandalized by young kids. i think about the case of a korean church that had all kinds of hateful graffiti, some of these cases were major attempted murder cases, some were simply graffiti cases. but to the people in that

church, to the people in that temple it meant something more. that's why i was glad, at least in a few of these cases, we were able to use our state hate crimes legislation. those are cases were minnesota, a place where you might not think you'd she these kinds of cases, but we did. this bill in front of us, the matthew shepard hate crimes bill will strengthen the ability of state and local governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. it increases the number of personnel at the treasury department and 2k*e79 justice working -- and the department of justice working on hate crimes. and it authorizes the attorney general to provide resources and support to state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials for hate crime investigations and prosecutions. in addition, this bill authorizes the federal government to step in when needed and prosecute hate crimes when needed. after the justice department certifies that a federal prosecution is necessary.

while most of these cases will continue to be handled by state and local jurisdiction, the bill provides a federal back stop for state and local law enforcement to deal with hate crimes that otherwise might not be effectively investigated and prosecuted for or when states request assistance. it's a backdrop. you think of how many other areas of law we have the backdrops. in the gun area, as you know, the presiding officer is aware from his work in the state of new mexico, that sometimes you have overlapping jurisdictions, jun crime area is a -- gun crime area is a perfect one. state laws sometimes apply, sometimes the fed comes in to handle the case. the same with drug crimes. it helps to have the federal backdrop for the investigative power, sentencing power, and for many other things. this bill will not usurp the role of the local law enforcement, but supplement. it this legislation has the

support of numerous law enforcement organizations including the international association of chiefs of police, the major city chiefs and the national district attorney's association. for years we've recognized the need for this legislation. you just think about 2000 when i was standing there outside the east room with president clinton when it was first introduced. for years we've known that we needed this legislation. year after year the forces of reaction have stalled and blocked and tried to do everything they can to make it go away. robert kennedy broke the news to a crowd in indianapolis that martin luthemartin luther king,t been assassinated. during his speech kennedy called on the crowd and country to make an effort to understand and to comprehend and to replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed with an effort to understand with compassion an love. -- and love. we should answer his call today.

i look forward to the day, and i hope it will be very soon, when the hate crimes prevention act becomes law. it is long overdue. i urge my colleagues to support it. thank you very much, mr. president, and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum.

quorum call:

quorum call:

d is auto

quorum call:

:

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill curran be granted floor privileges during debate on the defense authorization 2010 bill. pros woeup. mr. dorgan: we are on the defense authorization bill, apparent stranded unable to vote on a an offered dealing with the f-22. the f-22 is a remarkable airplane. i've seen it at edwards air force base. it is an extraordinary airplane. it costs a lot of money. the chairman of the joint chiefs

staff, the defense secretary, the head of the air force has indicated they want to cap the f-22 at that number. i believe it's 189. and don't wish to build more. they say that's all we need. that's all we want. there is a $1.75 billion fund that was put in this bill now as an amendment in the armed services committee to build more f-22's. and so the amendment by the chairman of the committee and by senator mccain, the ranking member, was to take the $1.75 billion out of the bill. i support the amendment not because i don't like the airplane -- i do. but if those who are in charge of the pentagon -- secretary gates, admiral mullen, the head of the air force, secretary donnelly, general schwartz and others -- say we don't want any more f-22's, don't need any more f-22's to do the mission

necessary for that airplane and instead we want to move towards the joint strike fighter, if that's their judgment, in my judgment, we ought not put another $1.75 billion back into this bill, and yet that's what happened in the subcommittee. i want to just call attention to the fiscal policy and where we are in this country. this president, the new president, he's been in office a relatively short period of time, inherited an unbelievable mess, no question about that. we are in a very deep recession, the deepest recession since the great depression. this year, in addition to a substantial decrease in revenues as a result of this very steep recession and as a result of increased spending because of the recession, that means the social services numbers go up, more unemployment, more food stamps and so on, i believe close to a 20% reduction in revenue for the government, close to a 20% increase in

spending, and on top of that the passage of a stimulus or economic recovery program, all of that has driven this deficit down here in this fiscal year. a very sizable deficit. and that deficit will be very sizable next year and the year after. it begins to go down and then goes back up in the out years. this is a fiscal policy that is not sustainable for our country. it just is not. and it's not a democrat or republican policy that's not sustainable. it is a fiscal policy of trillions and trillions of dollars of red ink that we must change. and if we can't even deal with the issue of adding $1.75 billion to build more planes that the defense department says they don't want, we will hardly be able to deal with the more difficult, difficulties and the more difficult problems in the future. so i support the amendment that has been offered by the chairman and the ranking member, and i hope we get a chance to vote on that amendment. you know, the issue of spending

money we don't have often on things we don't need is not new in any committee in this congress. there are plenty of areas where we can take a pretty big slice out of spending. and you can do it not with just big programs, you can do it with smaller programs. i brought to the floor a couple of charts that show an issue that, in my judgment, is just flat-out, total, complete, thorough government waste. and i've tried now about five years in a row to get rid of it and have been unsuccessful. i finally got an amendment this past week added to an appropriations bill that shuts down the funding, but now we'll see, there will be a big fight on the floor to restore the funding. let me tell what you this is. again, we're not talking about a lot of money, but in my hometown this would be a lot of money. my hometown is 300 people. you know, $20 million, $30 million, that's a lot of money. this is a picture of fat albert

which is an aerostat balloon. this is fat albert, and fat albert was purchased by the government. in fact, we purchased a couple much them so we can put it way on the air in a tether, thousands of feet in the air and it would broadcast television signals into cuba because the castro brothers run an operation that doesn't provide any freedom to the people of cuba. we're sending them television signals to tell them how wonderful things are in the united states and how awful things are in cuba. actually the people don't need those television signals to know that because they can simply listen to miami radio or they can listen to what is called radio marty which tao*ully gets into the market in cuba, we broadcast radio martit. costs a fair a. money. i don't object to that. we get radio signals to cuba and tell them about the problems they face in their country. i've been to cuba.

i think the people there know the problems they face with the castro regime, a regime that squeezes the freedom out of the cuban people. here's the deal. we have aerostat balloons, first of all, to put television signals into cuba. the problem is we've spent $225 million doing it and the cubans can't get the tv signal. why? because the castro system jams it easily. they jam it just like that. we used to broadcast from 3:00 in the morning to 7:00 in the morning a signal no one can see. we used aerostat balloons on a big tether, broadcast television signals to people who couldn't see it. we kent spending money thinking it was a great -- we kept spending money thinking it was a great thing to do. one of these aerostat balloons got loose and wound up somewhere in the everglades. they had a devil of a time trying to catch this fat balloon. another balloon disappeared in a hurricane and they've never seen it. so they decided you know what?

we can clip the american taxpayer for more money than a balloon. what we'll do is we'll buy an airplane and we'll broadcast the television signal the cuban people can't see from an airplane. so the american taxpayers bought an airplane. and it flies at -- five or six days a week, broadcasting television signals into cuba that the cubans blocked that no one can see. well, you talk about ignorant at a time when we are deep in debt spending money we don't have to broadcast television signals to people who can't get it, that is unbelievable to me. well, here's what the cuban people see. now all of us have seen bad television, right, with snow covering the entire screen. here's what's broadcast in its program with chark the castro

brothers. let me just describe what john nichols, who is a professional -- professor of communications and international affairs at penn state university has said. he said that tv marti's response to this succession of failures over a two-decade period has been to resort to ever more expensive technological gimmicks. and none of these gimmicks have worked. it is the law of physics. tv marti is a highly wasteful and fiengtive operation. even -- ineffective operation. even as i speak, our airplane is broadcasting to cuban people that can't receive it. now, the -- tv marti's quest to overcome the laws of physics,

john nichols says, aero marti has no platform. the audience of tv marti, particularly on the aero marti platform is probably zero. we have a g.a.o. report, government accountability office said -- the best available research indicate that tv marti's audience size is small. telephone surveys have reported that less than 1% of respondents had watch watched -- watched tv marti over the last week. i don't know what 1% is. i have offer an amendment to support tv marti, which is a program that has now wasted about $250 million sending television signals to cuba that no one in cuba can see.

you know what? it's very hard to get this kind of thing stopped. the reason i wanted to mention it today is we're on the floor talking about $1.5 billion for the f-22. we're all going to -- i assume almost everyone here is supporting the -- the next generation jet fighter that we're building, joint strike fighter we're building, but the pentagon says they want to stop and not order anymore of the f-22's. it's a reasonable thing to me that being deep in debt, choking on red ink that at least we might want to accept the recommendation of not building that which they don't want. and at least with respect to aero stat balloons and airplanes and television signals to cuba that no one else can see, the least that the taxpayers should expect is to stop spending money sending television signals to no

one. maybe that's not too much to ask. well, mr. president, let me ask consent to speak in morning business for five minutes on a different subject. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dorgan: mr. president, today the democratic leaders in congress have selected the membership of the financial crisis inquiry commission. that's the title. the financial crisis inquiry commission. i have been calling for both a commission and also a select committee of the congress because i think that we have a requirement and responsibility to establish what is the narrative that is -- has caused this economic and financial crisis in this country? we are in a deep financial crisis and have been for some long while. this didn't happen as a result of some giant hurricane or some tornado or some flood -- some natural disaster vis illing our country -- visiting our country. this is a result of decisions made by human beings here among us. the question is who and what

decisions? how did this happen? what is the narrative that has caused the most significant crisis since the great depression? very smart economists have said, you know what, over a long period of time from the great depression forward we created economic stablizers, stablizers sufficient so that we would not see steep recessions or depression in our future or even things out, they would say that was probably true for a while. but this recession is deep. this hole is steep. the question is: what caused it? what happened? so i support the creation of a commission today. i offered a piece of legislation in january of this year called the taxpayer protection act, which called for the creation of a commission to investigate this financial crisis. my colleague, senator conrad and senator isakson, similarly offered a similar piece of legislation during debate this year. i support the notion of going

forward, the -- the appointments today to this commission are welcomed. i hope the commission does all that is necessary to uncover what has happened here. i believe we need a select committee in the united states senate. "the new york times" said in an editorial, nothing can substitute for the work senate must do itself. i say that because we now have in recent days additional news items in the paper that you read here. let me just pick one and i don't mean to pick this company out just to be punitive, but it's just a good example in recent days. wells fargo. now, wells fargo is an fdic insured bank. wells fargo to expand securities business. wells fargo will announce an expansion in its security business. it plans to grow and invest in securities that it largely inherited from wachovia. the business is to be called wells fargo securities. what is wachovia?

wachovia is a bank that was failing because wachovia had all kinds of problems. wachovia was a bank that had purchased gold enwest financial, which -- golden west financial, which had $120 billion, we're told in toxic option adjustable rate mortgages. by the may, related to this, i saw in the newspapers the other day, that pick your payment mortgage plans have actually now had a higher default rate than the subprime mortgage loans. think of that. and so you look at that and you think, what was a pick your payment plan? those were plans put out by these mortgage companies that -- with sophisticated, exotic plans saying to people, you know what? pick your own payment. tell us what you'll pay and we'll write a mortgage around it. so we had all of these strange plans out there, exotic plans. some of which were creating an unbelievable bubble of speculation. we had bank holding companies

buying them and we had banks -- fdic insured banks actually trading them an pretty soon you had toxic assets lying in the belly or gut of these financial institution, and they will go belly-up unless somebody buys them. bank of america buys wachovia and bank of america announces that, well, our investment banking and investment market business, we're going to operate under a new name, wells fargo securities. my question is this -- with the biggest banks in the country operating in many cases withholding companies, engaged in real estate and securities issues, having demonstrated now that these holding companies don't have fire walls that are much thicker or much more beneficial than tissue paper, are we still going to continue to see all of this? are we still going to see fdic-insured institutions for which the taxpayer is

responsible ultimately for failure talking about we're going to get involved in more risk trading, more securities? wachovia -- well, wachovia bank -- i've spoken of them before. and again i don't mean anything -- well, i guess i do. when i tbhi it wachovia bank is one of those banks that was buying sewer systems in germany. why? because an american bank wants to own a sewer system in a german city? no, because they wanted to avoid paying u.s. taxes. so they did sale lease-backs with german sewer systems. and of course that's part of a culture issue with companies, it seems to me, when you do that sort of thing. but now we have bank of america that bought wachovia it aannouncing that the best part of what they bought was wachovia's security's businesses. wachovia was not going to make it. that's why bank of america -- or wells fargo purchased them. apologies to bank of america, because we're talking about

wells fargo here. in any event, a couple of the questions that we ought to be asking these days about the administration's announced plan for new financial reform -- which i welcome, by the way. this president inherited this, so he's talking about financial reform, and i welcome that discussion. but there are two things it seems to me we ought to debate: we art to have a healthy and -- we ought to have a healthy and rebust discussion about. do we agree that the agency, the federalent i did that shall be the -- the federal entity that shall be the systemic risk taking shall be the federal reserve board? not me. the federal reserve intoord what helped cause this problem. they acted blind for over dakd. the federal reserve board by itself is almost totally unaccountable to anyone and operateds in very substantial secrecy. why would we decide an agency that has failed or an institution that has failed us for the last decade or so in

managmanaging and supervising te financial industry in this country, that watched what happened with the mortgage companies with unbelievably speculative instruments, watched the advertisements on television saying if you've been bankrupt, slow pay, no pay, got bad credit, come to us, we'll give you a loan -- the federal reserve watched that and did nothing. now they're going to be the ones that save us with respect to the systemic risk in our economy? i don't think so. that's number one. the federal reserve board is going to be the entity to deal with systemic risk? boy, there's no evidence at least in recent years to suggest that makes much sense. and, number two, no discussion yet -- and must be -- on this issue of "too big to fail." does it matter that we have allowed the creation of entities in the financial sector that are too big to fail?

in my judgment, it does. if they're too big to fail, then the american taxpayer bails them out. if you don't pass a bailout bill in three days, a three-page bill giving me $700 billion, this economy is going to fall off a cliff. well, i didn't believe it. and i didn't vote for the bailout. the fact is, all of this was because some of the largest financial institutions in the country, he said, were in deep, deep trouble. now, why were they in trouble? because they loaded up with substantial risk. congress in the last decade has passed laws that allowed them to do that said that's modernization. but when you create institutions that are too big to fail and then they load up with subsbstantial risk and especialy those that are fdic-insured, withholding companies now engaged in securities -- and that's exactly what wells fargo is anowntsing -- we bought

wachovia and now we'll take the securities on with wachovia and decide to juice it up -- should we continue with the doctrine of "too big to fail?" i don't think so. i don't believe so. and yet in the intervening months, the last six and eight months, the very institutions that were judged too big to fail and were required to get bailouts from the american taxpayer are still engaged in merging with other institutions, making them bigger. and even less able to fail. so is there a doctrine here somewhere? is there someone willing to intervene, to say, "too big to fail" has to change? must we perhaps at least have a discussion about breaking up some institutions that are too big to fail? what about very large, strong regional interests that are not too big to fail? i'm just asking the question, because nobody in talking about financial reform that i'm aware of these days is willing to

address the question of "too big to fail." and you can't address this question of financial reform without including it. so, mr. president, all of us want the same thing for this country. we want this country to recover. we want our economy to expand and grow and create jobs and be healthy again. the fact is, i've talked about this many times, i taught economics briefly in college, and the fact is, all of the charts and graphs and indices are irrelevant as compared to the confidence of the american people. when the american people are confident about the future of this country and about their future, about their job, about their family, then they do things that manifest that confidence. they buy some clothes, buy a car, take a trip, buy a house. they do the things that expand the economy. because they're confident about the future. and when they are not, they do exactly the opposite, and that contracts the economy. the question is how do we give

the american people confidence going forward that things are going to be better? month after month, because unemployment has a long tail past even recovery, we see hundreds of thousands of people having lost their jobs. month after month after month. obviously, those folks don't have a lot of confidence. they feel helpless and hopeless. how do we give people confidence that we're going to fix things that are wrong so that this won't happen again? and that's where this issue of financial reform comes in. part of that confidence, it seems to me, can come from this institution, from the united states congress. and the president. part of it can come from the people watching this institution, take a look at this amendment, an amendment that say, let's not spend $1.75 billion that we don't have on something the pentagon says they don't want. confidence could come from affirmative action on that. part of that confidence could come from 100 or 1,000 of these

examples, a little program called tv marti broadcasting television signals to people who can't see it, a spending a quarter of a billion dollars. part of that confidence could come from the american people taking a look at our deciding to shut these kinds of things down. and trim back government that's become bloated. so we can do some of this to create confidence. but another part of it, it seems to me, has to come from the administration's judgment about what is real reform in financial reform? and that must include, in my judgment, the issue of "too big to fail." it must include effective regulatory oversight so that we don't have the kind of activities going on that we saw for the last eight and ten years. financial institutions engaged in unbelievable practices, with no one minding the store, and no one watching who were the referees of the system wearing striped shirts and whistles

blowing the whistles this they saw a foul in the market system. we can't continue that. we need effective regulation, effective reform. and when they get that the men people will feel, you know what, they've fixed that which caused this serious problem, and we feel better about the future of this country. we've got a lot to do, a lot to do in a short time. some big issues of health care and energy and climate change and others -- i'm going to visit about the issue of climate change tomorrow. but we've got very big issues that have great consequence for this country. but at the moment we stand in a deep hole, a very dig recession, and the american people are concerned about the future and want some assurance that all of us -- all of us are doing the things necessary to put the country back on track. one step today is the amendment that was offered by the chairman and the ranking member of this committee. it's $1.5 billion. that's a lot -- it's $1.75

billion. that's a lot of money. but step after step after step in the right direction can get people confident about the direction of this country. mr. president, i yield the floor and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. isakson: and i be allowed to address the senate for up to ten minutes in morning. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. isakson: almost seven months ago senator conrad and i began an adventure attempting to convince this body and the body across the hall to create a financial markets commission to study and do a forensic audit of what happened to our financial markets in 2007, 2008, and 2009. all of us recognize we've been through a catastrophic financial collapse with many components contributing to the gravity we have gone through. and it's not over yet.

i come to the floor today first of all to commend leader reid and leader mcconnell, leader boehner in the house, speaker pelosi and others who had the authority under the legislation for announcing their appointments today of their commissioners. i want to particularly commend the majority on the appointment of miss born to the commission. it was her outspoken words prior to the collapse that should have warned us better or we should have paid more attention to of the overleveraging of the economy and the underwriting of risk. but nonetheless the collapse happened, the recession is here and unemployment in my state today topped 10% and we predict it will top 10% for the entire country within the days ahead. it is critically important we find out what went wrong, what the contributing factors were, and recommend back to the congress of the united states those actions we need to take to ensure this never happens again. for my children and my gch if i

have one last legacy to lebanese, it's to say when it was on my watch in the senate we found out what the problem was, we corrected our past errors and we gave more security to their investments and future in the days to come. >> now, mr. president, i have my opinions as to what went wrong. but i know i'm not smart enough to have all the answers. i know others think they know what has gone wrong and we already have from the white house as well as from the floor of this senate some who are making recommendations over creating czars or authorities or things to address the financial collapse. it would be a mistake beyond words for us to do that now in the absence of all the facts. this commission has the authority, the money, and the power to get to the bottom of the problem. we gave them a $5 million budget, an 18 month type tame and subpoena powers as evidenced

by those named today just from the appointments of the leadership in the house and the senate, we have some of the best financial minds in the country -- not elected officials, not members of government, some former servants -- some of the best minds in the business to begin the process of studying the collapse that began in 2007, continued through 2008 and in a protracted way continues today. it is important that we get all the facts. as i've said many times when i've talked about this subject, there's lenity of blame to go around. members of the house in 1999, like myself, who voted overwhelmingly for the repeal of glass-steagall, that very well could be one of the things the commission finds was are we had too much of a deregulation in financial services. we ought to know that and we ought to know what contribution it may have had. i is grave suspicions over the role in which moody and standards and the rating agencies played. as i is looked i wonder why should the age that rates the

security be paid by the creator of the security? it ought to be paid by the person buying the security if they're looking for assurety. why weren't credit default swaps regulated? why did they fall outside the purview of the government? and what about rule 114 that is hurting so bad in community banking because of the devastation of market to market on real estate. congratulations on the change of rule 157 which lessened the pressure on mortgage-backed securities and the value which helped the bigger institutions but a lot of things could have gone wrong and some did and we need all of them on the table, we need to have the best minds in the business looking at them and we need a bipartisan, unfettered comprehensive recommendation on what we need to do to ensure to the best of our ability that it never, ever, happens again. i urge the president, and i urge our leadership to be cautious in moving ahead regulatorily

without first getting the facts together. we're in an environment where everybody knows what the rules are as they exist and in the few months ahead long before this commission reports a lot of difficults are going to be made that will be dependent on the environment the investment community knows they are operating in today. we have some bumps ahead of us. the commercial mortgage-backed securities are the next shoe to drop in this economic compromise we have been through. and although those mortgage-backed securities are not in trouble as much because of their underwriting as they are the effects of the poor underwriting of the residential mortgage-backed securities that caused the collapse of the markets and the value of those securities. that comes ahead of us. we have another wave of adjustments in terms of residential mortgages. that's not over. and we have the pending very bad problem of the number of mortgages in this country in foreclosure are now more

performing good loans than subprime originated loans. meaning the unemployment rate and the proceed tracted decline in the economy is contributing to people who were paying and were performing falling behind on payments in their house and now because values have declined recognizing they're better off to lebanese than to try and sell the house because they can't get anything out of it. we must put an end to this decline. and we can best do it by having all the facts ins at our dispose -- facts necessary at our disposal to know what we need to do as quickly as possible to prohibit it from ever happening again. i spent 33 years of my life in the private sector. all of it in the real estate business. i know lots of people in that business around the country and i know how much the families represent, the customers they've had and the families themselves have suffered in the months past and the pending suffering yet to come. this is the most important thing this senate and this congress can do, do a forensic audit and

diagnosis and let the chips fall where they may and make the corrections necessary so it never happens again. so i am happy to come to the floor today and commend our leadership for their expeditious appointment of highly qualified and tall ended people. i hope all of us in this body will pay close attention to what they say and what they do. and not rush to judgment thinking we know the answer. when all of us really know this commission is essential in finding out what really did happen and what we really do need to do. mr. president, i yield back and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. a senator: i rise today as a member of the armed services committee here in the united states senate to support this bipartisan bill in front of us that's critically important to our national security. i want to applaud chairman levin and ranking member mccain for their leadership in guiding this bill to the floor today. tkau they've done -- mr. udall: they've done a tremendous job. i want to acknowledge the expert staff they have been ably supported by that serve on the committee that you and i are honored to be a part of. i'm particularly grateful to them for providing provisions important to colorado, including $560 million in authorized military construction dollars, and i'd like to highlight in particular the military construction dollars for fort carson which is in the wonderful city of colorado springs in the county of el paso. millions of dollars have been allocateed to fort carson for military construction projects to prepare to expand the post so

it can house a 47th brigade combat team and millions more in the pipeline for the fiscal year 2010. the future of that funding was put in doubt when secretary gates announced the army would not put a new brigade combat team at fort carson. mr. president, i remain disappointed that that brigade will not be coming to fort carson, at least in the near future, but i understand secretary gates' concern that we need to fill out the brigades we have, expand the amount of time service members have between deployments and meet readiness requirements before we complete new brigades. still, i want to ensure that fort carson and the colorado springs community are not punished because of the army's decision. many of the soldiers at fort carson live and work in substandard buildings. they still need new baracks and mess halls, vehicle maintenance

shops and other infrastructure even if that new combat brigade team won't be located there. a number of facilities, mr. president, were scheduled to be replaced in future years anyway, so with the dollars we've kept in the bill, the 43rd combat brigade team will get it a few years early. i'm pleased the committee worked with me to preserve the most important construction dollars at fort carson. this ensures the soldiers at fort carson have the quality of life that they deserve. the bill also includes language that i offered in the committee with senator lieberman that studies the benefits and the risks of reducing the planned number of b.c.t.'s from 48 to 45. the relationship between the number of brigades and dwell time and demands on specific military occupation specialties, so-called m.o.s.'s, is complicated. i want to make the russian of about -- the reduction of

b.c.t.'s doesn't prevent unforeseen problems or down sides. staying on the topic what have's important -- on what's important in the bill to colorado, there's $246 million in funding to keep the chemical depot on track. this will allow the destruction of weapons there and cleanup of the depot to be completed by by 2017. the bill funds disposal on site of these hazardous wastes left after the chemical treatment of the mustard agent. i worked with the people of pueblo to fight a proposal to shift this waste off-site, mr. president, so i'm glad the bill underscores the d.o.d.'s proposal. it is the safest thing to do. finally, in regards to colorado, the committee approved an amendment i offered regarding

reimbursement to health care providers like the pikes peek bailiff center in colorado springs -- pikes people behavioral center in colorado springs. these centers want to help families but tricare can't keep up with the high costs of medical care and sometimes providers aren't reimbursed at all for their necessary services. in particular, tricare providers aren't reimbursed for providing case management services for soldiers with ptsd and traumatic brain injury, known as t.b.i. if you help these soldiers stay in treatment, if you make sure they get to their medical appointments and generally coordinate their care, you end up reducing costs and you help those soldiers and their families that are facing these challenges with mental health function in their communities. so this amendment, mr. president, directs the defense secretary to assess the efficacy and the cost of case

management services for those with serious mental health problems. my hope is that the study will show the benefits of case management and then help further the d.o.d. consider covering this important service under tricare. now, mr. president, if i might, let me turn to the broader legislation because it includes many provisions that don't directly relate to colorado. the bill supports our service members and keeps americans safe. it authorizes $679 billion for defense programs with $129 billion going to our ongoing operations in afghanistan and pakistan. first and foremost, the bill focuses on our military's readiness needs. we need to do all we can to help make sure that our men and women in uniform who voluntarily put their lives on the line for us and who have been stretched to the limit by repeated deployments have the training,

the equipment, and the facilities necessary. to help our men and women in uniform support themselves and their families, the bill provides a 3.4% across-the-board pay raise as well as an extension of stop-loss pay for two more years, mr. president. that's an important number. importantly, this bill gives afghanistan the attention it deserves. i had the great privilege of traveling to that part of the world recently, and i think there is a window of opportunity to try and arrest deteriorating security conditions in both countries and work with the civilian governments in afghanistan and pakistan to achieve stability and security in this all-important region. now, this isn't about staying the course. this is about finally committing resources and attention to an area that's a critical front in the war against islamic extremism and correcting the mistakes and missteps of recent

years. that's what the bill would do, mr. president, refocus our attention on this important region. it would protect our troops in harm's way by providing funds for mrap all-terrain vehicles to be deployed in afghanistan and additional blackhawk helicopters to give mobility to our troops. our bill also supports the training and equipment of the afghan security forces as well as efforts to help the pakistani government understand and implement a counterinsurgency strategy on the part of their military forces. moreover, our bill cares for our wounded warriors. it expands tricare benefits for certain military retirees. it requires mental health assessments of service members prior to deployment. and it calls for an increase in the number of military and civilian behavioral health personnel. we also include a comprehensive review of the department of

defense's activities for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of substance abuse disorders among service members. this is particularly important in light, mr. president, today, with a report that's been released, the epicon study that directly focuses on fort carson. this is a study that's initiated last year to examine the records of soldiers at fort carson who have been involved in violent crimes since returning from iraq and afghanistan. the army surgeon general, lieutenant general skew maker put together a team of experts to identify commonalities among the violent crimes. i had a chance to sit down with with the general yesterday and he said the scheme alone does not affect the crime. the combination of factors

converge to increase the risk that these soldiers would be engaged in violent crime. one concern that general schoomaker expressed was that the stigma and lack of referral to the army substance referral program for required substance abuse screening may have increased the overall risk of violent behavior. the general talked about the need to reduce barriers to treatment for alcohol and drug abuse, which is an army-wide concern. he mentioned pilot projects ongoing at a number of posts where soldiers who self-identify a substance abuse problem can get treatment without the knowledge of their commanders, helping them seek treatment without fear of appearing weak in the eyes of their superiors. i'll be urging the army to establish a similar pilot program at fort carson. mr. president, let me turn to the bill and what's notable for what it does not include.

there are policies that are difficult to change because they're antiquated and no longer reflect the reality of our society. the failed policy "don't ask, don't tell," is a good example of this. but the fact that it will be difficult to repeal doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. since the implementation of this program in 1993, the armed forces have discharged over 12,000 brave and qualified combat troops, code breakers, medical intelligence specialists and skilled translators simply for being gay. this includes over 300 service personnel who have been discharged since president obama took office. mr. president, this is 2009. i believe this discriminatory policy undermines the strength of our military and the fairness of our great nation. we're engaged in two wars.

it's counterproductive to discharge service members who have critical skills to winning these wars, even as the military has to spend scarce dollars to replace them. my opinion -- in my opinion, we need to bring the injustice to this policy to the forefront now. and i plan to work with my colleagues and with the administration to see that we accomplish in a timely manner the full repeal of don't ask, don't tell. there are things that this bill doesn't include that it shouldn't include, mr. president, such as spending on underperforming, unnecessary and outdated weapons systems. it took courage for secretary gates to make the recommendations he did since it's never easy to stop spending programs in our defense budget. but we need to stop funding programs that significantly exceed their budget and we need to stop spending limited dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs.

there are also provisions in this bill that shouldn't be included such as additional spending on the f-22. i voted in committee against an amendment to add $1.75 billion to the bill to purchase f-22 thairkt the military does -- the aircraft that the military does not want, does not need and says that we cannot afford. f-22 is a valuable and capable aircraft. but the question is whether we need more than 187 f-22's to meet the nation's requirements. and there is bipartisan agreement that we do not. presidents obama and bush, two sects of defense, three chairmen of the joint chiefs and co-chairman of the joint chiefs agree that 17 aircraft are -- 17 aircrafts are sufficient. mr. president, this is a good bill. it is a bill to sustain our current war fighting ability.

it's critical that we're able to meet the operational needs of our military today even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be the best trained and equipped force in the world. this is a good bill for our nation and for my home state of colorado it's a carefully drafted and considered bipartisan bill, and i urge its passage. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: first, let me thank the senator from colorado, not just for his statement and his support for this amendment, but for his work on our committee. it's -- he's made a major contribution already. we look forward to his continuing work with us as he -- as he knows and has so well expressed, this is a bipartisan effort on the part of the committee. it's important that we continue

that way and his instincts have shown already very dramatically that that is what -- where he he is as well. we thank him very much not just again for the support of an theald we plan on getting -- an amendment that we plan on getting back to as soon as we dispose of the hate crimes bill, but also for his work on -- great work on our committee. i yield. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i want to pose for a moment. i know we're on a bill. i'm most anxious to proceed with the defense authorization bill having served on the committee since 1994 and before then in the house. and it's imperative now that we get this ro bust a bill as possible. but before doing, that let me mention one thing. because i haven't done anything

yet about this. i have been watching several of our colleagues who have come to the floor and talked bra great -- a great -- a great -- a great senator, norm coleman, who is no longer in the senate, but one is -- that is just a remarkable character of the a good friend of mine, paul wireck, who recently died, wrote an op-ed piece called "the workhorses and the show horses." he talked about so many members of the house and senate that are out there just to make themselves look good. they're the ones, mr. president who are show horses, and then there are the workhorses. and we talk about someone like norm coleman who is always there and getting deeply involved in issues, many of which are not really popular issues, if you're using them to run for reelection. i'm thinking of a close friend -- a mutual friend of ours named ward brim. ward brim and i have been

working together for a long time on some things in africa, as the chair is fully aware. and he was talking about being from minnesota, how much involved norm coleman got in various international affairs issues that really don't have any votes behind him, but he was willing to do it. every time he turned around, he was willing to do that. do things other people wouldn't do. i remember several years ago when he and i met with -- with a group of people from the -- a delegation from rwanda and the d.r.c. and this was a group in conjunction with the national prayer breakfast that are over here and he and i always worked together during the years -- during the time that we had the national prayer breakfast. we get people that come all the way over here from different countries, but we kind of concentrated on africa. i remember him standing there and talking about it for a long period of time.

keep in mind he is a jew. he was -- i was never real clear where in new york he was from. i think the bronx or someplace. but, anyway, he he was -- he was very strong in the jewish community. i am not. i'm on the christian side. we would always get together and talk to them about jesus and talk to them about loving god. when he would pray at the end of these things, we would offer a prayer and he would give a prayer in hebrew. he is just an amazing guy at the american prayer breakfast two years ago, i sponsored the dinner and that's for all of the africans who come over for the prayer breakfast come over and stay for dinner. these are things that people didn't know about norm coleman. the idea, and this is 242, it is kind the genesis of these weekly

prayer breakfast in the senate on wednesday morning, we have a prayer breakfast, about 20, 25 senators show up every wednesday and norm coleman was the chairman of that and always in these groups. but he was also one who was helping us in -- in helping to form these same groups in -- with members of parliament from all over africa. he was a tireless worker in that effort, things that really didn't -- were not things that would -- out there to get any votes. and i talked to him the other day having gone through this election in eight months or so, whatever it was, recounting and all of that. i told him that many years ago i was mayor of tulsa. i did a pretty good job, i thought. and i was supposed to win this thing hands down and someone came out of obscurity and because of a set of circumstances that should have gotten votes, not lost votes, i had lost unexpectedly on that

tuesday. well, we had scheduled our tulsa prayer breakfast the next morning. bill bright, everyone knows he who is, he died not too long ago. he is a speaker at the mayor's prayer breakfast the morning after i lost the election. i remember how he said the prayer and the words he used. and he said a lot of times we think in terms of what's happening to us today looking at our own careers. but he said god's still up there and that's plan for -- for all of us. and he said very -- in a clear way that i thoroughly understood, the day after i lost the election, i wasn't supposed to lose, that god opens a window when he closes a door and that window is going to be bigger. and i can tell you right now i wouldn't be doing what i'm doing today if it had not been for that. i would say about my friend norm coleman, god's got a plan in

mind for you, norm. and it's one that we'll look back one day and say, perhaps this is the best thing that could have happened to you. in the mean time, we love you, norm. god bless you. i want to also talk in terms of -- of a program that i think a lot of people don't understand. and i know there's honest disagreement on the f-22. the f-22 is a -- is a -- people have said it's like a cold-war aircraft. it is not. to quote general -- secretary donnelly and general schwartz, because they said the time thing. they said -- the f-22 is unquestionably the most capable fighter in our military inventory. and not just air to air, as some of this floor insinuated, but a precision attack air to ground and intelligence collection. in contrast almost every other piece of military equipment in our inventory, air, land, and

sea, our cold war equipment needs to be replaced. i think about the bradley vehicle. it has been around since the 1960's. i think about the abrams tank, been around since the 1920's we've had five major upgrades on the pallet. and that is world war ii technology, where you had to get out of the thing after -- people never heard of that. we're going through an improvement on that. the point that i'm trying to make is that most of the stuff that we have is cold-war stuff. and implying the f-22 isn't needed because it wasn't flown in iraq and afghanistan, i think it is pretty narrow minded. we have a lot of equipment that we have to have to protect america against contingencies and we don't know what's out there and we don't know what our needs will be. that need wasn't there in terms of afghanistan and iraq, but we don't know where the next -- the

next enemy's going to be coming from the next contingency. i wish we did. you know, we -- i can remember being -- mr. president, being on the house armed services committee in my last year there in 1994. we had someone test fiesm they said, and these -- testify. they said, and these are smart people. they said in 10 years we'll no longer need a ground capability. and look what happens since that time. no matter how smart our people are, there's no way that we're going to be able to determine where the next guy's going to come from and what our capabilities going to have to be. is it going to have to to be in the sea, in the air, is it going to have to be can ons? so that -- ca cannons? and that being in mind, this is the only thing that we have in the form of a fifth generation fighter is the f-22 and it is uniquely designed and equipped to penetrate a hostile air environment and savage air

dominance. and the f-22, i look at it really as an investment in the future. not just 10 years down the road, but 20 years down and beyond that. what we build today is going to have to be able to determine and deter and defeat adversaries for decades. look at the age of our entire military today. we talked about all of these vehicles, but we have such things as the -- the national security in long term, 40 years, we -- enough that we can even see what we need in 10 years from now. we talk about the f-35. the f-35 is great. i'm a strong supporter of the f-35 and working on it and getting it in as fast as possible. its mission requirements are not the same as the f-22. the f-22 is out flying today and we have that capability today. only five f-35's are flying, and

it is still in the testing period. it is impossible to attest the full capabilities of the f-35 until operational tests are completed in i think 2014. that's 2014. this is 2009. there's a lot of time between now and 2014. while we discuss cutting the only fifth generation fighter in production today, china and russia are continuing to move forward with the development of their fifth generation fighters. i think they call the chinese one the -- the j-12 and the -- and the russians the t-50. well, they're out there right now talking about building these things. today our legacy, the f-15's, f-16's, f-18's are less capable than other fourth generation fighters such as the f-27 series aircraft. he i might remind the president that we have -- a -- the -- we already know that other countries are buying these

capable fourth-plus generation aircraft that are really better than what we have now except for the f-22. and we know of one sale, and i remember this, it has been quite a while ago for f-27's to china, 240 of these. now they're talking about cutting down our number of f-22's, which i'm going to talk about the number in just a minute down to the 187 in -- and stopping the amendment that would increase that by seven vehicles. and i don't want to see our legacy fighters outmatched by fifth generation fighters developed by china and russia. i have always said that our fighters are better, the training is better, but they have to have at least comparable equipment to -- to survive. so our air-to-air threat is only one aspect of the threat of the air force faced today. the surface-to-air threat remains to be a serious problem. you think about what the

russians are making now, the s-300's and the chinese 4000's. they're capable of tracking up to 100 targets and getting as high as 90,000 feet in the air. now that's frightening. these systems that make the penetrating hostile airspace difficult and deadly for a legacy aircraft to include unmanned vehicle such as our predator which has performed brilliantly in -- are uncontested facts. only the f-22 with the advanced stealth technology and its supersonic speeds can successfully penetrate what we call denied airspace. hunt and destroy strategic air targets and provide awareness and maintain our superiority in the air. the air force officials have repeatedly stated that the no less than 243 f-22's would be

sufficient to -- on a moderate -- to maintain what they call a moderate level of risk. now, that's -- we're talking about deaths of americans there, a moderate level of risk. if that's our gale, then that's what we should have. and i can remember at the beginning of the program, it wasn't 243 f-2 2's. it was 750. so we slowly have gone down and that's what this amendment is going to be about today. general john correspondently, the commander of the air for's command said, "at air combat command we have held the need for the 381 f-22's to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our combatant commanders and provide a potential globally arrayed asysteasymmetric fleet. a fleet of 177 f-22's puts

execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near- to midterm. to my knowledg there are no stut demonstrate that air combat command analysis done in connection with the headquarters of the air force shows a moderate risk force can be obtained with an f-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft." so we are taking about a bear minimum number whether it is 243 or 250, that should be a bear minimum. while the f-22 hasn't deployed to iraq or afghanistan, a theater security package of six f-22's are on a continuous rotation to guam in the pacific theater of operations and have been forward-deployed in japan. why? because it is the only fighter capable of stealthily

penetrating north korea air defenses. finally, there continues to be allegations about the cost and operation of the f-22 to include an article last week in "the washington post." the bottom line is that these allegations are false or intentionally misleading. the f-22 cost per flying hour is $19,750, not more than $44,000, as they were trying to say. so the f-22 maintenance trends have improved from 62% to 68%. the f-22's skin is not vulnerable to rain. finally, the flyaway costs of the f-22 multiyear this congress approved the $142.6 million, not $3w50 million. one final point and that is on all of these supposed studies about the f-22, we have been through this before with the approval of the multiyear and

are going through it again. i've been briefed on both classified and unclassified studies and while the range of numbers vary, each study concludes that 183 f-22's is just not enough. so we need to continue to build the f-22's. we need to look at exporting this aircraft to our allies. fortunately, some of that is taking place today. nations such as japan, australia, israel have all expressed considerable interest in the purchase of f-22's. nations around the world realize that the f-22 "a" raptor is the only operational bomber available that can successfully defeat and destroy bomb threats of today and tomorrow. so what we're talking about here, mr. president, is in the markup we increased the number by seven aircraft. and i was - the chief -- the chr

was senator saxby chambliss. i said, this really is not enough. i agreed. it was the most we could do. i believe when the time comes for an amendment to cut that number down, we need to give serious consideration to that amendment and not allow it to pass. you know, we -- there's an expectation of the american people -- and i've gone through this before with other airframes, other platforms, other ground platforms. the american people think -- they think -- that we give our kids who go out into battle the very best of everything. i can tell you that's not triewvment i give the paladin example. there are five countries, including south africa, that make a better nonline-of-sight canon than we do today. our kids are out there competing with this. to me that's unacceptable. and it is unaccept to believe the american people when you explain that that's the situation. the f-15, the f-16, the f-18, the f-14's.

they've done a great job. but we need to move on to the fourth-plus and fifth generation and the only way to do that now is with the f-22. it has been a real success story. i have another interest that i wanted to share today with the -- and that is having to do with gitmo. i know people are tired of hearing several of us, and probably more tired of hearing me, talk about gitmo than anybody else. but i think we're about to make a misstage of the administration is making the demand that we're to close gitmo. i've stood on the floor of the senate many times and talked about my experiences down there. the fact that anyone who wants to close gitmo, if you ask them why, they'll say, well, for some reason, people associate that with the types of torture that allegedly went on in abu ghraib and all that. this has nothing to do with that. and there's not been a documented case of waterboarding at git moavment it is a

state-of-the-art prison. it is one that -- when president obama was talking about in the 17 locations in america where we could take these terrorists and relocate them from gitmo to america, and one of those happened to be ft. sill in my state of oklahoma. a and so i went down to ft. six there was a lady down there in charge of it was a young major who was in chancht prison down there where they would put these terrorists. and she said, i don't understand why -- what people are thinking. this young lady -- her name was sergeant major carter. that was her name. sergeant major carter said she had two tours in gitmo and in gitmo, that's designed for terrorists. it has -- they have a court system there that is -- that we can do tribunals. we have six classifications of security in gitmo. gitmo is one of the few good deals the government has. we've had it since 19 30*. and i've told -- we've had it

since 1903. and i've told the president before, do you have a better deal than that anywhere? i have to say, the terrorists are still at war with us. the united states is legally entitled to capture and hold enemies and fighters and hostilities. we detain terrorists and they are supporters to prevent them from returning to the battle feecialtiond saving the lives of our servicemen and women on the front lines and the lives of civilians who are innocent victims of these extremists. i have spent a lost time over there. i am very familiar with some of the terrorists and they're eelly bad people. these are people who want to kill everybody who is listening right now. that's their mission in life. and we've had about 800 suspected al qaeda and taliban terrorists that have been sent to gitmo since 2001, since 9/11. terrorists dirnterrorists -- i't people who are really bad.

we saw challenge lead sheikh mohammed. he was the architect of 9/11. that's the kind of people that are down there. the guy that was the explosive trainer for 9/11, the assassination of northern alliance leader massoud and on the al qaeda organization's use of mines, benetzir, who provided the detailed information for bin laden's front companies. the leader linked to al qaeda that was connected with the 1998 east africa embassy bombings, remember that? that was in the -- in tanzania, in kenya. we also have had the al qaeda explosive trainer who designed the prototype shoe bomb for destroying airplanes as well as a magnetic mine for attacking ships. these are people, unlike the types of prisoners we've had in the world -- you look back at our wars, we have people fighting for their countries. that's not this case. these people are not fighting

for a country. they're fighting for a cause. and their cause to is to destroy us. so today we've had over 540 that have been transferred or released, leaving approximately 230 at gitmo. now, these detainees include members of al qaeda and related terrorist organizations, planners of the major terrorist attacks worldwide to include 9/11. these are the types of people that are down there. the intelligence gained from detainees at gitmo has helped the united states and helped the allies identify, and disrupt terrorist operations worldwide. we have a number of terrorist attacks that we know for a long time they were classified and most of them are no longer classified. in 2007 the senate voted 94-3 on a nonbinding resolution to block detainees from being transferred to the united states declaring -- quote -- "detainees housed at guantanamo should not b released

into american society nor should they be transferred stateside into facilities in american communities and neighborhoods." on the 20th of may have 2009, the senate voted 90-6 on a bipartisan amendment -- this amendment by myself and senator inouye -- that would prohibit the funding for the transfer of gitmo detainees. unfortunately, the supplemental appropriations conference report deleted that proirks allowing detainees to be transferred to the united states for trials. let's keep in mind, the danger there is, if you put them into our federal system -- and i can speak this way because i'm not an attorney, so i can stand back and cite the obvious. if you do that then the rules of evidence are different. you've got -- there are a lot of these guys that are picked up. sure, even now they're talking about reading the miranda right. you have the right to keep silent. think about this. but when this is going on right now -- and we have the opportunity to get these people

and extract information from them -- and then thinking about the idea of trying them in the federal court system where if they cannot get a conviction and many times they couldn't only for one reason -- that is the rules of evidence are different -- and when they're captured, they went by the rules of evidence for tribunals, military tribunals. and so we could have some of these that would -- would be turned into -- turned free and many of them in the united states. the recent polls have shown that a majority of americans closing gitmo and are opposed to moving the detainees to the united states. by a margin of 2: 1 -- that's huge in polls -- by a margin of 2: 1, those surveyed said that guantanamo should not be closed and by more than 3:1 they opposed moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in the united states. as i said, one of the prisons that the obama administration

was talking about in the 17 prisons happens to be my state of oklahoma. you know, it's -- it should be obvious to everyone that if you have 17 locations where we're housing terrorists, that becomes a magnet for terrorism, 17 magnets in the united states. recently fox news poll results were that president obama made a mistake when he signed the executive order to close gitmo. 77% of all americans had -- stated that was a mistake. gitmo should not be closed. 60% of all americans up to -- from 53% in april and 45% in january. so you can see the trend lines there. the vast majority of the people, nearly two-thirds, are saying you shouldn't be closing that. gitmo prisoners should not be prisons ferred into prisons in the united states, 60% of all americans say that's true. well, 60% in polling is a huge number, a vast majority. and i would encourage my fellow senators who will be voting

before long on a very significant amendment to keep that in mind. since president obama announced that he intended to close gitmo, it has become widely circulated that these detainees could be transferred to american prisons for prosecution in u.s. criminal courts and potentially released in the united states. and moving detainees to prisons in the united states would require a significant investment of restructuring the existing facilities and costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. currently, the united states only has one supermax facility and it's located in florence, colorado. according to the bureau of prisons, as of may 21, only one bed was not filled at supermax. society one plashings if you want to give them maximum security to these people, such as sheikh mohammed, then you better decide heying about to be in that one bed because we don't have the capacity. the rated capacity of the high

secured bureau of prison falls is 13 hrk,448. so we are talking about they are already overcrowded and that is not going to happen and despite claims by senator durbin that the super max prisons are ready to receive gitmo detainees the super max prisons are at or above maximum security. f.b.i. director mueller said there is very little real -- very real possible that gitmo detainees will recruit more terrorists from among the federal inmate population and continue the al qaeda operation from inside -- inside the walls of prison. that can't happen at gitmo because they're all terrorists there. and that's what the, that's pow the new york synagogue bombers were recruited in our own prison system. in 2002 an entire wing of a jail

in. mr. alexander: alexander, virgid out for moussaoui to be detained. bringing gitmo detainees to the united states could place america and citizens at risk by inevitably creating a new set of targets for the jihadist terrorists. gitmo on the other hand is state-of-the-art prison. i can't find anyone who has gone over there, including unfriendly media, media bent on closing gitmo, they go over there and they see it almost all of them change their mind. it is state-of-the-art and it provides humane treatment for all detainees, fully compliant with the geneva convention, provides treatment and oversight that exceed any maximum security prison in the world and as attested to by human rights organizations, the red cross, the attorney general holder, and

independent commission led by admiral walsh, this is state-of-the-art. this is not a place where torture takes place. it is the only facility of its kind in the world that was specifically designed to build and to house and try these types of dangerous detainees. if president obama ever decided to visit gitmo i am sure he would equally be impressed as everyone else including i might say attorney general holder. he came back and gave a glowing report on how great this was and at the same time he said, but the president still wants to close it. so anyway, if you look at the gitmo situation there's an average of two lawyers for every detainee, there is, 127 doctors, nurses, the ratio is 1:2 in terms of health care specialist to take care of the prisoners. we are talking about health care in this expunt and maybe i want to -- in this country and maybe i want to go to gitmo to be

better off exceeding that of any maximum security prison in the world. there is also a $12 million expeditionary legal complex. this is guarantee because if you do tribunals you cannot do them in our court system in the united states because they're not set up for that. obviously there are some things in testimony that take place that have to be private. you can't have these things go out because that would endanger american lives. this thing -- we spent $12 million on this complex. it's a courtroom. gitmo. to try detainees. and specifically, that's what it's there for. it's the only one of its kind in the world and provides a secure location to secure detainees charged by the federal government. full access to sensitive and classified information, full access to defense lawyers and protection, full media access by the press. but it is set up to take care of that specific type of

incarcerated individual. senator reid, harry reid declared in a resolution conference after my bipartisan senate amendment was passed that "we will infer allo never allows to be released in the united states." i applaud harry for that. that is something the american people are not going to tolerate. he said that he opposes imprisoning detainees on u.s. soil saying "we don't want them around the united states. i can't make it anymore clear than the statement i have given to you. we will never allow terrorists to be released in the united states." senator durbin said the feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. we were being asked to defend a plan that hasn't been announced. and i think senator durbin was correct then and is correct now. there are lots of questions, very few answers. what is the impact? say we close gitmo, what is the impact of placing detainees in the u.s. prison system, pretrial and post trial?

has an assessment been done to determine the risk of escape as well as potentially creating targets in the u.s. for terrorist attacks? will gitmo detaineesing segregated from regular prison population? these guys are trained to recruit. and that would be the garden spot for them to get in the american prison system to recruit people to become terrorists. what facilities exist in the united states to hold the detainees? we talked about that. they tried to locate 17 facilities and it will not work. by the way, the state legislatures in each one of those states that has one of these falls has passed resolutions or some type of a document saying we don't want them in our states. now, that's what they're saying from the states and we need to listen to them. you might ask where would the military commissions be held -- gatt mow or the united states? if you close guantanamo you lose that facility and if they are held there, where would

detainees convicted serve their sentences if not there? because there is no other place that has the capability of doing that so there are all these questions i'm going to submit for the record at the conclusion of my remarks as to questions that have not been answered on what we're going to do with these detainees if we close gitmo. so despite not having a plan the administration continues in its quest to empty gitmo regardless of the cost and traffic. the obama administration ninlly talked with a small south pacific island of population 20,000 to accept transfer of the group of 17 chinese muslims at gitmo called w huigers, but it s not cheap. the total cost to build gitmo was $275,000 and right now as i

said, it is something that is on lease since 1903 for $4,000 a year. so anyway, according to a lot of the sources, "the wall street journal" yesterday, had a government official saying that well over 50 detain hes have been approved for transfer to other countries and negotiations were continuing with saudi arabia to take a large group of yemen detainees. attorney general holder has estimated that more than 50 detainees could end up on trial by u.s. authorities. this news comes as more and more americans are growing opposed to the closing of gitmo placing them unnecessarily at risk in order to satisfy political goals. so i think we need to really stop, sit back, take a deep breath, and look a some of the things going on today. the idea that we would have miranda rights for terrorists, people who have killed americans, is just pretty

outrageous. but, anyway, finally, on june 9, the obama administration again went against the will of the congress and the american people by transferring the first gitmo detain he to the united states for his trial in new york city. he is indicted for the 1998 al qaeda u.s. embassy bombings in kenya and tanzania. they killed more than 224 people including 12 americans. he is, was later captured in pakistan in 2004 while working for al qaeda preparing false documents and working in their efforts. intelligence show he met both bin laden and sheikh mohammed and remained a close associate with al qaeda until his capture in 2004. now, this bona fide terrorist will have the privileges of a united states civilian court trial in the united states. i think that's new york is where that will be. to me this is inconceivable that

could happen. the press reported that gilani was smiling when they read charges. despite the obama administration's intentions, they will find themselves in a position where they cannot either try or safely transfer or release gitmo detainees. as of may 2009, 74 transferred, released detainees have returned to the fight: 74. these are the ones we now know, these are ones we captured again, we know they have returned. how many are there out there? you release these people and they go right back to their practice of killing americans. former guantanamo bay inmate known as a abdullah surrenderedn north afghanistan in 2001 and transferred to gitmo in 2006 and

released and he is out there killing marines today. that's what is happening currently. there is no alternative to gitmo. i go through all of this not to be disagreeable with anyone except just to say that there is an answer and there's only one answer. today we are considering the defense authorization bill. i have an amendment to that bill. i now have just in a matter of three hours, i have 22 cosponsors. this is an amendment number -- i want to get the right number -- 1559. amendment 1559 to the defense authorization bill, senate bill 1390. amendment 1559. this is simple. i like simple bills because they cannot be misunderstood. not like the health insurance billioinsurance bill ofover 1,0s

read this is just two pages. that's all. let me tell you what it says: it says the elimination machine-i'm wrongs it's one page. it says this: the amendment intended, introduced by senator inhofe, me, section 1059 "prohibits on transfer the guantanamo agencies, no department or agency of the united states may, one, transfer any detain eve the united states housed at guantanamo bay, in cuba, to any facility in the united states or its territories." that's number one. "number two, we cannot construct, improve, modify, or otherwise enhance any facility in the united states or its territories for the purpose of housing any detain he described

in paragraph one." and, number three "we cannot permanently or temporarily house or otherwise incarcerate any detain he described in paragraph one. so that's a very simple solution were it's all in three sentences on one page and i have a feeling they're going to be many people that know we're on the right side of this issue, know the american people are in support of an amendment like this and will offer an amendment full of loopholes that allow them to close it. this is the only one out there. so for anyone, if i say to my colleagues, if your interest is to do something about keeping gitmo open, there's only one vehicle out there and we're on it right now, the defense authorization bill. that's amendment 1559. all it does is say that it prohibits us from transferring any detain he from gitmo to any facility in the united states of

america or its territories, prohibits us from constructing, improving, modifying, or otherwise enhance any facility in the united states or its territories for the purpose of housing any detain he described in paragraph one above," that's the terrorists, and "prohibits us from permanently or temporarily housing or incarcerating any detain he described in paragraph one in the united states or its associates." the -- or its territories." so i say to american people, there is a vehicle we can use to make sure that facility, one of the really true state-of-the-art resources we have in this country, by keeping it open and keeping those detainees, those terrorists, out of america -- if you want to keep them out of america, this is the way to do it. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call: