mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. hof i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call -- mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

mr. inhofe: i notice no one on the floor and i was going to address those three subjects. i do want to make a couple of comments, and if anyone comes in and seeks the floor, i will draw to a close. one other major issue that we are dealing with right now, and we've had a number of hearings, and i'd like to kind of put it in perspective so people understand, there's a lot of complaints around the country that the cap-and-trade bill that was passed by the house of representatives interestingly by one vote over the majority -- and that's 219 -- when the bill was passed 3:00 in the morning and -- was written 3:00 in the morning and passed the same day. i applaud john boehner over there for saying we want to establish some kind of a program whereby anything that we're going to consider on the floor should be on a web site so all of america can read it at least 72 hours before it's voted on. i applaud that, and i hope we'll

be able to do that. i certainly hope we'll be able to do that with a bill that i'm sure will be passed from the environment and public works committee of the united states senate, the cap-and-trade bill that is yet to be drafted. but the chairman of that committee, senator boxer, stated it's going to be basically be the framework of the waxman bill from the house, that was passed from the house by a margin of 219 votes to 212, i think it was. anyway, that at least gives us something to talk about. i'd like to go back historically to my first exposure to this whole issue. back about ten years ago we had the kyoto treaty. the kyoto treaty was a treaty that would -- that then the clinton-gore administration was trying to get us to ratify here in the united states senate. and that was a treaty that would establish a cap-and-trade type of arrangement to limit the

number of co2 -- the proper term is anthropogenic gases, anthropogenic manmade gases, methane co2. the theory behind that was, and i believed it, that these manmade gases are causing global warming. i assumed the science was there and it was settled. everybody thought it was. i was chairman at that time of the environment and public works committee and we were considering the ratification of the kyoto treaty. it was at that time that the wharton school of economics came out with the wharton econometrics survey. that econometrics survey said if we in the united states ratify the kyoto treaty and we live by its emission requirements, how much would it cost to america in taxes? and the result was the range was between $330 billion and $--

$300 billion and $330 billion a year. i've oefpb said one of the most egregious votes in the united states senate was in 2008 when we gave an unelected bureaucrat $700 billion to do with as he wished. it was unconscionable. i voted against it. i was opposed to it. and we lost. and we did it and most of the people who voted for it are now sorry. i tried to equivocate what $700 billion. i say to the presiding officer, if you take all of the families who file tax returns and pay taxes and do your math, that's $5,000 a family. $5,000 a family, every american family, not just the ones in oklahoma. i thought if that's the case, we better -- as bad as that was, that was a one-shot deal. if we pass a cap-and-trade, we're talking about a $300 billion-plus tax increase every year. not just once.

and so i thought at the time when we looked at this and the wharton school came out with these figures, let me be sure in my own mind as chairman of that committee, the environment and public works committee, that the science is there. well, i looked into it only to find out this whole thing came from the united nations -- that's where it started, the ipcc, intergovernmental panel on climate change. all we've seen are just reports not from scientists but from politicians on the summaries that they give policy donors. and we started talking to real scientists only to find out that really well-established scientists, this is ten years ago, looked at this and said, yeah, there is -- there could be a connection between manmade gases, co2, and global warming. however, not the major -- not a major, significant contribution. to fortify this, then-vice president gore, he was trying to build his case on why we should

ratify this convention. and he did his study. he hired a guy, one of the top scientists in america named tom wiggly to do an analysis. here was his challenge. he said if we -- if all of the developed nations in the world, america, france, western europe and all that -- developed nations would ratify this treaty and would live by its emission requirements, how much would that lower the temperature in 50 years? they would have all the countries that are developed nations, how much would it lower it in 50 years? they came out with the results of the study and it was.07 of one degree celsius. not even measurable. i said we're going to have to have a wakeup call to the american people. that's when i made this statement. i said the idea, the notion that man-made gases significantly

contributed to global warming is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the american people. well, when you stop and look back now at what has happened, the scientific communities, many of whom were the recipients of grants and had those grants held up, unless they come in and say, yes, we're going to have to do something about co2 or stop global warming -- i have to say, by the way, at this time we're in our ninth year of a global cooling race. people seem to forget we've been going through these ups and downs all three quarterrers of a century. god's still up there. the same individuals who were so his sterically behind this idea of passing a cap-and-trade in america at that time were the same ones that in 1975 were saying we're going to have to do something because another ice age is coming. anyway, this has been going on for a long period of time. so as we progressed through the years, more and more scientists came over that were on the other side, and i called to -- i call

to mind right now just from memory, claude allegra. he is a socialist over there, a very prominent scientist. he was marching through the aisles with al gore 15 years ago and talking about this. he has now reversed his position and said wait a minute, everything we thought from the modeling didn't happen. this thing is not real. he's solidly on the skeptic side saying i was wrong back then. this is claude elegra, the guy sarkozy is talking about putting in as the environmental minister of the country of france. david bellamy, a top scientist in the u.k. and david bellamy was on the other side 10 years ago, 12 years ago. now he says we've looked at the modeling, this is not true. a guy name nir shaviv from

israel, he was on the other side and he's come over. for those who, my fellow members here who want to see the numbers we're talking about and scientists that have reversed their position, go to my web site, inhofe.senate.gov and look it up there. there are a lot of speeches i made on this floor on this subject but one of them was the 700 scientists most of whom were on the other side of this issue are now saying the same thing that nir shaviv and others have said because they have changed their mind. clearly the thing has turned around and that gives the opportunity for those people to go ahead and pass something. get it passed quick. let's do it quick. it's kind of like health care. they want to get it passed before you have a chance to read it. now we have a bill that is going to be put together and drafted

in the environment and public works committee, and it was going to be coming to the floor of the senate prior to the august recess, which is just two weeks from now. and chairman boxer has decided now to put it off until after the recess. i applaud her for that, because time is not the friend of people who are trying to make believe that we're going to have to pass an expensive tax to address this, what they consider to be a more serious problem than i consider it to be. so, during the august recess, during 30 days you're going to have a lot of members of this united states senate approached by people, people like the agriculture community. i had the opportunity of going and talking to the national pharmaco ops the other day -- farm co-ops the other day and addressed to them if we were to pass the cap-and-trade system what that would do to my folks in oklahoma and all of america. 71% of the cost of a bushel of wheat is in fertilizer and in

energy costs. and that's what would go up. you'd be talking about doubling the price of whether it's wheat, soybeans, any other commodities. it would be disastrous for our farmers in america. so the years have gone by, and slowly people have caught on to this thing, and that's why there's such a sense of urgency by people who want to pass this before the public realizes what it is. fortunately, the public already understands the vast amount of recent polling shows, just like the issue of closing gitmo that i talked about a few minutes ago, that they are solidly on the side of not passing a cap-and-trade tax which would concentrate the largest tax increase in the history of america to address a problem that people aren't really sure exists to start with. and so i think that is what is going to happen. and the reason i think we're going to defeat that in the senate -- it will, of course, pass the, *f, out of the

committee. it's a very liberal committee. i love everyone on that committee, but they'll pass anything that has to do with a cap-and-trade package. and so it will be on the floor of the senate, but it will not pass the senate. the reason i say this, we've had several votes in the senate. the house has never had any votes. we've considered this five times. we've actually voted three times -- 2003, 2005 and 2008. in 2003 it was called the mccain-lieberman bill. at that time i was the only one that was on the floor for five days, ten hours a day. i was on the floor trying to defeat that thing for 50 hours. only two or three senators came down for just a short period of time to help me. you fast forward from 2003 and 2005 to 2008, then we had the bill that's called the warner-lieberman bill at that time. and we had 23 senators came down, and it didn't take five days to defeat it. it was just two days.

so i think right now in terms of not of procedural votes, in terms of passing the tax increase called the cap-and-trade, that they only have about, maybe 34 or 35 votes. it takes 60 votes in the senate to pass it. i'm really happy that our forefathers were divinely inspired when they set up the system with two houses where there can be checks and balances on the other side. so i think that is what happened with this. i won't mention names because some of the things i know are a level of confidence. some of the new senators who have been elected, they don't really want to go back and say, whether democrats or republicans -- tph-fbgs, it's the democrats i had in mind -- in fact, it's the democrats i had in mind, go to the people who elected them and saying i'm doing a good job for you by passing the largest annual tax

increase in the history of america. that isn't going to happen, mr. president. people are so sensitive right now with the level of spending that is going on in this country. i can remember in 1993, it was the first year of the clinton administration. i was complaining at that time on the floor. at that time i was serving in the house. the huge tax increases he was having and all the things that were going on. the gun control, the hillary health care. we all remember that. at that time i remember complaining on the floor, he even has a budget of $1.5 trillion. guess what? this one's $3.5 trillion. we can't sustain that. we can't do that in america. and so i think one at a time we're going to have to stop these expensive programs, one being the health care program. i know we can't afford that. the other one being cap-and-trade. i think we will defeat that. and i believe america is now going to look a lot more carefully and they're going to applaud the efforts that we have to make sure that any bill that comes up for consideration of

this magnitude should be on a web site, as congressman boehner suggests, and several other senators suggest, including myself, and be on a web site for at least 72 hours so that we and the american people can read and see what it is going to be. i can assure you that when the cap-and-trade passed the house, it would not have passed the house. with that, i see there is someone else on the floor wanting to have the floor. so i'll yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. a senator: mr. president, what is the status of the senate right now? the presiding officer: we're in consideration of senate bill 1390. a senator: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to talk about the pending amendment.

mr. president, let's all imagine a situation -- you're a 25-year-old, a father of two, it's night and you're walking home across a park. mr. menendez: a group of teenagers come near and they throw a slur at you. when you respond and their verbal attacks escalate, they're nasty. they seek to dehumanize you because of where you were born, how you look, or how you speak. there's a fight. four on one in which your pummeled to the ground and kicked in the skull repeatedly. as you lie on the pavement in convulsions, foam oozing from your mouth, life slipping away, there is one more insult, they yell a warning to anyone who looks like you, or talks like

you that they'll do the same thing. now imagine you are this man's two little children. your father spends two days in intensive care. his face bruised and swollen, his head bandaged, tubes everywhere, and then he passes on from this world. you'll never remember your father holing you or feeding you or kissing you. you're too young. but you -- what you will remember is growing up without a father. he was the victim of a needless threat from a senseless beating. a beating fueled by red-hot hatred for the type of person he was. the one hope from small measure of fairness so that these two young children will one day know that justice was served after their daddy was killed would be an appropriate conviction for

this unthinkable crime. but in the courthouse the verdict is read, the most serious charges, the most appropriate charges are discarded. at most two of the four young men who committed this murder in a bigoted rage will spend less than two years -- less than two years behind bars. but they could be there for as little as six months. six months in jail. but this man -- this father, he's gone forever. it is a -- it is as sad and heartwrenching a situation as you can imagine. and how we wish it was only, that a horror story that we simply imagined. but it's not a figment of our imagination. it's a dose of reality.

this nightmare scene actually happened and it didn't happen in a society less open than ours, nor did it happen 100 or 200 years ago. it happened exactly one year ago in excellen shenandoah, pennsyl, less than 150 miles from where this chamber is. less than 50 miles from my home state of new jersey. luiz ramirez was the target of the beating. struck in the chest so hard that he bother a bruise in the shape of jesus from the m medal he woe on a chain on his neck. after the deadly blows, if he had been conscious, were words that if uncensored do not fit the united states, tell your

explicative friends to get the explicative out of shenandoah or you'll be ex pleckive laying next -- ex pleckive laying next to him. tell your explicative friends out of shenandoah or you'll be explicative laying next to him in the 21st century here in the united states of america. a land of the year. all men created equal. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. not for luis ramirez. he may have been born originally in a different country, but he was just as human as you or i. it didn't matter. he was cursed and battered and put down like an abused animal would be in the united states of america. and the people who did this, the people who beat their fellow man to death treating him as sub

human, this gang gets a veritable slap on the wrist. we can change that. no more circumstances like that. not with this legislation. there is no better prosecutor of hate crimes in our country than federal law enforcement. they are tough on these hate criminals and they are determined to serve justice in each and every one of these cases. if we are to make sure that hate crimes are treated with a seriousness that they deserve, if we are to make sure that would-be perpetrators think twice, federal law enforcement must have a greater involvement. now, i can hear opponents of this legislation, this particular amendment. this is 2009, a president -- our president is african-american, it is a reaction to an insignificant problem. well, ask luis ramirez, if you

could. i would ask them to consider this from the leadership conference on civil rights between 2003 and 2007 hate crimes reported against hispanics increased not just a little bit, but by 40%. in 2007 hispanics were the target of 60% of hate crimes committed base on the ethnicity, signifying an increasingly sharp rise. this isn't just a problem confined to the hispanic community. the man who packed up his rifle, got in his car, drove to washington, entered a building, opened fire and claimed the life of a negotiable security guard, he didn't just do that at any building. he did it at the holocaust museum. because this murderer hates jewish people. hates them enough to kill. and let's never forget the namesake of this legislation, matthew shepard.

the university of wyoming student who had his whole life ahead of him before it was snatched away on an october night in the countryside near laramie. two men uneasy with matthew's sexual orientation drove off from a bar with him only to beat him merslessly with a pistol and rope him to a fence as if a warning to the gay community. they hated matthew because he was gay. he lost his life because he was gay. i ask those who would argue against this legislation how many more tragic stories do we have to hear before we make our laws tougher? how many more? do we have to hear another story like the one of jose. last december this father of two

and native ecudar who ran a real estate agency, was a member of the community, upstanding person, was going home from a bar with his brother. he came down a brooklyn street with their arms around each other as men in latino cultures do. up came two men yelling racial slurs. they smashed jose's head in with a metal bat. they continued to beat him and kick him and beat him and kick him. cluclung to life for two days ia hospital and then he died. how many more stories. do we have to hear another story like that of marcelo, he too was born in ecudar, and he too was a real estate professional. he too was killed simply for the way he looked and the way he spoke.

the innocent victim of a senseless gang of teenagers on long island driving around in search of -- quote -- "some mexicans to explicative up." here's how the prosecutor describes this assault -- quote -- "like a lynch mob the defendant and his friends got out of a car and responded mr. lucero. like a lynch mob in the 21st century in the united states, the mob beat marcelo and stabbed him to death. mr. president, how many more of these stories? how many more? do we have to hear another story like that of walter sanchez? his horrific story happened earlier this year and it happened in my home state of new jersey. walking to a restaurant with his cousin, a car with five men pulled up calling walter a hispanic son of an explicative.

they beat him senseless. he was one of the lucky ones, escaping with his life. but he still underwent hours of reconstructive surgery to put many of the bones in his face back together again. so, again, mr. president, how many stories do we have to tell? it's time to stop asking and it's time to start acting. we can pass this legislation and know while there is still a ways to go until we have wiped our society clean of bigotry and hathatred, we will have made it harder for the perpetrators of these acts escape justice. there are those who escape hate crime can escape justice federal law enforcement is prepared to bring. sometimes these loopholes are bewildering, even perverse. remember the story of luis

ramirez, whose murderers will serve as little as six months in jail. his deadly beating occurred in the street, not in the park 100 feet away. the park where luis had walked minutes, if not seconds, before he was battered. if this murder of a hate crime had taken place in that park, it would have been federal law enforcement's business. the delivery of justice may have been different. as it turned out, local law enforcement, some of whom were related to the assai assailantsk two weeks to address the four men. and we know how the rest of the process turned out. we can all agree a hate crime is a hate crime whether it's in the park or in the street, on the grass or on the pavement, 100 feet this way or 100 feet

that way, a hate crime is a hate crime. now, i sponsored when i was back in the new jersey legislator, the law that became one of the first landmark legislation on hate crime in our country. i said then that we cannot eliminate hate with the passage of a law, but we can send a clear societal message that we do not tolerate such crimes against individuals because of their race, because of their religion, because of their ethnicity or, for that fact, their sexual orientation. hate crimes are hate crimes. they are all an affront to the set of values upon which this great nation stands. they all deserve the full scrutiny of our federal law enforcement. it's time to pass this legislation. and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment and make sure each hate crime is met appropriately with justice.

i ask you to remember as i started this speech about that father kicked to death with the two children who will never, ever know their father as so many of us are fortunate to know ours. when you cast your vote, think about that but for the grace of god could be you. that's how momentous a decision this is. that's how important this legislation is. and that's why justice is served with the passage of this amendment. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and notice the absence of a quorum. mr. president, on behalf of senator bingaman, i want to make a unanimous consent consent request that jonathan ep scene, a professional -- epstein with

the substantial energy, be granted floor privileges for the national authorization act of fiscal year -- through fiscal year 20 106789 3r50 without objection, so ordered. mr. menendez: with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call ththeclerk will. quorum call:

quorum call:

reid mr. president? i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. reid under an order of may 5 and under s. res. 18 i made a temporary appointment of sheldon whitehouse to serve on the "help" committee while retaining my authority to make a permanent appointment to the "help" committee. i now announce as of today, july 15, senator franken is appointed to serve on a permanent basis to the slot occupied by. mr. shelbybysheldon whitehouse. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, sheldon whitehouse, since coming

to the senate, was truly a workhorse. there isn't anything i've asked this fine man to do that he hasn't come forward with enthusiasm to do it. we've seen the billian work he has done on -- brillant work he has done on many different indications as a member of the judiciary committee and other assignments in the senate have been as auspicious as work on the judiciary committee. his background is significant. he has a real interest in health care and his work on getting the bill recorded out of the "help" committee today was essential. all members of the committee, democrats and republicans, are astounded at how good he was. he, i repeat, enthusiastically accepted this temporary assignment while we waited for the long never-ending situation in minnesota come to a close.

senator whitehouse was far from just a seed farmer. he dove into the issues and to no one's surprise is a contributor to one of the most important bills ever in the history of this country. without belaboring the point on behalf of the entire senate i appreciate his service on the committee and i personal thank him as does the entire democratic caucus and if a poll were taken of those that serve administration republicans on the "help" committee they would acknowledge his brilliance and hard work -- they would acknowledge his brilliance and hard work. i know senator kennedy who we have missed on that committee, his vital work for decades in the senate, someone who has watched from afar and applauded senator whitehouse. mr. president, i came to the house of representatives in

1982. if that class of 1982 was a young man from arizona, someone who came with a certain degree of fame. his name was john mccain. he served our country valiantly during the vietnam conflict and spent five years in a prisoner of war camp in vietnam. i have great admiration and respect for him. so i want the record to reflect that my respect for john mccain is very deep. not only did we come to the house together but we also came to the senate together. we were elected together in 1986. and our seniority is as close as it can get. we both have the same amount of service in the house of

representatives. so seniority is determined by how many people are in the state of nevada and the state of arizona but there are more in the state of arizona so he is one up in me in seniority in the senate. having said that, mr. president, and recognizing who this man is. he proudly was the nominee for the republicans this last election. i watched his campaign and admired his courage physically and the stands he took. while i may not have agreed with him i recognize that he has strong feelings. but, mr. president, so do i. the senior senator from arizona today said -- and i quote -- "he was deeply, deeply, deeply disappointed" that what he considers unrelated amendment -- that is, the matthew shepherd

hate crimes bill -- has been added to this bill, the defense authorization bill. mr. president, i wonder on which recent morning did the senator from arizona wake up and suddenly feel so strongly? where he has been in the past? let me make a quorum of comments about my friend from arizona's remarks. first, his is a new outrage over a senior old issue. hate crimes bill was first added to the dwps authorization bill in a previous congress -- to the defense authorization bill in a previous congress. i didn't do it. the amendment today was an amendment i offered on behalf of the chairman of the judiciary committee and other sponsors of this legislation. senator leahy would have been here but he's a little busy with the supreme court nomination.

the hate crimes bill was first added to the defense authorization bill when george bush was president, a republican. where was the senator's disappointment then? i heard no big statements at that time. no one else did. second, the senator from arizona hassive departmentsly not always held the belief he discussed today. this is a new conversion. he has evidently not always believed that bills must only contain amendments that relate directly to the underlying legislation. it was just a while ago a bill came before the bill known as the motor voter bill to make it easier for people to register to vote. when they got their registration changed at the car they could at the same time have an opportunity to register to vote allowing millions the opportunity to register to vote. on that amendment, voter motor -- on that amendment, motor majority, senator mccain

offered a line-item veto amendment. that had nothing to do with registration to vote. so it's hard to understand how his was the kind of related amendment that he demands today. in fact, that issue went to the supreme court where the supreme court declared this illegal, unconstitutional. it was a year before that, senator mccain offered the same amendment to a research bill. again, it's hard to understand how his was the kind of related amendment that he demands today. additionally, senator mccain offered an amendment to change senator rules about tax increases to a bill about unemployment compensation. hard to understand how his was the kind of related amendment that he suddenly today demands. he also offered his line-item veto amendment to a bill that

would give more rights to blind americans. it's hard to understand how his -- that is line-item veto -- had anything to do with the visually impaired. but it appears that this is the kind of amendment that he demands today. again, senator mccain offered an amendment about medicare to a bill funding energy and water development in our country, having no relation obviously. it's hard to understand his was a kind of related amendment that he demands today. thirdly, i want to make -- the third point i wanted to make is that the senator from arizona is not alone in offering such unrelated amendments. his republican colleagues do it all the time. in fact, they're quite fond of doing it.

where has his outrage been when that's happened, mr. president? where has the outrage been from the senator from arizona? when, for example, one of his republican senator friends twice offered an amendment about the acorn group? this is an organization around the country that is involved in a lot of different things, but he wanted to do an amendment on the economic recovery package related to the acorn organization. that was a bill, of course, that had nothing to do with voting registration. another republican senator offered an amendment about prescription drugs to a bill that funds homeland security. no relation whatsoever. where was my friend from arizona's outrage at that?

another republican senator offered an amendment about the fairness doctrine, a fake issue meant exclusively to excite a very small segment of our population. to a bill that would give d.c. residents finally the right to vote. where was my friend from arizona's outrage about that? another republican senator offered the same amendment, that is, the fairness doctrine, another senator, same amendment, though, over the same conjured issue to the omnibus appropriations bill. that is, the bill we passed to keep the bil the government rund complete unfinished business from the bush administration. where was my friend's outrage about that? another republican senator offered an amendment about union dues to that same omnibus appropriation bill, having

nothing to do with what we were trying to accomplish here. another republican senator offered an amendment about congressional pay to another appropriation bill, having no relation whatsoever. another republican senator offered an amendment about rules surrounding charitable donations to the national service bill, mr. president. no relationship whatsoever. i didn't hear my friend say one word about that, the senator from arizona didn't complain one minute about that. another republican senator offered an amendment about national language to a bill that helps us crack down on mortgage fraud. now, try that one. that's something that might stirrup a little outrage, but not from my friend from arizona. another republican senator offered an amendment on auto dealers to a bill that funds our troops in iraq and afghanistan. where was the outrage on that, mr. president? an amendment on auto dealers on a bill that funds our troops in

iraq and afghanistan, the supplemental appropriation bill. so, mr. president, there are lots of other examples. that's just a few. it's hard to understand how any of these amendments were the kind of related amendment that senator mccain demands today. but it's even harder to understand why the senator from arizona didn't feel the need to express, as i've said, the outrage that dethis morning -- that dethis morning. finally, i want to say that i would gladly, as a matter of principle, keep each of these bills separate. that is, hate crimes, defense authorization. but the reality is the republicans relentless and relentless and reckless strategy of slowing, stopping and stalling has made it impossible for us to do so. my friend, the senior senator from arizona, knows the most recent example of this all too well. his republican colleagues refused to let us vote on his amendment which i support.

i support the f-22 amendment. i support that. why can't we vote on that? this could have been done yesterday, the day before, tod today. but for the stubbornness of the senate republicans. mr. president, we have a lot of work to do, a lot of priorities to fulfill and a lot of mistakes in the last eight years to correct. and we're trying to do that. the bottom line is that we would not have the time to take such steps, we wouldn't have to take the time for such steps if the republican minority wouldn't waste the american people's time and money by making us jump through procedural hoop after procedural hoop just to do our jobs. last congress 100 filibusters. this congress, i think we're at 21 already this year. 21. to my knowledge, senator mccain has never supported hate crimes legislation. if i'm misstairntion i certainly

am -- mistaken, i certainly am -- that wouldn't be the first time but that's the information i have. it's my understanding he doesn't think there is probably ever a good time to pass this important and overdue bill. this is an issue here, a real important issue, and that's the real reason why the republicans i assume don't like to talk about the matthew shepard hate crimes bill. but i'm not afraid to talk about the issue, mr. president. a man by the name of louise ma rear res. was picking strawberries and cherries to support his three children and a woman that he wanted to marry. when he wasn't working in the fields, he worked a second job in the log factory in shenandoah, pennsylvania. it's a coal town of only 5,000 people. he was walking home one saturday night, six high schoolers jumped him in a park. they taunted and screamed racial slurs at luis, came to this small town in the middle of

pennsylvania from a small town in the middle of mexico. but the boys didn't stop with the taunting and screaming racial slurs. that wasn't enough. they punched, beat, kicked him. luis' friend pleaded with the teenagers to stop. one yelled obama administration "tell your mexican -- one yelled back, "tell your mexican friends to get out of town or you'll be lying next to him." mr. president, these boys stomped on luis so thard an imlint oso hard that animlint os wearing was embedded in his chest. they beat him so badly and brutally that luis never regained consciousness. he's dead. on july 14, 2008, two days after the beating exactly one year ago yesterday, luis ramirez died. he was 25 years old. hat crimes embody a unique brand of evil and that's why this

legislation is so important. it's terrorism. it's just a different kind than we normally see or think of. a violent act ma may physically hurt just a single victim but hate crimes do more. they distress entire communities, entire groups of people and our country. our friend, senator ted kennedy, has for many years courageously fought for the legislation senator leahy and i offered as an amendment today to the defense authorization bill. senator kennedy has correctly called hate crimes a form, i repeat, of domestic terrorism. and it's our obligation to protect americans from this domestic terror. the hate crimes bill will help bring justice to those who intentionally choose their victims based on race, color, religion, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual or yen takes, sexual identity -- sexual

orientation, sexual identity or disability. disability. examples are all the time of someone who may not be what some think normal, maybe not as -- maybe they're mentally challenged. all kinds of examples of people for that reason taking advantage and hurting them. that's a hate crime. hate crimes are rampant and their numbers are rising. the department of justice estimates that hundreds happen every day. now state and local governments are on their own when it comes to prosecuting even the most violent crimes and conducting the most extensive and expensive investigations. state and local governments will always come first, as they should, but if those governments are unwilling or unable to prosecute hate crimes and if the justice department believes that that may mean justice will not be served, this law will let the federal authorities lend a hand

to state and local authorities. mr. president, i spent some time yesterday with judy shepard. i have five children. i have four boys. i have never met judy shepard until yesterday. my wife within the past few months had lunch with her and a number of other people and sat next to her and she told me what a wonderful person she was. when i met with her yesterday, the thing she said that was so dramatic to me is that i only have one boy left. two children. matthew is dead. the bill that we have is named after matthew shepard, judy's son, who was a 21-year-old college student when he was

tortured and killed for being gay. and did they torture. did they torture. and that wasn't good enough for them. a cold wyomingite, they took him -- a cold wyoming night, they took him before he was dead and hung him on a barbed wire fence. when wyoming police pursued justice in matthews murder, they needed resources they didn't have. laramie, wyoming, was where it is. police couldn't call on federal law enforcement for help. the law wouldn't allow it. and their expensive investigation devastated that small department. it was a police department of 40 people. not all police officers, as all police officers, some of them were -- took care of the little jail, did jail duty, and they were -- responded to phone calls. out of this 40-person police

department, they had to lay off five people so they could prosecute this crime, this vicious crime, this hate crime. but it cost that little town a lot. when this bill becomes law, that will never happen again in laramie, wyomiming, or any place else in the country. we must not be afraid to call these crimes what they are. the american people know this is the right thing to do. hundreds of legal, law enforcement, civil rights and human rights groups know this is the right thing to do. the united states senate knows this is the right thing to do. this bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money or doing so because he's gay or disabled or latino or jewish. that there's a difference between setting fire to an office building and setting fire to a church, a synagogue or a mosque. mr. president, that there's a

difference, as we learned so tragically last month, between shooting a security guard and shooting him because he works at the holocaust museum. it's a shame that we often don't discuss our responsibility to do something about horrific hate crimes until after another one has been committed. it means that we always tend to act too late. but does this mean we shouldn't act now? of course not. it means, in fact, the opposite. it means we must act before another one of our sons or daughters or friends or partners is attacked or killed merely because of who they are. we must act in the name of people like thomas leahy -- l-a-h-e-y -- who in 2007 was beaten unconscious in las vegas. why? because he was gay.

excuse me. not far from my hometown of searchlight, nevada, is a place called laughlin, nevada. 25 miles away. it's on the river. a little resort community. we must act in the name of jamie engel -- i knife g knif-n-g-l-en 2002 was beaten and bludgeoned to dead in laughlin, nevada. why? they thought he was gay. we must act in the name of tony montgomery, who was shot and killed in reno; why? he was an african-american. we must act in the name of those who worship at temple emanuel in reno, a synagogue that has been firebombed time and time again. by skinheads. we must act in the name of luis ramirez, who i already have talked about, who died one year ago this week.

and, mr. president, we must act in the name of judy shepard, of her son matthew shepard, whose family has fought tirelessly since his brutal death, his brutal murder, so that others may know justice. if their country zone stand up for them, if we don't hand up for them, who will? mr. president, the f-22 is an airplane i've seen. there are a number of them at knelatnellis air force base whis 15,000 people involved in that airbase, civilian and military personnel. we're so proud of that. nellis air force base is named after bill nellis from

searchlight, nevada, a war hero, world war ii. joined then the army air corps already having two children, was way beyond the age where he would be drafted. but he volunteered. he served 69 missions before the bomber went down in belgium where he is now buried. we're proud of nellis. we're proud the f-22's are there. but mr. president, we have had enough f-22's at nellis air force base and any place else. the f-22 has not flown a single mission over iraq or afghanistan -- not one. not a training mission. not any kind of a mission. it's a powerful plane built to fight superpowers. that is we all know the wars we

fight today are not against superpowers. this generation of our military bravely fights a new generation of warfare against terrorists and insurgents. for today's national security needs the f-22 is an overpriced and underperforming tool. and the nearly 200 we have in our fleet is sufficient. it's a sufficient deterrent to the potential of conventional warfare. but some want us to spend at least $2 billion to keep making more of them. that's only the first step. actually, it's $1.75 billion -- i rounded it off at $2 billion. it's a very expensive plane to build and a very expensive plane to fly and it costs $42,000 an hour to operate. this technology is not suited for today's warfare much the radar of the f-22 means when it flies over heavily populated

cities like where our forces fight in iergs lo iraq and afghanistan the position is easily given away. we have at nellis air force base in the ranges there, what we call red flag activities. a couple of times a year we bring our fighting forces there, our air fighting forces. they do mock exercises. it's a wonderful place, one of the few places in the world this can take place. they do all kinds of good things. aircraft from all over the world come there to participate in these war games. if the f-22's plane's radar is turned off to avoid being detected the agility is significantly compromised. we know that. this was proven recently in a recent exercise at nellis air

force base when an f-16 brought down in a war game, f-22 that simply turned its radar off in a test fight. there's broad bipartisan consensus ending the f-22's production is in owe national security interest. here's a list of some who agree: chairman levin, ranking member mccain, commander in chief obama, the previous commander in chief, president bush, the secretary of defense, the previous secretary of defense, the chairman of the first services committee, i repeat, the ranking member of the senate armed services committee, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of the air force. the chief of staff of the air force. can you believe that? and we're going to try to move forward doing that? and no one wants it in the

military? all these have prudently pointed out that buying more f-22's that we don't need means doing less of something we do need. some have encouraged to us continue making this cold war airplane, this cold war airplane because it creates jobs for those who build it. mr. president, being a little bit personal here, a stealth airplane was developed in the deserts of nevada. it was a wonderful thing that our country did. each of these airplanes had its own hangar in the desert. because the soviet satellites came over and they couldn't come out in the daytime. these pilots were trained so efficiently everything they did was in pitch darkness. but that's where these airplanes were developed and flown.

there came a time after it became public that we had these stealth aircraft that they had to put them someplace. they put most of them at nellis air force base. the pentagon, after they had been stationed there for a matter of months, made a decision. that's not good. we need to move them to new mexico to an airbase. pete domenici, my friend, was concerned about whether they should go to new mexico or nevada. i said, pete, i got a deal for you. i personally don't believe our military, what we do for the military is a jobs program. i think it's to make our nation more secure. and let's have the general accounting office do a study and if they come back and say it will save the country money and it will make our country more secure if they move them to new mexico -- i'm thought going to

say a word about it. it took the general accounting office a matter of a few months to do this and they came back and said these stealth aircraft would be better off in new mexico and it will make our country more secure, they can train better there because of how much activity they have at nellis and it will save the country money. that's how i feel about the military. i think we have to have the most soviet unionsophisticated, secun systems that exist. but it has to be something that is good for our country. and it's obvious, obvious, mr. president, with all these people from president obama to president bush to the secretaries of defense in the past to now, that these airplanes are not necessary. they prudently pointed out that buying more f-22's that we don't need means doing less with something else we do need. i repeat: some have encouraged

us to continue making this airplane because it creates jobs for those who build it. i don't believe that's the purpose of why we're here. i understand the importance of jobs. but a more advanced jet, the f-35 which can be used by all branches of the military service will create similar jobs that will enhance our national secure. that's what this bill is about, the defense authorization bill. finally, president obama has pledged to veto this defense authorization bill if it included continued to build this obsolete airplane. and he won't veto it. it's a risk, why would anyone want to take that? i spoke to the president's chief of staff yesterday. the president is going to veto this bill. if this is, oh, he will never do it -- he will. cutting funding for wasteful programs is good for our

economy, good for our workers and good for the continued military dominance of our country and i oppose being a weapon that compromises national security, that develop diez jeor economy and wasting taxpayer dollars on a plane that will not defend us today or in tomorrow's war. i support bringing our military into this century we're in today, the 21st century scrks not go back to the last senator -- century, and not go back to the last century. finally, mr. president, let me say this much. i hope and i have called my friend, the republican leader and he will call me the minute he has some time because i didn't call him when he was in a meeting i wanted to talk to him before i came to the floor but i have something else i have to do tonight, we're going to vote on invoking cloture to see if we can get 60 votes on this hate

crimes amendment on this bill. i would like to work it out so we can do it conveniently for much, some time tomorrow. what i would like to do is set aside some more time if people want to debate more on hate crimes, set aside time to do that. if people want more time to do the f-22's let's do that. i can't force an amendment on the f-22 -- a vote on the f-22 but i can force an amendment on cloture. we will do that tomorrow. now, tomorrow may spill over until a little after midnight friday among but we're going to do this amendment so everyone should understand the hate crimes bill is going to be voted on either tomorrow or very early friday morning. i said friday there will be no votes and that's by day. this will be in the middle of the night. and i hope we don't have to do that but that is when the time runs out on this. i just think these two amendments are important and,

mr. president, i understand the anxiety of those that would rather not have the hate crimes legislation on this bill. i accept that. but i spend a lot of my time on the floor wondering why in the world other people dop don't complain on the ridiculous amendments on legislation so important. i have been really good, mr. president, indicating that we were going to go back to the way we did business in the senate. and i have done that during the time i've had this job. we've had this year, we have had open amendment process, except on a rare occasion. now, i have stood here while we've done abortion amendments, gun amendments, you name it. and i've told senator mcconnell, i wish this were not the case but that's why we're here to make tough votes

and easy votes both. i hope we can work something out and we can resolve this matter tomorrow during daylight hours otherwise we'll do it after midnight tomorrow night. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i thank the majority leader for his words concerning the parliamentary situation we're in and, of course, i'm very appreciative of the words about the long service that we have shared together both in the other body and in the united states senate. since i have returned from the campaign trail i have appreciated his kind words about my service to the country. i must say while the majority leader is still on the floor, if i might point out there are dramatically different from the comments that he made about me

during the campaign -- not just our political different trepses but my qualifications to serve and other statements about my character. but all those things are said in political campaigns but i'm certainly glad to see sort of a significant change in his comments concerning me and i always am very grateful. can i also say that the distinguished leader said he couldn't understand that i couldn't understand. well the thing i can't understand, mr. president, is the fact that the majority leader can be, by virtue of being majority leader, can put legislation at any time before this body. i've never been majority leader and in all candor, i never want to be majority leader and i think that majority leader of the senate has a very tough job. and i appreciate the hard work

that he does in trying to move legislation through the senate. my former colleague and one time majority leader senator lott once said that being majority leader of the senate was like herding cats and i certainly agree with that assessment. so let me just say that i appreciate the work that the majority leader does. but if i had been majority leader i would never have had to do any of those amendments. the majority leader sets the agenda for the united states senate. all he has to do if he wants a hate crimes bill up is to schedule it to be taken up, to be debated and discussed, and amended in the regular order of the united states senate. instead, he chooses to put it on the defense authorization bill. a bill that's vital to the future of the security of this nation. and id that his passion concerning hate crimes.

and i have heard speakers come to the floor all day. they in very graphic terms described and very moving terms and i am sure the next speaker will, too. about the terrible crimes that have been committed in this country by some of the worst of the worst people that have ever inhabited this country. but the question remains: why should a bill of this importance, the hate crimes legislation, not have been at the majority leader's direction moved through the judiciary committee, reported out and reported to the floor of the senate? the judiciary -- we've been in session since january. the united states senate could have -- judiciary committee, i'm sure that they're got a lot to do, but this is -- has been described by its proepts as they -- proponents as they come to the floor as one of the most

important issues of our time. if it is, why not move it to the judiciary committee, move it to the floor and allow to us amend, debate and discuss? instead it's put on this amendment on the defense authorization bill. now, that's not right. that's not right, mr. president. and the fact is that the amendment that the majority leader just very rightfully extolled, the levin-mccain amendment -- and i appreciate his strong remarks about the importance of it -- he's the one that wanted it withdrawn. the reason why we're not debating that right now is because the majority leader told the chairman of the committee to withdraw the amendment. so, i appreciate his passionate advocacy of this issue. and i also want to reemphasize, this isn't just about $1.75 billion. this is about -- this amendment is about whether we're going to change fundamentally the way we

do business here. if the opponents of the amendment succeed and we fund additional f-22 aircraft, as the majority leader pointed out, has never flown in iraq or afghanistan, then that signal to the military industrial complex, which president eisenhower warned us about, that it's business as usual here in our nation's capital. so this is an amendment that has a transcendent importance. the president of the united states has guaranteed a veto. the secretary of defense has come out and staked his reputation on succeeding here in eliminating, bringing to an end the f-22 production line and moving forward with the f-35 production line. a lot of my friends ought to understand this is not just about cutting cutting, eliminating, ending the

production of the f-22, but it's also about the f-35 aircraft. so if i had been majority leader, then i would have, when he described those amendments that i put on amendments, because i couldn't get them up any other way. let me just say this. hate crimes legislation deserves the attention of the united states senate in the normal legislative process, with amendments, with debate, with discussion f. it's so important and speaker after speaker, including the majority leader has come to the floor and talked about how important it is and how vital it is and all the terrible things that have happened as a result of us, in their view, of having this bill, although that's not in agreement with the united states commission on civil rights, but

the fact is that you would think we would want to take it up in a regular fashion. we would want to debate it. we would want to improve it and make it more effective through the amending process. but, no, we're not going to do that. we're going to take down a pending amendment that has probably one of the most significant amendments that we've had in the history, recent history of the united states senate at least as far as defense is concerned, and replace it with a piece of legislation which is complex, certainly controversial, and certainly deserves the full attention of the united states senate. so, i proposed earlier -- i proposed earlier a unanimous consent agreement that was rejected by the majority that we dispense -- we move back to the f-22 amendment, we dispose of this legislation and then move to the hate crimes bill, the

matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act, move to it, even bypassing the judiciary committee, which is not a normal thing to do given the complexity of this issue. so, you know -- and i'm deeply moved by the stories that the majority leader told, both senators from california came to the floor. many others have given very graphic and dramatic and compelling stories recounting of terrible things that have happened to our citizens. horrible, awful, horrifying things. and i understand, and my sympathy, my thoughts and my prayers go out to their families. and we must do everything in our power to make sure that these kinds of horrendous acts are never repeated. but let me point out another thing if i could. there's also men and women in the military who are in harm's

way now, who have been gravely wounded, who the sooner we enact this legislation, they will -- we will make preparation and be able to better care for them. you know, mr. president, these anecdotes, i don't usually tell them, but i heard a lot of them today and i understand and sympathize with them. just before the majority leader took the floor, i was right out here outside the senate floor. there was a young man there that said they wanted to meet me, a young marine in a wheelchair, badly wounded. badly wounded. he was there with his family. he was escorted by congressman kennedy. i was gratified and moved that he wanted to meet me. you know what? that made me want to come back here and pass this legislation as quickly as possible, because this legislation, number one, provides fair compensation and first-rate health care and address the needs of the wounded, ill and injured and

improve the quality of life of the men and women of the all-volunteer force, active duty, national guard and reserves and their families. that's the number-one priority in this legislation. so what have we done? instead of moving this legislation as quickly as possible through the united states senate, we have now withdrawn the amendment and moved on to a piece of legislation that has nothing to do with the purpose and our obligation to the men and women who are serving this country. so i understand what numbers are and i understand what the outcome of elections are, and i understand that there's a majority on the other side of the aisle. but what's being done here, what's being done here by withdrawing an amendment that has a transcendent importance and putting another totally unrelated piece of legislation may set a very dangerous precedent for this body. because this is not a one-shot deal, the hate crimes bill.

this is not an amendment to say that you can carry a gun in a national park. this is not a single specific issue bill what we're talking about in hate crimes. we're talking about a very large and encompassing piece of legislation that by any rational observation demands to be considered through the proper committee and on the floor through the proper process. so, we are now holding up -- we are now holding up the progress of legislation which is important to the future secucury of this country and the men and women who serve it, to give them the resources, training, technology, equipment and force protections and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations. i understand and appreciate the passion of the advocates of hate crime legislation. they have made it very clear and told compelling stories on this floor, and i believe that we must take it up and act as

immediately as possible. and we should be doing -- what we should be doing is taking up the hate crimes bill in the senate for full debate and discussion as soon as we finish the defense authorization bill. there is no connection between the defense authorization bill and hate crimes. and it is a complex and detailed 26-page, as i recall, piece of legislation. so, again, i appreciate the kind comments of the majority leader who came to the floor, who said he couldn't understand certain things that i have done. i hope that the majority leader understands better now. and if he doesn't, i'll be glad to come to the floor again and put -- and point out again that what we are doing here is a wrong thing to do. it's wrong for us to get off the legislation that provides for the defense and security of this nation. it's wrong to take up a piece of

legislation that should go through the appropriate committee. this is what we teach kids in school in civics 101, that a bill that is proposed, goes through the appropriate committee, voted out and then comes to the floor of the senate for debate and amendment. instead, we are violating the fundamental rules of procedure of the united states senate. so, i hope that as we continue and vote at 2:00 a.m. or whatever it is that we're going to do, all we've done is delay the responsibilities that we have, which is to provide the security of this nation. and, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that after my remarks which will be no more than five minutes, that then the senator from brown be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and then senator

chambliss be recognized for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, first, my dear friend from arizona has spoken very eloquently about the transcendent importance of the levin-mccain amendment, and i could not agree with him more. we tried for two days to get an agreement to vote on that amendment, a critically important amendment for the reasons which he's given, the reasons which i hopefully have given persuasively, and so many others have around here as well. you got this president, the previous president, this secretary of defense, the previous secretary of defense, this chairman of the joint chiefs, the previous chairman of the joint chiefs, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, the chief of staff of the air force, the secretary of the air force say we have enough f-22's. it's a great plane. we have enough. we've got to move on to the f-35, which is under production, by the way.

we've got 30 f-35's funded in this bill. we tried to get the levin-mccain amendment to a vote. we tried to reach an agreement on a time. we couldn't get an agreement on the time. that is what has then precipitated the decision of the majority leader to move on to the hate crimes amendment. we just simply tried day after day to get a vote without success. i couldn't agree more that this is a critically important amendment, that we've got to end the production of a weapons system which we no longer need according to our top civilian and military experts and get on and focus more on this f-35, which is going to be used by three of the services. not just one. and have greater capability in

some very critical areas than the f-22 and will cost significantly less than the f-22. but, we couldn't achieve that. i don't understand the logic, i must say, or the strategy that's involved, which says you can't have a vote on the amendment which is pending, the levin-mccain amendment. and then when faced with the majority leader's amendment on hate crimes, forces that to a cloture vote, which is going to be held. in other words, where everybody understands both of these amendments are going to be addressed on this bill, one way or the other. no one can guarantee what the outcome is on these amendments. but what can be guaranteed is that these amendments are going to be debated on this bill, because the majority leader made that clear for a long time. the procedures of this body allow for it.

the precedents of this body are full of amendments such as this. as a matter of fact, the hate crimes amendment was adopted on the senate defense authorization bill two years ago after the same kind of debate. the debate is fair. debate is important. every one of us should protect the right of everyone else to debate it, whether it should go on this bill or another bill, you can debate. but it is going to be offered and is offered on this bill as was noticed by the majority leader days ago. and as we have done years ago. it is totally consistent with the rules of the senate. and as a matter of fact, it has been done repeatedly in the u.s. senate. maybe we should adopt a new rule which says that you've got to be relevant or you've got to be germane to offer an amendment to a bill that's pending. we don't have that rule. never had that rule. probably never will have that rule. but that is the way the u.s. senate operates.

these are important amendments. again -- and i'm going to close this -- i don't get the logic of not allowing us to proceed to the levin-mccain amendment, because another amendment that some people don't like don't think should be offered is going to be offered on this bill. what is certain is that both amendments are going to be offered on this bill. nothing is accomplished here by refusing that vote on the levin-mccain amendment, except delay. that's the only thing which was accomplished by the refusal, whoever it was, who refused to agree to a time to vote on levin-mccain, nothing was accomplished except delay. and that i don't think is in anybody's interest for the reasons that senator mccain gives. we want to get this bill passed, we want to get it conferenced. we want to get it to the president hopefully by the time

the fiscal year is over because the troops deserve us to act. i'm going to vote for the hate crimes amendment. i believe that it is very appropriate that it be on this bill. and i spoke two years ago to this effect and i'll speak again at the right time, perhaps tomorrow, if there's time, as to why the hate crimes amendment belongs on this bill. it's an important amendment. it involves acts, as the leader and others have said, of domestic terrorism. the values reflected in the hate crimes legislation are values which our men and women who put on the uniform of this country fight for and put their lives on the line for, a country which believes in diversity, a country that believes you ought to be able to have whatever religion you want, be whatever ethnic group, whatever religious group, whatever racial group you're a part of, whether your sexual orientation, that you should be free from terror or physical

abuse. that's what the hate crimes includes except for the disabled and people who are gay. that's what's involved here. not a new debate. debated it two years ago. not new on this bill, it was added in the senate two years ago. so i hope we can reach an agreement to get to a vote on both of these amendments. they are both going to be resolved on this bill. that's a certainty. again, how they're going to be resolved, no one knows. we all can guess as to what the outcome is going to be, but they will be both close votes, i believe, and let's get on to it and get to those votes. i yield the floor an thank the chair. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i grew up in mansfield, ohio, a

middle class town, about 50,000 people, halfway between cleveland and columbus, in north central ohio. it is a town like thousands of other cities in ohio, like zanesville and glea zenya and portsmouth. it is a town not much different from dozens of cities around the nation much my tad was a family doctor. practiced into his late 70's. lived to be 89. died about nine years ago. my dad, for years, made house calls caring for his friends and neighbors, regardless of their ability to pay one patient, i remember, gave my dad a little arrowhead collection after my dad had done very important wor on -- for his health. today the health, education, labor and pension committee passed historic health reform legislation that restores my dad's sense of quality and

compassion in our health care system. this legislation was not written for the insurance industry. it wasn't drafted by the drug industry or any other segment of the health care industry. we remember not that long ago in this chamber -- i remember it more intensely in the other end of the hall in the house of representatives where i sat on the health committee. we remember in those days that the drug companies wrote the medicare laws. the health insurance industry wrote health care legislation. those -- this bill -- those days are gone. this bill is not for them. it's for the american people. that health care industry doesn't like this bill that much. that's because they didn't get their way on issue after issue. they did sometimes. they did dramatically on occasion in our committee. but by and large this bill's not for them. this bill's for the american people. it's for american families who are afraid that unaffordable health care costs will deny

their children a chance for a healthy life. everybody in this chamber has met dozens of children like that who needed the children's health insurance program to keep their families from going bankrupt and to keep their health care going. children who need this health care legislation, families who need this bill or they're going to too often choose between medicine and food, between heating their homes in the winter and cooling their homes in the summer and on the one hand and going to the done the other. this bill is for american families who don't have health insurance at all. maybe they work for an employer who can't afford to provide health insurance. maybe they lost their job. maybe they can't afford their share of the premium for employer sponsored coverage. maybe they have a preexisting condition that makes them undesirable to their insurance -- to the insurance industry. maybe they can't pay their mortgage and feed their children and pay for nongroup health coverage. unfortunately for many americans

something had to give, but not anymore. this bill is for them. two weeks ago in columbus, i was having breakfast with my daughter and a friend and a young woman who aspires to -- she teaches voice lessons, she just graduated from college. she's working at this restaurant part time while she finds more and more students to teach voice lessons as she begins her business. she doesn't have health insurance. she came up and said -- are you going to give me health insurance this year? i said, yes, it is the commitment of the president of the united states. we're going to finish this bill this year. i'm going to send her a note today telling her what we did today. i'm going to send her a note tonight telling her what we did today. not long ago i was in a grocery store in avon, ohio, near my home. my wife asked me to find water crackers. i really didn't know what water crackers were. i was standing in the aisle and

i said -- do you know where water crackers are? he said they are right there. he is self-employed and sells mostly crackers and cookies for a national company and sells them into local grocery stores in lorain county. he said to me -- i'm self-employed. are you going to pass the public option. inside to make sure you can keep the health insurance industry honest and i can get decent health insurance. i said yes, we are. because we are. this bill is for them. it is for the young woman in columbus. it is for the younger man than i in avon, the man approaching middle age. it's for him. this bill is developed with a few core principles in mind. first, americans who like their current health insurance, should be able to keep it. if you have good insurance, if you like your employer-based insurance, by all means, keep that insurance. keep what you have. this bill is designed to protect existing coverage while putting

downward pressure on health insurance premiums. what will happen for those people who now have insurance, right now if you have decent insurance, you're also paying the cost when you go to the emergency room with your insurance, you're also paying the cost of someone who goes to the emergency room who doesn't have health insurance. you're paying the costs that doctors and hospitals and, frankly, taxpayers provide for those people without insurance. you're absorbing those costs. when this bill passes, when the president signs this bill in october or november, there is a reasonably good chance that the cost of your insurance, whether you're the employer or employee, that your insurance will stablize -- the cost will stablize an maybe -- and maybe go down. this bill -- this bill -- i mentioned this bill was developed with a few core principles in mind. number one, americans who like their current coverage can keep it. second, americans underinsured or uninsured should be able to find good coverage pained a reasonable premium for it. they will have full choice of

insurance of private insurance or the third point is americans should have choices they want. this bill includes a strong public health insurance option designed to increase price competition in the health insurance industry and to help keep private insurers honest. and speaking of honest, another principle behind this bill is that health insurers should do what they're paid to do. this bill includes new rules to prevent insurers from denying you coverage for preexisting condition, denying coverage to save money, excluding you or stopping them from -- stopping them from denying you coverage because of your age or health -- or the health history. now, mr. president, there are two things going on here. one, we're putting rules on the insurance industry so they can't keep gaming the community rating system. can't keep imposing preexisting conditions on potential -- potential people that they insurance. -- insure. can't lock people out who are

too sick that they don't want to cover. the first thing is the rules on the insurance industry. the second thing is the creation of the public option which will mean competition so we make sure that the insurance companies are doing the right things by rules, but we also inject competition. so public option will compete with private insurance company. this bill, mr. president, was written for american families, for american patients, for american businesses, and for american taxpayers. this bill is a victory for the thousands of ohioans who shared with me their struggle for our health care system. it's about retiree christopher from cincinnati. he's worried his shattered retirement savings an small pension won't keep up with the rising insurance premiums. this bill is about the breast cancer survivor, michelle, who should no longer live in her words where the sum of my work is to pay for insurance. it's about the children that darlene, a school nurse from cleveland, treats each day who

struggles each day because they're worried about a sick parent or grandparent who can't get the health care they need. it is about a small business owner, kathleen, from rocky river who is trying to do right by her employees, but whose business is crushed by exorbitant health care costs. it is about kara from cleveland, whose adult son has m.s., she has seen her savings drain, forcing her to drop out of college. it is about ohioans in blair and saint clairsville and it's about people around the country, the millions who work hard, play by the rules who struggle each day with disease and dispair. it is about their stories, those who inspire to stand with them and not to be intimidated by the special interests who spend millions lobbying every single day to write this bill, the insurance companies, the drug companies who have had such huge

influence in the halls of congress over the last several years, but who this time didn't have the kind of influence they wanted. because of this bill more americans will able to afford health care and crucial, national priorities won't be crowded out by health care spending. no long-range will exploding health care costs cut into family budgets, weigh down businesses, drain tax dollars from local governments, from federal budget. this bill uses market competition and common sense to squeeze out inefficiency, to maximize quality to ensure that every american have access to quality affordable coverage. more work is yet to be done. we've taken a long step toward the day that generations before us have prepared for -- generations before us have prepared us for who have pushed this government to do more and do better. started in the 1930's -- this started in the 1930's when harry truman wanted to include medicare with social security, but thought he couldn't get passed and settled for social

security. lyndon johnson successfully pushed through congress with very strong democratic majorities in each house to create medicare. we have tried ever since. this is the time. that's why i want to thank senatorred to for his leadership of the "help" committee over the last few weeks. it was an impressive and productive process from beginning to end. we worked in a deliberate, bipartisan, bipartisan manner -- the presiding officer: senator, your time has expired. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: we worked in a bipartisan marine through 13 days, 287 amendments were debated, 161 republican amendments -- 161 republican amendments were included in this bivment we worked hard to -- this bill. we hard to make sure that this bill serves all ranges of people. a special thanks to senator kennedy. his activism and determination have made this day possible.

my senate colleagues and i and the millions of americans who may finally see the day when there is quality aches fordable health care -- quality, affordable health care owe him our thanks. martin luther king once observed injustice and health care is the most shocking and inhumane. this is a victory for ohio families. it's a victory for seniors and middle-class families around the nation who deserve the humane justice of an affordable health care system that works for all of them. we have a historic opportunity to make fundamental improvements to our nation's health care system. we must not squander it, not in nation, not at this time. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? mr. brown: i apologize for this. some closing comments. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of

morning business with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the coveteran affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 509, the senate then proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 509, a bill to authorize a major medical facility project at the department of veterans affairs medical center walla walla, washington, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating thereto to appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the consideration of s. res. 211, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 211, supporting the goals and ideals of the national life insurance awareness month. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure.

mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i a unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, july 16. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leader be reserved for their use later in the day, that there be a period of mong business for one hour with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half. and with senators permitted to speak up to 1 10 minutes each. further, mr. president, i ask that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of calendar number 89, s. 1390, the department of defense authorization bill. and finally, i ask that the mandatory quorum under rule 22

be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, earlier today, the majority leader filed cloture on the pending hate crimes amendment. we will continue to work on an agreement to vote in relation to the hate crimes amendment tomorrow. if we are unable to reach an agreement, the cloture vote would occur at 1:00 a.m. friday morning. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask, mr. president, that following the remarks of senator chambliss, grassley, and whitehouse, that the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. thank you, senator chambliss. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. channel lis: mr. president, i understand we're -- mr. chambliss: mr. president, i understand we're in morning business. i'm going to talk on two different subjects. i'll make some brief comments relative to the f-22, which i would ask unanimous consent those comments be inserted in the record regarding -- at the appropriate spot relevant to the debate on the f-22. and my other comments relative to a nominee go at the

appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i have listened to the debate here all day with regard to the national defense authorization bill and, frankly, it's one of the frustrating aspects of serving in this great body. to sit here and debate an issue like we have debated over the last couple of days and think that you're going to come to the floor of the senate today and to cast a vote on a very important measure that's been characterized by senator mccain earlier as one of the most important pieces of legislation or amendments that we will have and agree with him that that is the kiss an case ak we're going to vote on it and all of a sudden we're thrown into an entirely different atmosphere with regard to what's taking place on the floor. all of a sudden we're not talking about defense, we're not

talking about our troops, we're not talking about the national security of the united states, we're talking about hate crimes. we're in some very difficult times with respect to the national security of our country today, and while senator mccain and i disagree on the issue of the f-22 and this amendment, he and i agree strongly -- and it's why he's my dear friend and why we agree on most things -- about the fact that we ought to be here debating defense issues and voting on defense issues. and it truly is frustrating. and i know our soldiers in the field can't understand what in the world is going on on the floor of the senate now when they thought we were going to be debating and voting on amendments that pertain to them, to issues like their pay raise, issues like their quality of life, and issues like weapons systems and all of a sudden we're thrown into doing something else. so i just want to associate myself with the remarks.

of -- of my friend, senator mccain, and why we're here. and with regard to what senator levin said, frankly, senator dodd on the other side of the aisle who's been working very closely with me on the f-22 amendment, he and i had a meeting with senator levin and senator mccain on monday and informally, or actually formally agreed between the four of us, which is an informal agreement, that we would have a vote on the levin-mccain amendment on wednesday morning. we thought that -- that that was kind of a done deal. and now all of a sudden we've debated and we talked about this, we debated it again, we talked about the amendment and now we're thrown into just an entirely different scenario on the floor. and we've been prepared to vote. i would happy to we still have the opportunity -- and i would hope that we still have the opportunity to vote in the short-term on the issue of the f-22.

and i want to just very briefly state, mr. president, a couple of things with regard to -- to that issue. i made a very long statement yesterday and i'm not going to go back into all the detail with the reference to the why-fors of the f-22 and its value to the national security of the united states, but there have been some comments made on the floor that i think it's important that i address. one of those comments was by senator levin who said that i made a statement that there had never been a study by the air force which required -- which validated the requirement of 187 aircraft be the top-line number for the f-22. what i said was there have been dozens of studies out there over the years on the f-22 and there has only been one study, and it was an internal study at the department of defense, without

the input of the air force, that said that 187 is the number. and i want to make sure that everybody in this body understands that every single other state, done internally as well as outside the pentagon, outside the air force, outside the office of the secretar secrf defense or inside has concluded that the requirements for the number of -- of f-22's that we need far exceeds the number of 187, the minimum number that's ever been referred to is 243, which is some 56 airplanes more than the 187 that we're talking about now. last week, in a hearing before the senate armed services committee, we had general james cartwright, who is the joint chief of staff vice chairman, and at that hearing, i asked general cartwright -- and i want

to make sure i get my language just right -- i asked him if there was a -- if there was any study or any analysis done at the pentagon that validated the number 187? and what general cartwright told me was, he said there is a study on the joint staff that we just completed and partnered with the air force which validates the number of 187. well, yesterday, or on monday afternoon, a reporter asked a pentagon official and the top spokesman from the pent gone, jeff morel -- pentagon, jeff morrell, made the statement in response to a reporter's inquiry about that study as follows. he said: "well, it's not so much a study as a work product. i think what general cartwright was referring to is two different work products, one by

the program analysis and evaluation shop and one by the air force, not so much a study. so what's happened is there have been discussions with the pentagon to attempt to validate the number of 187. it's pretty obvious that what i said on the floor of the senate remains true and that is that of all the dozens of studies that have been done on the f-22 requirement, the minimum number that's ever been validated is 243. the number goes up from there all the way to 781, which i think was our original number. the number of 381 is a number that's been used in most of the recent studies as the number that we need. also with -- with respect to other statements regarding the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs and

others who are saying that 187 is the number, that's the leadership at the pentagon. the leadership at the pentagon has the responsibility for sending a budget to the senate and to the house. it's our obligation as members of the senate and the house to review that budget. sometimes to agree with it, sometimes to disagree with it, and we often disagree with it. and in this case, a number of us disagree with the number of 187 as being the top line for the f-22. the -- and that's not unusual. but with respect to what the leadership at the pentagon has said, let me go back to a letter that i talked about yesterday and it's a letter that has been received from rebecca grant, the director of the mitchell institute for airpower studies. what she says in her letter to me is that in the letter of july

13 from admiral mullen and secretary gates, the characterization of the f-35 as a half generation newer aircraft than the f-22 and more capable in a number of areas, such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses, is incorrect and misleading. air force secretary doneley and general schwartz has repeatedly stated the f-22 is unquestionably the most capable fighter in our military inventory. the f-22 was designed with twice the fighting speed and altitude of the f-35 to preserve u.s. advantages in the air, even if adversaries can test our electronic countermeasures or reach parity with us. she also united states senate that letter, "if electronic jamming fails, the speed, altitude and maneuverability advantages of the f-22 remain. the f-35 was designed to operate after f-22's secured the airspace and does not have the inherent altitude and speed advantages to survive every time

against peers with counterelectronic measures. only five f-35's are flying today. only five. the f-35s has completed less than half its testing. developmental tests will not be complete until 2013. it is impossible to assess the full capabilities of the f-35 until operational tests are complete. the secretary of defense and others in the administration are putting all of their tactical air eggs in one basket. mr. president, that's a very dangerous road down which we -- we should not travel with respect to the national security of the united states, the safety and security of our men and women. now, mr. president, i want to move to another subject. i want to speak on the nomination of cass sunstein to

be the administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs within the office of management and budget. i placed a hold on the consideration of professor sunstein's confirmation after his hearing in the senate committee on homeland security and government affairs. i chose to do this because professor sunstein has written, lectured and made recommendations on animal rights issues that are very troubling to me and to folks who make their living in agriculture and those who enjoy our nation's great hunting and fishing heritage. and let me just say, mr. president, it is extremely unusual for this member of the senate to place a hold on anybody. it's just not something that i normally do. professor sunstein has theorized that animals -- he's theorized in writing as well as in speeches that animals should be permitted to bring suit against their owners and others with

human beings being their representatives. now, let me say that again. professor sunstein has theorized in writing and in speeches that animals should be permitted to bring lawsuits against their owners and others with human beings as their representatives. now, that is a very radical and strange position, and it not only got my attention but it got the attention of any number of other folks around the country, both within and without the agriculture sector of our country. the devastating effect that this would have on animal agriculture is incalculable. mistreated livestock do not perform well. american farmers and ranchers work every day to make sure their stock is cared for in a humane manner, and yet they would still face a tremendous threat from frivolous lawsuits under this misguided they're rivmentz even though claims would be baseless, they would

still bear the financial costs of reckless litigation. that's a cost that would put most family farming and ranching operations out of business. professor sunstein also made off-hand remarks during lectures that perhaps hunting ought to be banned. while he offered assurances during his nomination hearing that his personal view supported hunting, i'm not a member of that committee and, thus, was not able to question professor sunstein personally during his confirmation hearing. i greatly enjoyed the time i spend hunting with my friends and family, and i was also very disturbed by this statement. the administrator of o.m.b.'s office of information and regulatory affairs must have a firm foundation and common sense, and we owe it to the american public to ensure that regulators are properly vetted by the united states senate. that is why i held professor sunstein's nomination in order to provide him an opportunity to explain his views on animal

rights as well as the second amendment. since his original hearing, professor sunstein has met with people involved in agriculture, including the american farm bureau federation, the farm animal welfare coalition, the national pork producers council, and the united egg producers. he has heard their point of view and exactly how devastating some of his theorizing would be to the reality of earning a living in rural america. he has satisfied some of them and some are still decidedly wary of his ideas. i've also had the occasion to meet personally with professor sunstein to let him explain how detrimental his theories would be to those who work so hard to feed this country and to obtain assurances that he does not oppose hunting or the right to bear arms and that he really --

try to figure out what he meant by saying that animals ought to have the right to sue individuals. and let me say that professor sunstein comes highly recommended by a number of folks from the skefrbgt side of the philosophical divide -- the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this country. his ability to look at regulatory measures and to provide cost-benefit analysis is very intriguing and he is obviously a very, very competent person when it comes to that side of the business community, and i have a great appreciation for that. i had a very good meeting with professor sunstein yesterday. and after our meeting, i received a letter from professor sunstein wherein he explained some of his statements and inflammatory ideas. in that letter he stated that he would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals and federal law does not create an individual right to bring lawsuits on behalf of

animals against agriculture. he also stated that he believes the second amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self-defense. and at this time, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the letter to me from mr. -- professor sunstein dated july 14, 2009, be entered in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: administration nominees deserve a fair hearing by the united states senate, and professor sunstein is no different. while i cannot agree with his ideas, his legal theories or his views, now that he has been educated about the toll they would take on hard-working farmers and ranchers in america, i'm not going to keep him from any further consideration, and i intend to lift my hold on professor sunstein. i understand from professor sunstein now that he has a much better understanding of animal agriculture and our country's

sporting tradition. i'm optimistic this open dialogue with animal agriculture will continue, and obviously i look forward to working with him to ensure that he continues to carry out exactly what he stated to me in his letter of july 14. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. i rise to discuss the high rate of taxation that's about to take place if the house of representatives passes their health reform bill. and i would also raise the issue that the same level of taxation, not quite as high, would happen under the budget adopted by this body back in march. so i want to address the tax hikes, particularly as they apply to small business that

president obama and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed. the latest tax hike proposal is the house democrats graduated surtax of up to 5.4% on those making more than $280,000. for those americans that are married but file separate returns, the surtax increases taxes for those making over $175,000. i refer to this surtax as small business surtax because it hits small business particularly hard. here's how the house's small business surtax works. in 2011 and 2012, singles making between $280,000 and $400,000 will pay an an an extra 1%.

singles making between $400,000 and $800,000 will pay an extra 1.5%. and those singles making more than $800,000 will pay an extra 5.4%. then in 2013 and after these rates go to 2%, 3%, and 5.4% respectively. the only way that the rates don't go up to these levels is if one of the president's advisors -- the director of o.m.b. -- says in 2012 that there will be more than $675 billion in health care savings by the year 2019 in the bill that the house has recently written. that's right, in addition to the tax questions, we have the house leaving up to a partisan

presidential advisor -- not the president himself or a nonpartisan organization like c.b.o. -- that taxes stay up or can go down. another troubling aspect of this charade is that this doesn't deal only with actual savings achieved, but instead calls for a partisan's 2012 estimate of savings to be achieved through the year 2019. the joint committee on taxation, a nonpartisan professional group here on the hill that advises congress, correctly ignores this charade. in its estimate of the house small business surtax, and correctly assumes that the rates are actually going to go up after 2013. in 2011 and 2012 for married

couples, the small business surtax kicks in at 1% for those making $350,000 to $500,000. it rises to 1.5% for married couples making between $500,000 and $1 million, and goes up to 5.4% for those making over $1 million. then in 2013 and later the rates go up to 2%, 3%, 5.4% respectively. as discussed above, the only way that these rates don't go up in 2013 is if the o.m.b. director decides that they shouldn't go up. so let's look at this tax increase from the venue of small business. because i know people listening as well as my colleagues think, well, you talk about people making a million-dollar or half a million-dollar, why can't they

pay another 2%, 3% or even 5%? well, it's a situation where small business in america creates 70% of the jobs, and it's a case of where most small business operates on cash flow, not investment from the outside like normal corporations would. so, we're talking about the health of our economy and we're talking about getting the economy out of this recession that we're in. and, by the way, the president and i agree that 70% of the new private-sector jobs are in fact created by the small businesses that i've just described. however, where the president and i differ is that i believe small business taxes should be lowered, not raised, during this time of getting the economy back on track, particularly when you

look at the stimulus bill that was passed back in february and it doesn't appear to anybody like it's doing any good yet, like creating the jobs that it was supposed to do, like keeping unemployment under 8% -- now 9.5% -- and only .1% of that $787 billion stimulus package was to help small business. we ought to be doing something if we want to revitalize the economy. that helps small businesses. and increasing taxes on small business will not do it. in 2001 and 2003 congress enacted bipartisan tax relief designed to trigger economic growth and to create jobs by reducing the tax burden on individuals as well as small businesses. this included the across-the-board income tax reduction which reduced marginal tax rates for income earners at

all level. and i know this -- probably people don't believe this, but if you look at the allocation of the tax by the highest 1% of the people, even after the 2001 tax cut, you saw that highest 1% still paying a larger proportion into the federal treasury of income tax than they did -- than they were doing prior to that. so even with tax reduction, you end up with a more progressive tax code, which nobody's willing to admit but we can back that up by figures. it also, in 2001 also included a reduction of the top dividends and capital gains tax rate to 15% and a gradual phaseout of the estate tax. unfortunately, you know, the way you have to write tax bills under the reconciliation process

around here, those tax bills enacted in 2001 and 2003 will expire december 31, 2010, and automatically we're going to get the biggest tax increase in the history of the country without even vote of congress because of sunset. some have referred to this bipartisan tax relief as -- quote, unquote -- the bush tax cuts for the wealthy. however, it seems to be easily forgotten around haoerbgs but this tax relief was bipartisan tax relief and provided tax relief for all taxpayers. they have also suggested that the tax relief provide for higher income earns, including many small business, should be allowed to expire. the president has proposed increasing the top marginal tax rates from 33 to 36 and the

other one from 35 to 39.6. we have a chart here that you can refer to. so all these numbers i'm giving you, you've got a reference point for them. the president has also proposed increasing tax rates on capital gains and dividends to 20% and providing for an estate tax rate as high as 45% and an exemption of $3.5 million. also the president and allies on the hill have called for fully reinstating the personal exemption phaseouts. we call them pep, p-e-p for short. personal exemption phaseout for those making over $200,000. then there's another phaseout called the peas phase outnamed

after a congressman from ohio for those making more than $200,000. under the tax law, when these phaseouts come back in after 2010, you actually end up with higher marginal tax rates of almost 2%. so it's not 39.6 is a high marginal tax rate. it's something much higher -- 41 or 42. you know what you do. you get the smoke screen of saying, well, you don't quite have a 40% marginal tax rate, but in fact you do have higher than a 40%. there seems to be something magical about not exceeding that 40% for the benefit of public relations. but it will be exceeded greatly when this 5.4% that the house is putting in in their health care bill. however, like other provisions in the law, p*ep -- pep and

peace are scheduled -- pep and pease are scheduled to come back full force. individuals in the top two rates could see their marginal effective tax rates increase by 24% or more, and once again i refer you to the chart. for example, a family of four that is in the 33% tax bracket in 2010 could pay a marginal effective tax rate that i've already referred to of 41% after 2010 because of peps and pease. and this rate would go higher if that family had more children and this is before the small business surtax is even factored in. some of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, have defended this

proposal by claiming that they will only raise taxes on wealthy taxpayers who make more tha than $200,000 a year. for the vast majority of people who earn lesess than $200,000, raising taxes on higher earners might not sound so bad. however, there's consequences for what we do around here. that means that many small businesses will be hit with a higher tax bill. these small businesses, as i said before, create 70% of all new private sector jobs in the united states. these small businesses that are sole pr pro prietors, s-corporations, and limited partnership corporations would get hit in the top two marge until tax rates if their owners

make more than $200,000. in addition there are just under two million small corporations that are subject to double taxation. to the extent that these c-komption owners make -- corporations make over $200,000 and have a salary, they would get hit with tax increases on the top two marginal tax rates. owners of small c-corporations that receive dividends or realize capital gains and make over $200,000, would pay a 20% rate on these dividends and capital gains after 2010. currently these pay a rate of 15%. now, all of this wasn't bad enough for small business.

why emphasizing small business? it's a job creation machine of our economy. why emphasize small business? they operate cash flow generally. they don't have outside investors. and why emphasize small business? because it takes entrepreneurs to create jobs. you know, i had the opportunity for 10 years of my life from 1961 to 1971 to be a union assembly line worker at a little company called waterloo register in cedar falls, iowa. i used that company, locally owned, people got together to create jobs as an example. they gave me an opportunity to earn a small livelihood for 10 years of my life.

it takes people that have means to create jobs. i've never worked for anybody that was low income or in poverty. you've got have the incentive in this country of people who put resources together to create income for themselves and in the process of expanding increase jobs for everybody else. so you understand where i'm coming from from the standpoint of small business. now the house of representatives had proposed a graduated surtax of up to 5.4% on those making over $280,000. now people listening, $280,000 is a lot of money. probably the top 3% or 4% of the people in this country. but, again, if they're small business and they're operating with cash flow, cutting into that cash flow is a job killer.

with this small business surtax, a family of four in the top two brackets will pay marginal sacks rate in the range of -- tax rate in the range of 43% and 46.4% in 2013. i'm not prepared to say this right now, but maybe when i am, i will say something about the state income tax on top of this just to show you how high tax these ideas are -- are taking us to. now, when you go to 43% and 46.4% by 2013, this would result in an increase in the marginal tax rates by a minimum of 23% and maximum of 28%. candidate obama pledged on the campaign trail that -- quote -- "everyone in america -- everyone will pay lower taxes than they would under the rates of bill clinton had in the 1990's."

and i'm going to show you if this goes into effect, this is probably the highest rates going back to the time that carter was president. the small business surtax proposed by house democrats would violate president obama's pledge. therefore, i stand with president obama in opposing the small business surtax proposed by the house democrats. according to the national federation of independence -- of independent businesses, and they do a regular survey, their survey data shows that 50% of the owners of small businesses that employ 20 workers to 249 workers would fall into the top two brackets, backing up what i've continuously said during my dialogue with the people of this country. according to the small business administration, about two-thirdses of the nation's small business workers are employed by small businesses with 20 to 500 employees. do we really want to raise taxes

on these small businesses that create new jobs and employ two-thirds of all small business workers? the national federation of independent businesses recently came out with this june report that showed that small businesses continue to have net job losses as well as reduced compensation for those that are still on the payroll. in other words, not part of the 9.5% unemployment that we have now since the stimulus bill passed. with these small businesses already suffering from the credit crunch, do we really think it's wise to fit them with a double whammy of up to 33% increase in marginal tax rates? newly developed data from the joint committee on taxation demonstrates that 55% of the tax from the higher rates will be borne by small business owners with incomes over $250,000.

this is a conservative number because it doesn't include flow-through business owners making between $200,000 an and $250,000 that will also be hit by the democrat budgets proposed tax hikes? if the proponents of the marginal rate increase on small business owners agree that a 23% to 33% tax increase for half of the small businesses that employ two-thirds of all small business workers is not wise, then they should either oppose these tax increases or present data that show a different result. i want to fight for lower state tax rates and higher estate tax exemption amounts to protect successful small businesses so that people that work a lifetime can pass on without liquidation at the time of death.

in a time when many businesses are struggling to stay afloat, it does not make sense to impose additional burdens on them by raising taxes. odds are that they do nothing then but cut spending. and when their cash flow goes down, probably layoffs happen. they'll cancel orders for new equipment as well, cut insurance for their employees, stop hiring much instead of seeking to raise taxes on those who create jobs in our economy, our policies need to focus on reducing excessive tax and regulatory barriers that stand in the way of small businesses and the private sector make investments, expanding production and creating sustainable jobs. we should continue to fight to prevent a dramatic tax increase on our nation's job machine, the small business of america. this includes working to protect

small businesses from higher marginal tax rates and increase in capital gains and dividend taxes rates and an increase in the unfair estate tax rate that will penalize the success of small businesses. in fact, i've recently introduced s. 138 1, the small business tax relief act of 2009 to lower taxes on these jobs creating small businesses. my bill contains a number of provisions that will leave more money in the hands of these small businesses so that these businesses can hire more workers, continue to pay the salary of their current employees, and make additional investments in these businesses. the national federation of business has written a letter supporting my bill and i want to -- quote -quote andly put it ind too "to get the small business

economy moving again, small business needs the tools and incentives to expand and grower their businesses. s. 1381 provides the kinds of tools and incentives that small businesses need." end of partial quote from the letter. mr. president, we all want to see the job numbers from the department of labor moving in positive directions. we all want to see the unemployment rate plummet. i firmly believe that the best way for us to do that is to prime the job creating engine of our economy by focusing on small businesses. my small business bill, if enacted, will lead to new jobs. and this is in right direction and the house health care reform bill with the 5.4% tax increase is taking us in the wrong direction. these will be real, accountable,

verifiable jobs that will be created. in contrast president obama had proposed tax increases that will cause small business jobs to be lost. the newest tax hike proposed is the small business surtax. as with other tax hikes on small business, i propose the small -- i oppose the small business surtax. i urge my colleagues on both isles to do the same -- aisles to do the same. and i ask unanimous consent to put in the record the nfib letter gave you and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the

senate proceed to executive session and that the commerce committee be discharged en bloc from further consideration of p.n. 638 and p.n. 639. and that the senate proceed en bloc to their consideration, that the nominations be confirmed and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. that no further motions in order and any statements relating to the nominations appearing at the appropriate place in the record. -- in the record as if read. that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection.

fell mrmr. nelson: mr. president me tell you by this action it concludes a very happy chapter for what i think will be the future of the national aeronautics and space administration. because p.n. 638 is presidential number 638 and that's the nomination of general charles f. bolden to the nasa administrator, which we have just confirmed and p.n. 639 is presidential nomination 639, which is the nomination of lori garver to be the deputy administrator for nasa, which we have just confirmed. my congratulations to the two of them and i will just make one personal comment. general bolden is someone who

has known adversity but has always been an overcomer. this was certainly true in south carolina in 1964 as an african-american who could not get an appointment from his congressional delegation to annapolis. and the defense department found charlie, arranged for a chicago congressman to nominate him. and when charlie arrived as a freshman at annapolis, he was promptly elected president of the freshman class. and so you can see the progression of being an overcomer. upon graduation from annapolis, choosing the marines, choosing to fly, becoming a marine test pilot, applying to the astronaut

office, becoming an astronaut, flying twice as shuttle pilot and twice as commander, four times. returning to active duty in the marine corps and rising to the level of major general after having commanded several marine wings and now the dream is fulfilled that charlie has now been confirmed as head of the national aeronautics and space administration. i think it's interesting that at 6:03 this evening the space shuttle lifted off into a successful mission. this space shuttle holds the second record for the most delays. six. it is exceeded by the first space flight that general bolden

took of which i had the privilege of being a member of that crew in january of 196. -- 1986. we were delayed seven times, scrubbed three times on the pad before launching on the fifth try into an almost flawless six-day mission. general bolden takes over nasa at a critical time. nasa is in drift. it needs a leader, but it also for general bolden to be successful as the leader of nasa, he has to have the backing of the president of the united states. who is the one that can give the ultimate leadership to our nation's space program. and so it was such a privilege for me, mr. president, to come and make this unanimous consent

request and to see the senate adopted by your order unanimously the nominations to be confirmed of the administrator and the deputy administrator of nasa. needless to say there are enough smiles that are going to be across america as a result of this action. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from road i'd land. -- rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. today i proudly cast my vote to pass out of the senate health education, labor and pensions committee landmark legislation that will fundamentally change the direction of our

dysfunctional health care system. committee approval of the affordable health choices act is truly a tremendous victory for millions of americans who struggle with a system that has continually failed to provide quality, affordable health care options for them, their families, their loved ones, and their businesses. it has been a special privilege to temporarily serve on the "help" committee. in particular with my distinguished senior center, jack reed. i don't think there's a formal rule against it, but it is a rarity in the senate for two members from the same state of the same party to serve on the same committee. and my brief tenure on the

"help" committee gave me the chance to witness firsthand the resolve and caring leadership that is jack reed's hallmark and that was shown throughout this historic debate. i also applaud the unwavering commitment and leadership of president obama and the tireless efforts of my senate colleagues in the pursuit of meaningful beings comprehensive reform. i feel really very privileged to have served with chairman dodd and ranking member enzi. chairman dodd had this responsibility fall upon him when illness overtook probably his best friend in the senate, chairman kennedy. and he gave me, at least, as a junior senator, an education in the senate chairmanship.

ranking member enzi presented an unforgettable model of graciousness and civility and all of the members of the committee worked hard and sincerely. i particularly want to thank our esteemed chairman, senator kennedy, for his longstanding leadership and dedication. he truly is the champion of health care reform. for decades chairman kennedy has worked passionately on this important cause. and while he could not attend the markup, we felt his presence daily in the hearing room. and it is to his very great credit that we had this success today. i'm pleased that the final legislation reflects the principles outlined by president obama. who called for a new system to control skyrocketing health costs, expand coverage to the tens of millions left uninsured

in our country and ensure high-quality, affordable health care for every american family. the bill also focuses on the priorities of americans from all corners of our country whose powerful and often heart-wrenching stories underscore the urgent need for reform. behind all the statistics and all the numbers and all the projections an all of the demographics as we all know in this chamber are a legion of personal and family tragedies and sorrows and frustrations that we have to address. invests heavily in the delivery reforms that will drive down costs and bring our current, broken system into the 21st century. these changes are long past due and are essential if we are to protect our ship oftate from the tidal wave of health care

costs now bearing down on us. this legislation also upholds president obama's promise -- if you like the health care you have, you can keep it. but for the many americans who want different choices who don't have health insurance at all, we also offer a new public health insurance option that can and must compete in an open market with private insurance. as i've traveled throughout rhode island at community dinners and senior centers at coffees and on our main streets, i've heard stories of frustration and heartache of our broken health care system. earlier this year i launched a health care story board on my website where rhode islanders can share their experiences and ideas for health care reform. in just a few short months

hundreds of rhode islanders have written to share their ideas and experiences. these are just a few of them. paul and marcella from newport told me about the health complications that paul and his son endured from type 1 diabetes. the related medical conditions that paul suffered from the diabetes have left him unable to work. to compensate for the family's loss of income, marcella works tirelessly taking on a full-time and part-time job to pay the bills. like so many hard-working americans, they fall just short of income eligibility, cutoffs for state assistance programs. forcing them to bear the brunt of expensive medical co-pays, premiums and prescription costs. on a stretched budget balancing their medical expenses is a constant challenge. and paul and marcella keep

hoping that they'll catch a break soon. i heard from ben, a medical student in providence, who even at such an early stage in his medical career, has witnessed the devastating effect of being uninsured on the health and well being of his patients. ben shared the story of one of his patients who delayed treatment because he was unable to afford the medical bills. only a few days later this patient was rushed to the emergency room with a life-threatening injuries infection. the treatment to save this man's life resulted in much higher costs for the patient and the hospital. costs that ben knows may have easily been prevented if a patient was treated when the condition was in its early stages. ben writes: it's these day-to-day decisions to postpone treatment that really hurt the uninsured. mike, from riverside, shared his experience of surviving cancer that was misdiagnosed and left

untreated for several years. when he sought a second opinion, the final diagnoses was delayed for weeks as his paper medical records were shut frld hospital to -- shuttled from hospital to hospital. on top of this frustration, mike received the devastating news that his leg had to be removed to prevent the cancer from spreading further. after his amputation surgery, mike is thankful to be cancer free, but now his financial struggles have begun. with medical bills and health care premiums that exceed his monthly mortgage payments, mike is wondering how he will make ends meet. i had coffee with shirley, a middle town resident, who described her relief at turning 65. for the past 20 years she and her husband did not have insurance. as self-employed business owners in their 50's, finding

affordable insurance options was impossible. so they went without. they took their chances. now 65 and eligible for medicare, they finally have peace of mind. shirley admits that she and her husband were lucky to make this through -- make it through those 20 years without serious health problems. during our meetings, she urged us to pass health care reform for the millions of hard-working americans, hard-working middle-class americans who are not as fortunate as her and her husband. for these rhode islanders and for millions more americans all over the country, there has to be a better way. we have to do better than 47 million uninsured and millions more teetering on the brink. we have to do better than 100,000 people tying each year

-- dying each year from avoidable medical errors. we have to do better than health care outcomes for americans that are at the bottom of all of our industrialized competitors. america can can do better than this. and with this legislation we believe the process had begun for america to do better than this. the work accomplished today by the "help" committee is, of course, a first step in a long journey toward restructuring our health care system. the path to meaningful reform will not be easy. we have many rivers to cross. and our efforts to implement change will still face challenges. certain stakeholders invested in the status quo will fight back against change. they will drag their feet. they will misinform, and they

will mobilize. all with the singular purpose of defeating our progress toward comprehensive health care reform. i know that the fight to secure final passage of our reform will be contentious. but i welcome a vigorous debate on the senate floor because i also know that our current system has reached a state of disrepair that is putting us at risk. -- at risk as patients, as families, as competitive businesses, and as a nation. and failing to change the status quo is both unsustainable and irresponsible. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., july 16, thursday.