energy from the sun and from the wind and biomass. in 2004, think the presiding officer could understand the symbolism of what we did, i led a campaign along with our republican speaker of our statehouse, lola sprattly. we barnstormed together, all of our state, in that highly partisan 2004 election, and we surprised people that a democrat and a republican were campaigning together. but it wasn't a democrat or a republican issue. it was a colorado issue. and i think even more importantly, it was a colorado opportunity. there were naysayers who tried to scare our voters by saying that renewable standard would raise energy costs and harm our economy. but our voters decided to tank the challenge and to commit to generating 10% of our electricity from the sun and from the wind and other clean sources of energy.

our clean energy producers, madam president, went to work after we passed this measure and just three years later our legislature, realizing that weighed a reached that goal -- or we were soon to reach that goal, said, let's double that standard. so we now have a 20% standard that we're committed to reaching by the year 2020. now, we're fortunate to have these ample supplies of clean energy resources in colorado, but the real key to this has been releasing the ingenuity of our people and in setting goals that create a sustainable future. i wanted to share some examples from colorado specifically. just last week tri-state, a colorado utility, joined with a subsidiary of duke energy to build -- to announce plans to brilbuild a wind facility out or eastern plains. vestus -- many are familiar with the danish wind turbine supplier

-- recently broke ground on two manufacturing plafntses in the city of brighton h. and it's also building a manufacturing facility in pueblo thald that will employ 500 people. our governor, bill ritter, has estimated that the solar component in our renewable electricity standard to generate solar activity, that brought over 1,500 new jobs to colorado. i think it's fair to shea that we've got wind turbines sprowght and growing like trees on our eastern plains and we have solar farms that are covering the entire san luis valley, which is one of our agricultural gems. this is a direct result of colorado setting a goal, saying we're going to meet that goal. and i guess i'm optimistic enough about america to know that america can follow

colorado's lead. and for me, it's when, not if we commit to a cleaner, more sustainable future. we will lead the world in this next technological revolution. the senator spoke to the you a -- to the awe-inspiring numbers. a $6 trillion economy waiting for us, if we'll only commit to it. a 25% renewable electricity standard by 2025 would lead to almost 20,000 jobs here in america. $260-plus billion in new capital investments, $13 billion in income to fathers ranchers, and rural landowners, and $12 billion in local and state tax revenues. consumers would save $64 billion in lower electricity bills by 2025, while we would reduce the carbon pollution emitted by cars that would be the equivalent of

taking 45 million vehicles off of our roads. i'm talking about jobs here, madam president, but it goes mucher further than that. if we -- if -- and i said when we develop a clean energy economy, it will create a new manufacturing base. it will protect our land and water, and it will align a policy compass that helps us navigate towards a more prosperous future. i'd like to take a minute and emiemphasize that the clean eney future i paint doesn't abandon the energy sources we have. nor should it shut the door on nuclear power. quite the opposite. these sources will remain an essential component of our energy minimum for the foreseeable future. i think colorado's experience shows that a balanced energy portfolio will work, and that we can find that sweet spot in an

energy mix with the future. we have ample supplies of fossil fuel in colorado. we ought to continue to develop those sources. they're crucial to the livelihood of tens of thousands of coloradans that still comprise the majority of our electric generation. natural gas, in particular, would be a clean -- is a clean domestic source of energy and it will be a bridge fuel to the future. we have massive quantities of oil shale, potentially, on our western slope and we should continue to research to see if we can produce it in a commercially viable way and an environmentally sensitive manner. colorado has been able to bridge the divide, literally, between our west slope and our eastern plains and between conventional sources of energy from the last city century and the clean sources of the future. and our country of america must now do the same. the bottom line, madam president

is we must have a comprehensive energy policy that transitions us to a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable source of energy while making full use of existing sources in a responsible manner. madam president, we have in colorado a very tangible interest in america adopting broad clean energy sources and, therefore, limiting our contribution of carbon to the atmosphere, and i'd like to focus on one key element of life on our planet, and that's water. water is the lifeblood of the entire west. when you grow up in the desert, like i did, you learn to treasure water. everybody is shaped by it and it may not always be there when you need it, if you don't husband those resources. my constituents know that maintaining our water supplies is crucial to the health of their families and to preserving the way of life that we so value in the west. we've suffered through water shortages. we've seen drought.

my father's generation -- not that far removed from our generation -- experienced the great dust bowl of the 1930's. that was an ecological disaster that reminded us that while we're smart as a species and we're industrious, that mother nature always bats last. scientists in our part -- when they lack at our part of the country predict that droughts will get worse and precipitation patterns will decrease in western states because of our use of and dependence on the traditional sources of the last century. and people from colorado know we can't ignore this threat. we've seen acre after acre of our forests devastated by the mountain pine beetle, an epidemic that was exacerbated by a warming climate that will get worse in the hotter, drier conditions to come. when they see that -- when i see that -- we know that doing nothing is not an option.

the cost of inaction is simply too high, and you see that point of view in all the states in my region of the country, regardless of the leadership at the gubernatorial level, at the legislative level. now, madam president, no matter what part of the country you're from, we do have a stake in crafting a new energy policy. beyond regional interests, members of both political parties know that we have to meet this challenge because, if we don't, it's not only our economic prosperity that's at stake, our national expiewrt is at staifnlgt -- our national security is at stake. i was inspired this week to see that our former colleague, john warner, is traveling across the country making the case for a plan to address the threats for climate change. we can debate the causes of climate change. we should continue to have that debate.

but we know what we must do. first, we must lead the world in a clean-energy revolution. and, next, we must acknowledge that our reliance on foreign sources of oil and fossil fuels isn't a sustainable strategy. and, third, we must act soon. i used to think, having a discussion about adapting to the changes being brought about by the emission of carbon was a mistake and that by looking at adapting we were giving into the problem. but i've come to realize that -- but i've come to realize that you have to be realistic and you to recognize that the changes that are coming will have real impacts on all of us, and if we don't act now, the changes that are coming at us it and bearing down on us will have a terrible effect on future generations and we'll be doing those generations

a terrible disservice. so the longer we wait, the longer we deny, the longer we spend debating, the harder and frankly the more expensive it will be to deal with those changes. so, madam president, the time to act is now. i urge all of our colleagues to join together to pass a strong, clean energy bill. we can drive america with clean energy. madam president, thank you. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: and, madam president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, america has been listening to the confirmation hearings of judge sotomayor, lengthy rounds of questioning, probative approach of the members of the committee, and we have seen an extraordinary jurist in action. we've seen her responses, witnessed the depth, dignity, and clarity of her thoughtful observations. we have seen a skilled, dynamic jurist carefully, thoroughly, calmly engage each member of the committee, showing each senator a deference in tone and tenor that speaks directly to her temperament and what she will bring to the debate in the hallowed halls of the supreme court. but i believe most americans

watching these hearing, though deeply concerned about the substance of the issues raised fundamentally at the heart of it care more about the person. they care about honor and decency and dignity and fairness. they care about her experience. they care about who judge sotomayor is and what she has accomplished in her long judicial career. they care about the record and the record is clear. they care that the leaders of prominent legal and law enforcement organizations, who know her best and have actually seen her work, say she is an exemplary, fair, and highly qualified judge. they care about her work fighting crime as a prosecutor and that as a prosecutor, he put the tarzan murderer behind bars. they care that as a judge she upheld the convictions of drug

dealers, sexual predators, and other violent criminals. they care that she respects their liberties and protections granted by the constitution, including the first amendment rights of those with whom she strongly disagrees. judge sotomayor's credentials are impeccable. set aside for a moment the fact that she graduated at the top of her class at rinse ton. set aside her tenure at editor of yale law review set aside her work in the manhattan district attorney's office and set aside strings of victories along the way not to mention we are courtroom experience and practical happened' hand on knof the legal system. set aside her appointment by

george h.w. bush to the united states district court in new york and her appointment by bill clinton to the united states court of appeals and the fact she was confirmed by a democratic majority senate and a republican majority senate which alone tells this senator if she was good enough twice she must be good enough a third time. set all that aside and you are left with someone who would bring more judicial experience to the supreme court than any justice in the last 70 years. and more federal judicial experience than anyone not natured to theourt in the -- than anyone nominated in the court in the last century. someone so skilled and focused on the details of the law can be both an impartial arbiter and still understand the deep and profound effect her decisions

will have on the day-to-day lives of every day people. senators should focus on judge sotomayor's full 17-year record on the bench as well as her career as a prosecutor and corporate attorney. she has been clear and consistent in her answers despite repeated questions and efforts to trip her up she has been consistently more forthcoming than any other recent supreme court nominee. now, almost every republican senator has asked judge sotomayor in total more than a dozen times about the same comment made in a 2001 speech, a singular speech more than eight years ago in berkeley. she has continued to say, frankly, openly, honestly, that her comment "fell flat." that she never intended that any

person would have an advantage in judging. she has given the same answer each time and each time made clear that "her personal experience does thought compel a particular result and prejudice never has a role in her judging." she said again yesterday "i do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gender group has an advantage in sound judgment. i do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences." now, i know no senator here has ever made a speech in which their quote fell flat or their comments fell flat or what they intended to say was somehow misconstrued. i know it has not happened among the 100 members of the united

states senate. now on gun rights judge sotomayor has consistently followed precedent in second amendment cases and yesterday and today has reaffirmed her view that the second amendment includes the individual right to bear arms. she reaffirmed again today her statement if conferred when asked if she would be open to considering whether the second amendment creates an individual right applicable to the states saying, "i have an open mind on the question." "i would not prejudge any question that came before me if i was a justice on the supreme court." consist event wconsistent with y she has followed the law. she has stated over and over and over again she is committed to precedent and the rule of law in

every kiss, a commitment reflected not just in words but in her 17-year record as a fair, moderate judge. she said, "as a judge, i don't make law." that is exactly the approach we should expect and demand from any nominee to the supreme court. now i would implore my colleagues to look at her reco record. listen to her answers. they're clear, focused, respectful, forthright. she has answered every question directly, honestly, thoughtfully, and without equivocation. she has held nothing back. but i personally as i've watched these hearings am beginning to wonder are we truly in search of answers or are we badgering the

witness? i know all of america is watching this hearing. but i have to tell you that hispanic-americans are watching it with great interest. attempts as distorting a reported that has been committed to the constitution, to the rule of law, by suggesting that her ethnicity or heritage would be a driving force of her decisions as a justice of the supreme court is demeaning to women and to latinos. it is demeaning, especially in light of a 17-year that reflects totally the opposite. now, maybe some of my colleagues thing by repeating that statement time and time and time again they will subsequent raten opportunity to create an image that is not true but they will create an image not true.

for many of us who come from the hispanic community within this good country we have seen the efforts to have a class of people painted in a certain way. i urge my colleagues who seem to be traveling down this road that they are running a great risk. they are running a great risk. if this judge didn't have the 17-year record of fidelity to the constitution, fidelity to the rule of law, fidelity to precedents even when that precedent binds her in a way as in the ricci case where she had sympathy from the white firefighters but precedent kept her obligated to the decision they had i would say maybe that line of questioning is legitimate but i must be honest, when it was raised once, twice, three types but it has been raised a dozen times, sometimes by the same senator asking the same set of questions, despite

having gotten a full answer on the issue, it creates great concern for some of us who have been down this road in other paths at other times but with the same tactics. clearly, clearly, this is one of the most gifted jurists in america and we as a nation would be honored to have her serve on the united states supreme court. i hope these hearings will come to a conclusion soon. i look forward to the debate that will take place on the floor. and i, as well as the rest of this country who is riveted on this process are going to be looking for equal justice under the law. a template that is before the mantle on the supreme court -- "equal justice under the law." judge sonia sotomayor deserves

to be treated with equal justice in this process. and this badgering of the witness, particularly in this line of questioning, which has been asked and answered several times raises serious concerns for those who have lived in this community and understand the challenges and understand the way people try to paint people in this community. it is time to end that line of questioning and time to have us have the committee move beyond. with that, madam president. seeing no one else on the floor i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. webb: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. webb: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. webb: thank you, madam president. today i introduce with great pride the adult education and economic getting act of 2009 and i would like to point out i and my staff have been working on this legislation for more than a year. it is designed to address a

problem that we quite frankly don't spend enough attention on, i think, as we discuss the challenges of education in america. that is not the problem that's often discussed with respect to technical degrees or how we can compete with foreign countries in the number of engineers we're putting out or those sorts of issues. it's the question of how we can assure basic competence at the working level of a lot of american companies. i have started calling this the second chance act for education. there are a lot of people in this country who for a variety of reasons when they are in their teens, their late teens, cease their educational pursuits even before they finished high

school, perhaps someone might have a child or get in trouble with the law or get an independent streak and decide to leave school and then when you get to the age of, say, 30 or beyond, realize the disadvantage that you have in attempting to compete in the marketplace. there are really very few provisions in our law and in our policies that address that situation, and this bill is designed to address that situation. we seek to reform and increase investment in what we call adult education, which is that span of education that will bring people beyond a high school degree and hopefully into postsecond ary education. we were looking at job training and other workforce programs

that we need as a country to build a 20th century workforce. i'm very pleased to be joined in this initiative as a principal cosponsor with senator sherrod brown of ohio. by almost any measure, our nation faces a critical need to strengthen existing programs of adult education. our current adult education system falls far short in preparing our people to compete in this global marketplace. in fact, it's estimated that only 2.5 million of the 93 million people who could benefit from these types of services are actually receiving them today. the american labor market has changed dramatically with the advent of new technology and with the loss of jobs in our manufacturing sector. the need for well-trained and highly-skilled workers is obvious, and it has increased. at the same time our adult education system, which should be effectively praoepl our low-skilled workers to --

preparing our low-skilled workers to meet the demands in this shifting economy has not kept pace. since 2002, the federal government has consistently decreased spending on adult education. in addition, the nation's primary federal resource for adult education job training and employment services, the wrorbgs investment act, has not been -- the workforce investment act has not been reauthorized in ten years. you can imagine how much the economy has changed over the last ten years. there are other signs tpoeupbgt a need for a better approach to adult education. if you look at adult education enrollment rates, in 1998 there were more than 4 million individuals enrolled. by 2007, that number had dropped to only 2 million. basically a 40% drop from when the workforce investment act was originally enacted. one of the largest barriers to

economic growth in many communities is a skilled workforce, particularly with those who have entry-level skills. it's critical that we increase the number of individuals who obtain a high school diploma and encourage them to go forward into postsecondary education. i'm sure we can all agree the best economic tool for any community is a well-educated, skilled workforce. the growing number of american skilled workers right now are facing retirement age, and the growth and skill labor has actually stagnated. if we continue along the current path, we'll see only a 19% increase in the number of post secondary education equipped native-born workers, which is about one-seventh the rate of growth during the past two decades. by comparison, we all know countries like china and india are tripling the number of college graduates in their countries. according to the workforce alliance, 80% of the jobs in

today's economy require some sort of education past a high school degree. yet, there are 8 million adults in the workforce today who have low literacy, limited english proficiency or lack educational credentials beyond high school. with so many workers who are unemployed or underemployed, it's clear we should be investing in the training or retraining of american workers to fill this growing gap. our legislation begins that vital task by addressing these problems. so, today we are proposing a two-pronged approach to strengthen the nation's workforce. first, we want to build on-ramps for american workers who got off track perhaps in their teens and need new skills and a better education in order to improve their lives. just as important, we want to encourage employers to help them by offering tax credits to

businesses that invest in these employees. our government has long provided employers with limited tax credits when they help their employers go to college or to graduate school. it is basic logic, and i believe to the national good, that we should provide similar incentives for this type of adult education. this bill authorizes a rather modest $500 million increase in funding to invigorate state and local adult education programs nationwide in order to increase the number of adults with a high school diploma. as a result, the bill will inevitably increase the number of high school graduates who go on to college and update and expand the job skills of the american workforce at large. all of this is relevant to my longg standing personal goal of promoting basic economic fairness in our society. other provisions in the bill will improve workers' readiness

to meet the demands of a global workforce by providing pathways to obtain basic skills, job training and adult education, will provide workers with greater access to on-the-job training and adult education by encouraging public-private partnerships between government, business, and labor. will increase the use of technology in workforce skills training. will improve access to correctional educational programs to channel former offenders into productive endeavors and to reduce resid sreufplt will encourage investment in lower-skilled workers by providing employers with a tax credit if they invest in their employees' education. this tax credit is aimed at encouraging general and transferable skills of element that may be in the long term interest of most of its employees but are not always so clearly rewarded by the marketplace. this act focuses on addressing the unique needs of adults with limited basic skills, with no

high school diploma, or with limited english proficiency. those individuals who may have taken a different path early in their lives and who now find themselves eager to go back to school and receive additional job training and skills should be provided opportunities to get back on track. my legislation also would bolster the president's just-announced goal of ensuring that 5 million more americans graduate from community ledges by 2020 and updating kreupl columns to keep up with the skills tkurbs curriculums needed to keep up with the skills in today's workforce. i'm very proud of the work that my staff has done on this for more than a year now. our nation's workforce and local communities will be stronger for it. and it's my hope that this legislation could be passed in a timely manner. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, could i say, for the information

of my colleagues, we are working on a unanimous consent agreement so that we can take up the hate crimes issue, the f-22 amendment, and republican amendment. both sides are working very hard to try to get that resolved. but, you know, this is a very interesting time in america and in the congress of the united states. we have a very important defense authorization bill before us. we have the hearings for judge sotomayor. we have the health committee reporting out its legislation. and probably there's as many major issues before the congress that -- i guess there may have been more, but i don't recall them in the years i've been in the senate. so, today we had an event that

is in the "you can't make it up category." and i read from the snsnews.com. it's entitled "joe biden, you have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt." and i quote completely from the news report from cnsnews.com. "vice president joe biden told people attending an aarp town hall meeting that unless the democrats supported health care plan becomes law, the nation will go bankrupt. and the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money. -- quote -- "and, folks, look, aarp knows and people working here today know, the president knows and i know that the status here is simply not acceptable," biden said thursday in alexandria, virginia. -- quote -- "it's totally unacceptable and completely unsustainable. even if we wanted to keep it the

way we have it, it can't do it financially. we're going to go bankrupt as a nation," biden said. and then he went on to say, "well, people that i say that to say -- quote -- "what are you talking about? you're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?" biden said. the answer is, yes, i'm telling you." you know, that's a very interesting story. but the thing that probably makes it more interesting is "the washington post" story today concerning, entitled c.b.o. criticized democrats health reform measures. i quote from "the washington post" story. it says, "instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional democrats would worsen an already bleak budget

outlook, increase deficit projections and driving the nation more deeply into debt, the director of the nonpartisan congressional budget office said this morning. under questioning by members of the senate budget committee, c.b.o. director douglas elmendorf said bills crafted by house leaders and the senate health committee do not propose -- quote -- "the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount ." quote -- "on the contrary," elmendorf said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs." so, here we have -- here we have on the one hand, the vice president of the united states today telling the american people that we have to spend

money. we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt. and yet, the congressional budget office says that the proposed changes would weaken our economy and expand the federal responsibility for health care costs. the chairman of the senate budget committee, kent conrad, democrat, north dakota, has taken a leading role this morning after receiving elmendorf's testimony on the nation's long-term budget outlook, conrad turned immediately to questions about the emerging health care measures. quote -- "i'm really going to put you on the spot," conrad told elmendorf. "from what you have seen from the products of the committee that have reported -- the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?" elmendorf responded, "no, mr. chairman." asked what provisions would be

needed to slow the growth in federal spending, elmendorf urged lawmakers to end or limit the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits." that has a little echo associated with it. elmendorf urged lawmakers to end or limit the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits. i don't know where that idea came from, calling it a federal subsidy that encourages spending on evermore expensive health packages. key senators, including conrad, have been pressing to tax employer-provided benefits, but senate leaders last week objected, saying the idea does not have enough support among senate democrats to win passage. elmendorf also suggested changing the way medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs. certainly forms of that sort are included in some of the packages elmendorf said, but the changes we've looked at so far do not

represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals. and then, incredibly -- incredibly -- the senate majority leader, harry n. reid, nevada, dismissed elmendorf's push for the benefits tax. quote -- "what he should do is maybe run for congress." unquote, reid said. mr. president, i've disagreed from time to time with the congressional budget office. i have agreed from time to time with the congressional budget office. but i don't think it's appropriate -- i don't think it's appropriate to use that kind of language from the majority leader of the senate about the hard-working people. this wasn't just mr. elmendorf's product. this was the product of endless nights and days of work on the

part of the congressional budget office. if you disagree with them, as i have in the past, disagree and give your reasons for doing so. for the majority leader to say that -- quote -- "what he should do is maybe run for congress," frankly, i don't think is an appropriate response to the incredible work that these individuals are doing. the senate finance chairman max baucus expressed frustration that the tax unemployer benefits had fallen out of favor in part because the white house opposes the idea. critics of the proposal say it would target police and firefighters who receive generous packages. and if the tax is trimmed will apply to only upper-income beneficiaries, it would lose its effectiveness as a cost-containment measure. quote -- "basically the president is not helping," baucus said. "he does not want the exclusion, and that's making it difficult."

but he added, "we are clearly going to find ways to bend the cost curve in the right direction, including provisions that will actually lower the rate of increase in the health care costs. ideas under consideration include health care delivery system reform, health insurance market reform and empowering an independent agency to set medicare reimbursement rates, an idea the white house is shopping aggressively on capitol hill." but baucus is not givi -- is not giving up on the benefits tax. there is still not a lot of interest in it, baucus said. well, you know, what this is all about -- what this is really all about is heading in the wrong direction with the wrong fundamentals of what the problems with health care in america are. a fundamental misunderstanding. the health care in america is the highest quality in the world. i went to m.d. anderson with the

republican leader and the senator from texas, senator cornyn, at m.d. anderson, one of the great premier institutes in america, where cancer treatment is incredible, there were people there from 09 countries from around the world -- 90 countries from around the world. most of those people were healthy people. they had the opportunity to go anywhere in the world to get the treatment they needed. they went to the united states. that's true of the mayor clinic. that's true of many other medical facilities and institutions in america. so the problem with health care in america is not the quality of care. the problem with health care in america is affordability and availablity. the cost of health care continues to increase inflationary nearly double digits. we cannot afford it. the vice president is right when he says it's unsustainable. but when the president says those who want -- that we want

to do nothing obviously are not -- is not what the view of republicans are. we believe you have to do a lot. we believe you have to do a lot. and that is increase competition in america so that people will have choices, affordability and availablity. and not a government-run health care system. so the architects of the legislation passed through the "help" committee and being considered by the finance committee and came to the house, were fundamentally wrong to start with. they were not attacking the problem of health care in america, and that's the cost. and preservation of the quality which of health care in america is what needs to be preserve. how do you install competition? install competition by allowing people to go across state lines to shop for the health insurance policy they want. but that's prohibited now. why is that? why is that?

the other is wellness and fitness. we are in agreement, i want to say, in a lot of issues that have not been highlighted in debate on the floor. republicans and democrats, wellness and fitness, rewards by employers for people who practice wellness and fitness. in fact -- in fact probably one of the best known individuals in america today is the c.e.o. of safeway. they have had an incredibly successful program for their employees where if they practice wellness and fitness, they don't smoke, they regularly engage in exercise including membership in health clubs. guess what, they are rewarded for doing so. and the overall cost of health care in safeway have gone down and they told every to come. if you want to encourage our employees to encourage wellness and fitness and let them make a

choice, do so. that's the ens of what we -- the essence of what we have to do. plement with health care in america is that too often they're fixed costs, no competition and incentives to drive up the cost of health care. we all know that. we know that there are certain procedures which are more rewarding than others and the system is gaped and that there's -- gamed and there's 10 of billions of dollars of fraud, abuse and waste in the health care system that has been identified on numerous occasions. we also know that medical malpractice is a problem. and we need to reform it. some years ago the state of california not known as a conservative state to say the least, enacted fundamental medical liability practice reform. and guess what? it has resulted in cost savings. it is well known that physicians practice defensive medicine

which many times accounts for 10%, 15% increase in those costs for fear of being sued. and the new technology then, which has made such tremendous advances, then, indeed, increases costs because they're overused because that physician knows that unless in sops states in some -- in some states and some cases and some places, unless a test is administered, whether the patient needs it or not, is going to be administered and prescribed in order to avert the eventuality of appearing in court and not having administered all of the necessary or what the plaintiff lawyers believe is necessary tests and procedures. so, look, we know now -- we know

now from the congressional budget office for the second time that this proposal is not going to cure the health care issues of america. it's time we went back to the drawing board. it's time republican and democrats sat down at the negotiating table. not calling one or two senators down to the white house. not trying to pick off one republican or two republicans. not doing that. now, i know that still with this plan the democrats may be -- and the administration may be able to pick off a couple of republicans and get 60 votes and enact this massive, massive movement of the government takeover -- eventual takeover of the health care system in america or we can sit down together for the first time with -- with incredibly knowledgeable people. there's nobody that knows more about health care than our two

doctors. doctors coburn and barrasso. there is no one that knows more about health care than senator enzi, who has been our leader in the "help" committee. senatorrer alexander. there's a lot of knowledge on the health care issues that we could sit down together and scrap this idea, scrap this spend money to keep from going bankrupt, scrap this proposal that the congressional budget office says the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs and that the measures would worsen and already -- an already bleak budgetout look and drive the nation more deeply into debt. that's not -- that's not the proposal that -- that the american people want to patriot penalty for. so events today have been very interesting. and the fact is that what we need to do now is sit down

together for a change -- and i've done it in the past. i will admit on issues that are not of this magnitude. i don't know if there's been an issue that consumes one-sixth of the gross national product of this -- gross domestic product of this country that i've been involved in. certainly other major issues. certainly working together with my friend and colleague from measure on defense authorization and other measures to preserve our nation's security. but this issue, i must say, causes all others to pale in magnitude. that is also the reason why we should sit down together and not pass legislation that is purely on a partisan basis. and let's listen to the experts. let's listen to the congressional budget office. i -- i've -- i know of no one who believes that there's bias in the congressional budget office. as i say, sometimes i've been very disappointed or disagree

with them. but i know of no one who thinks if they're not doing the very best they can under the intense pressures of getting these numbers out -- i want to take this moment to salute the congressional budget office, whether i agree or disagree with them, for the incredible work they've done in the past. i hope at some point to be able after the health care bill is done, the thousands of hours put in by the congressional budget office and the staff there in trying to come up with their best assessment so that we can legislate with the benefit of the knowledge that, frankly, only they possess. so let's listen to them. let's listen to other outside experts. let's recognize the fact that this issue has badly divided this congress, but also listen to the fact that the american people are becoming more and more skeptical of the proposals that we are considering or that

have been reported out by both the house and the senate "help" committee and maybe go back over and do something -- start over and do something that the american people can say -- can believe in and that we can tell the american people that we put their interests first. mr. president, i note my friend, the senator from michigan, on the floor, and i hope that we can give a ray of hope to our colleagues and let them know how they're going to be able to spend the rest of the evening. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: let me thank my good friend from arizona, for of all, for all of the efforts he made today with his staff the our staffs have been working hard. there's a lot of progress on the unanimous consent agreement which will set out the path forward not just for tonight, and we obviously expect votes tonight, a number of votes tonight, but also for the coming days when we come back here for

votes on monday. but there is progress being made and the staffs are working very hard and you can actually see them in the back of the chamber at times going back and forthwith different ideas, but we're close. we're confident that -- we're optimistic that we'll fairly soon have a unanimous consent agreement. and i want to, again, thank my friend from arizona for all that he's done to help facility this and to our staffs because they're working hard and i'm optimistic that they're going to succeed. mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank, mr. president. i want to take -- i was going to talk about aircraft and aircraft procurement. and i will do that. before i do that, i -- i feel compelled to respond to the comments of my colleague from -- from arizona with respect to health care. as it turns out the -- as we --

we're gathered here on the senate floor today, negotiations are under way between democrats and republicans, led by senator max baucus, chairman of the senate finance committee and senator chuck grassley, ranking republican on the senate finance committee, trying to find common ground with respect to health care in a day and age when we spend more on health care than any other nation on earth. we don't get better results. i think that 14,000 people are likely to lose their health care in our country today in a country where we have 47 million folks who don't have health care coverage. we can do better than that. and a strong bipartisan effort led by two very good people, senators grassley and senator baucus to find the common ground. as it turns out, i like to use the words of a friend, senator mike enzi, of wyoming, who talks about the 80/20 rules and why he and senator kennedy have gotten so much accomplished.

because they agree on 0% of the stuff and disagree on 20% of the stuff and focus on the 80% they agree. the same be said on the negotiations going on today. the president said that he wants a bipartisan bill. the leaders on committees want a bipartisan bill. in order to get something good, something done, that improves the quality of health care provided in this country, that slows the growth of health care costs and bends that cost curve down and makes it possible for us to extend coverage to a lot of people who don't have it is enhanced by having bipartisan -- bipartisan legislation -- legislation. so i won't go further near that at this time. but i just felt he compelled to say, i'm not giving up hope, and my hope is the efforts under way as i speak will bear fruit and maybe provide a -- a road map to a -- to a plan that we can agree to here in the senate and in the

house to build on the good work that the health, education, labor and pension has done here in the senate and to find common ground with the house and hopefully with the obama administration. having said that, i know this might be a good sevment gue, we're spending a ton of money on health care in this cufnlt if you look at the size of our budget deficit, look at how much we spend, i'm told it is about one-sixth of g.d.p. that's not sustainable and medicare is like toy run out of money in seven, eight years from now. that's not acceptable. and we end up meanwhile, not getting necessarily better results than a lot of other countries who are spending substantially less. we have great models for health care delivery in this country. i'll mention a dpie a few that e showing better days. they include the mayo clinic in minnesota, intermountain health

in utah, kaiser permanente in northern california, a cooperative called pew get sound in washington state -- puget sound in washington state, the cleveland clinic in cleveland, ohio. most of them are nonprofits or cooperatives that show better care, betterout comes and less money than what we're getting in this fee-for-service operation that we now call a health care delivery system. we can do better, and my hope is that we'll keep working at it, not give up, continue to try to work across the aisle until we come up with product that we can bring to the floor and negotiate, debate it here on the floor, amend it on the floor and then go to conference with the house. now, in terms of things that spend a lot of money, we spend a lot of money on a variety of things, not just health care. but we spend a lot of money on defense of our country. that's a major priority for our nation. if we go back to 1990's, 1980's,

1970's, we went for a long time without balancing our budgets. in fact, it was not until really fiscal year 1999 in the previous administration, the clinton administration, where we actually finally balanced our budget four the first time, i think, since 1968. gosh, was it 30 years -- roughly 30 years, three decades that we went without balancing the budget. i think we did it again in 2000. then when we had the handoff from president clinton to president bush, we left the new president with a budget that i believe was in balance once more. so we went from that time in fiscal responsibility, and over the last eight years we went just the opposite direction. we ended up running more debt, more new debt in the last eight years than we ran up in our first 208 years as a nation. we ran up more new debt in the last eight years than we did in the first 208 years as a nation.

the debt for the new fiscal year as we go through this worst recession since the great depression in trying to fight the two wars, one in pishing and one in afghanistan, and a meltdown in revenues, very high health care coughs, we're lookingality a budget deficit which i'm told for this year may have exceed $1 trillion, the highest on record. i chair a subcommittee in the homeland security-government affairs committee in the senate. one of our responsibilities is to help along with our colleagues to scrub -- scrub spending. and one of the things we do is look for spending that doesn't make much sense, whether it's waste, frauds, or abuse. and i might say with respect to senator mccain's comments on waste in the medicare system, one of the encourage things in the last year or we went out -- actually the last year, we did cost audit recoveries. and three states got out to see

where money has been spent and see if we can recover that money. the first year we recovered almost nothing. the second year we recovered a little bit. last year we recovered about $700 million. we're now going to be doing the same thing in 47 states, hopefully recovering a whole lot of money for the medicare sanldz taking our lessons hopefully from recovering the moneys misspent -- inappropriately spnts for medicare. dot same kind of thing in medicaid that. would put a lot of our money into the trearchlt and my subcommittee who focus on wasteful spending in the homeland security committee. we looked at cost overruns for major new weapons systems. we want back with the help of the general accountability office, went back to 2001 and looked to see how much money was cost overruns for major new weapon systems and in 2001 it was $45 billion. we have seen it ramp up from $45 billion in cost overruns for

major new weapon systems g.a.o. says by last year, 2007 or 2008 the number had grown to almost $300 billion. $245 billion in 2001 and the next six or seven years to almost $300 billion. in those overruns. unacceptable. we have leveled off the increase. but we've, this kind of -- that trend is unacceptable but the level of that enormous cost overrun in weapon systems is unacceptable, as well. in a day and age our nation is awash in red ink and we are involved in wars in iraq and afghanistan it's, i think, critically important we spend every dollar, defense dollar and frankly non-defense dollars, as wisely as we can, get the most out of that money, whether it is health care to make sure the dollars we invest are spent cost

effectively or whether it is for defense to make sure the money we're spending there is cost effectively spent. as senator mccain a vietnam veteran, a real hero for me but we have people who served here, one or two might have been around in world war ii including a fellow, senator inouye, won a medicalmedal of honor and peopld in the vietnam war and korean war. i spent 23 years, five active, 18 ready reserve, as a naval flight officer and much as a mission commander of a navy aircraft. built by lockheed. and the p-3 we used for years for ocean surveillance, tracking submarines, many of the soviet submarines of the world during the cold war so we would know where they were and we would destroy them if they had to, a

mutually assured destruction. and we never had to do that. we used them in the vietnam war with coastal surveillance off the cost of vietnam and cambodia and the p-3 was introduced in i think the 1960's and introduced as a commercial airplane, four engine turbo prop but we had problems with the wins. we would say they would fall off. it was not quite that bad but we had problems performing reliability as a naval aircraft bouncing around in the skies in all kinds of weather. a lot of work had to be done on the p-3 wings and within a couple of years we straightened out the problem and they are still flying and we are using them in iraq not to track submarines but all kinds of missions including electronic surveillance and hurricane hunters and now special work in iraq and that part of the world. an airplane whose experience

started badly as a military aircraft and it got a lot better and can you find c-5's built in the 1960's and rough ramp up on the aircraft and we figured out the problems with the aircraft and are overhauling the c-5m's and they are 85% mission capable rate. it took a long time to work out the wrinkles but we have and we will have a plane that can fly for 30, 40 years and we will get a lot of use out of it meeting our needs. the f-22 has been around for a number of years, too, but not as long as the p-3 or c-5 but around for quite a few years. we have,ing, i think, close to 0 have been built or planning to build and one of the things that i find troubling and i stand in support of the amendment offered by senators levin and mccain

and mr. president i ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the legislation. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. carper: built largely by lockheed and a lot of the contracts are being done in close to 40 or 45 states but lockheed does good work but this aircraft i am troubled by a number of things as are the sponsors of the legislation. it is not just their troubles or i am troubled but other folks are troubled. let me see if we have a list of those calling that maybe suggesting the f-22's we have ordered are enough. among the people who say, in this case that 187 f-22's designed to be used for dog fights with aircraft from other nations where there might be an earlier day, the soviets or maybe the chinese or some other country. but among the leaders of our

country saying maybe 187 is not -- not maybe but 187 is enough. two presidents -- former president george bush and our current president, president obama, and they have said that not justify in speeches but they have actually said that with the budgets they submit to us. in this case, president obama's first budget and the last budget are maybe several several budgets of president bush. who also has said 187 are enough? the secretaries of defense, current secretary of defense, bob gates, and the previous secretary of defense and his predecessor said 187 should do us. we have had three chairs of the joint chiefs of staff who said, 187 f-22's are enough. we think that should do it. and we have had current members of the joint chiefs who said 187 is plenty for when it comes to

f-22's and, finally, two of the most respected members of the senate, senators mccain and levin. they have said as leaders of this committee, have said no, this is enough given our other demands and our other aircraft we have available to meet this need, 187 f-22's are plenty. let me take a look at the next chart if we could and see what we have here. one of the reasons why all the folks i just mentioned have said 187 f-22's are enough, think of some of the or aircraft we have used, fixed wing and as well as nonfixed wing aircraft, but the f-15 fighter, a number of ours flown in iraq and afghanistan, rough numbers, about 40,000 flight hours. we have a couple of u.a.v.'s unmanned aerial vehicles, called

scaneagle and the other is called the predator which is better known. so far, the scaneagle pilotless drone is friend in iraq and afghanistan about 150,000 flight hours. the predator has flown about half a million delight hours in iraq and afghanistan. one of our helicopters, h-60, a blackhawk, they have flown 900,000 flight hours. in iraq and afghanistan. and down here at the bottom the number of flight hours as far as we can tell in iraq and afghanistan are zero. that's just a stark, stark number -- a stark contrast. sometimes we tend to order weapon systems and maintain the weapon systems to fight wars like the last war not thinking

about so much about the weapon systems we need for the country war or likely to need for the future war, one of the reasons why this administration, the last administration, this president, why this secretary of defense and previous ones have said we don't think we want to build more f-22's is because they believe for a while we're going to be fighting wars like, unfortunately, like we fought in iraq and especially afghanistan. that's going to be more fighting counter insurge answers and w counterinsurgencies and the f-22 does not helped itself to that kind of war. i was at a -- led a congressional delegation with four colleagues in may with iraq and afghanistan and we learned a lot and came back home feeling very much encouraged about our strategy in afghanistan and the

men and women implementing that strategy in the military and civilian side but we learned going into pakistan, for years the pakistanis have been preparing to fight the next war not against the taliban, not against al qaeda but the next war fororever since 1947, againt the indians, against the country of india. and now they may have weapon system to work just fine in that particular altercation if it were to occur but their real threat is not india anymore but the taliban and the al qaeda folks that are hanging out in the northwest province along the border with afghanistan. and while india, rather, pakistan could have plenty of fighter aircraft they don't have any helicopters and they need mobility and helicopters to be able to move their ant antiinsurgency forces or counterinsurgency forces and they don't have it. frankly, so we are sort of

guilty, in a way, of the same thing, with the f-22. let me say what we have on our next chart here. well, i'll come in a little bit. one of the things that we think about when we think of aircraft, aircraft that we use, we think first of all, what are the missions that we'll likely need aircraft for, the kind of wars we might face or are likely to face, the kind of threats we're likely to need to meet. that helps us make that decision. occasionally we -- we look at the -- the -- how much does it cost to fly an aircraft and we look at the dollars that we spend to put an aircraft or helicopter or an aircraft in the -- in the air for an hour. we measure flight hour costs. and i've seen a wide range of

flight hour costs for the f-22. i've seen it as low as maybe -- maybe $20,000 per flight hour. i've seen it as high as, gosh, $40,000, maybe $42,000 per flight hour. i don't -- i don't have at my fingertips the final costs for other other aircraft, but i want to tell you, folks, that's a lot of money for a flight hour to put any aircraft, especially a fighter aircraft, in the air and to keep it there, whether it's $19,000 or $20,000 an hour or $40,000, that's a lot of money for the kind of job that we're looking for this aircraft to -- to do. who are we preparing to -- to fight or what threat are we preparing to counter? some people say, well, we're -- just in case the chinese ever give us trouble, we have -- take them on, we -- we need the -- we may need the f-22's, we may need 200 more. and one of the aircraft command chiefs, chief corley, says we need about -- i guess about another 200. as it turns out, we have other

aircraft to meet that kind of threat. i hope it's not going to ever materialize. china's a major trading partner. we don't see eye to eye with them on everything, but my hope is we're not going to end up in a shooting war with them, nor with the russians. but among the other aircraft, let me just think, and maybe my staff can help me with this, i think we have some other fighter aircraft that might use -- maybe the f-15, maybe the f-16, maybe the f-18. i think we're in the process of another new fighter aircraft which would be a joint aircraft which would be able to not only do dogfights in the air but do other things are i think air-to-ground attacks, that kind of thing, which the f-22 doesn't really lend itself to -- to do. we're going to build i think about 2,500 f-35's and it has a lot of broad support. we've built i think maybe 50 of them so far. cost per aircraft, about $80 million. i think the cost for building a -- a new f-22 is roughly

$190 million. so the f-35, which a lot of people -- lockheed will play a role in building, again, the f-35, maybe $80 million a copy. more f-22's, which don't have the kind of capability or hopefully the kind of reliability as the f-35, they cost about $190 million, over twice as much. and that certainly makes me pause and i hope it makes some of my colleagues pause as -- as well. and the last thing i -- i want to mention here, we're -- everybody knows we're in a tough economic time for our country. we've lost a lot of jobs. we had a bubble, a housing bubble, and a meltdown and a loss of jobs in the banking sector, financial services, a lot of manufacturing jobs. chrysler and g.m. have gone in bankruptcy. they've come out and actually encouraged by -- very encouraged by their chances, especially g.m., given the product lineup they have coming through the pipeline. and our banks are stabilized and

are actually back starting to lend money again. some of the banks are starting to pay back to the government the money, some of the money they borrowed. so i'm not bullish about where we are, it will be a struggle and it will take awhile before jobs start coming back, but there are signs, i think rather encouraging signs, about our economy. having said that, there's still a lot of people who would like to have a job that don't have one. and the argument we hear, the argument that if jelled ahead and build another 19 -- we would go ahead and build another 190 f-22, that would help save a on the of jobs, manufacturing jobs, good-paying jobs. and we can't just sniff at those. those are real numbers, important numbers, especially in those states where those jobs occur. but if you think about it, if we're talking about building another 100 -- almost 200 f-22's and they cost about roughly $190 million a copy and we're talking about saving 25,000 jo jobs, you multiply $191 million by 194 aircraft, we come up with

a number of -- total price i think of about $37 billion for building those extra 194 f-22 aircraft. if those numbers are correct, that's about, again, $37 billion. we wide to that by 25,000 jobs. that turns out to be -- we died that by 25,000 jobs. that turns out to be -- we divide that by 25,000 jobs, that tushes out to b turns out e $1.5 million per job. i nearly fell over when i heard that number. $1.5 million per job. we passed the stimulus package, the presiding officer and i and others voted for it, passed some bipartisan support, and hopefully that legislation will help us save a couple million jobs and puts a bunch of people to work in jobs that makes sense, a lot of green jobs and so forth, make us energy independent. but this is a lot of money for jobs, and you compare -- look at

what we said we're going to spend in the stimulus package, the recovery bill, per job, i'm not quick enough on my feet to run the numbers but this -- these are expensive jobs. these are very expensive jobs. my hope is that if we don't build another 190, 200 f-22's, that some of the folks that can build f-22's, hands that can build f-22 by lockheed martin, hopefully some of those people will be able to build f-35's that cost half as much, they do more things, a greater variety of missions, and they're also joint aircraft, will be used by other -- other branches of services and hopefully by other countries. i'm not aware that other countries have bought the f-22 but my hope is a lot of countries will be interested in buying the f-35, given its variety of missions, its versatility and also its much lower cost. well there, you have it, mr. -- mr. president. i -- i don't know that i've made a compelling case but i -- i appreciate the chance just to -- to share with my colleagues

and -- and anyone else who's interested that at a time when we're wrestling with these enormous budget deficits, after eight years where we've literally doubled our nation's debt, in a year when we're expected to run up the highest budget deficit in the history of -- of our country, at a time when we have major cost overruns in new weapons systems, at a time when we have literally two administrations, two presidents, two secretaries of state, all kinds of joint chiefs, charms of th, chairmansof the joint chiefu know, we have a bunch of these f-22's, we have enough. we have enough. and as -- and it's not that we're going to stop spending money our national defense. we're going to spend a fair amount of money in afghanistan and even though we're drawing down our troops in iraq, we're going to continue to spend a fair amount of money in -- in that country as well. and i -- particularly the war in

afghanistan, i think it's the right war and -- and we need to stay with it and crush the taliban, crush the taliban, crush -- help the pakistanis crush al qaeda and stay with the folks in afghanistan until they can help defend themselves and diversify their economy and go on to a better life. that -- those -- that's the important thing to do. we don't need the f-22 to do that. we just don't need it. and to the folks who've spent a noof years pay and lot of -- spent a lot of years paying and spent a lot of money building it, i think we've got enough and we have plenty of other challenges that we need to meet. so, mr. president, i appreciate this -- again, this opportunity to speak, and i -- i look around the senate chamber to see if there's anyone else who's waiting in line and they've all been sitting here listening with baited growth what i was going to have to say -- no, actually they're not. but hopefully they're all back in their offices tuned in on c-span and checking this out. and with that, i think i'll just

make the observation that there -- we ought to have a quorum call. so i call -- i ask for a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: i ask unanimous consent that further calling of the roll be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, the first thing i would ask is unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to joseph mastrangelo, an active-duty navy, medical service corps officer who is a defense fellow

in my office, during consideration of s. 1390, the national defense authorization act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today we're being asked to defend the very core of our american democracy, and that is the right of people to live freely, to move freely, to do what they'd like to do as long as they don't bring harm to others. people want to be free from violence, free from fear, free from intimidation. and all too often we hear of crimes committed against innocent people based almost solely on bigotry and hatred. this senate needs to send a message, a message that this is

unacceptable conduct in our society, that these crimes are especially heinous, that these crimes must be severely punished because it tears at the basic fiber of being freedom-loving americans. an example of the horror that accompanies this kind of hatred is that on a day last month someone turned killer because of religious hatred. this individual walked through the doors of the u.s. holocaust memorial museum which was then filled with visitors from all over the world, many of them children. his name, james von braun,

raised a rifle and opened fire, killing stephen johns, a security guard who was simply doing his duty, and wounding others before the individual was shot and subdued. not only did mr. von braun take a man's life and terrorize bystanders, but he wanted to destroy this vivid reminder of how vicious man's hatred and bias could be against an entire group of people. over 6 million jews died as a result of the holocaust. millions of others died also as a result of the holocaust, stemmed primarily by prejudice and hate.

the tragic fact is that our history is replete with examples of terrible hate crimes. in october of 1998, two men attacked and savagely beat matthew shepard, a student who was gay and with a there at the university of wyoming. shepard died of his wounds a few days later simply because he was a gay person. in june of the same year who can forget that a black man -- james byrd injury -- was chained to a pickup truck, dragged along a texas road and was killed by declared racists. more recently we've seen vulgar acts committed in the wake of an

historic happening in america: president barack obama, an african-american, won the presidential election. in my home state of new jersey, after the november election, a cross was placed and set afire on the front lawn of a couple. the cross was wrapped in a home-made banner that the girls had hung outside that home that simply read, "president obama, victory 2008," pride-filled honoring this incredible accomplishment that took place within america at that time. at a time when our nation should be celebrating the progress we have made, we must bring the full weight of the law to bear on those who commit such

atrocious crimes. unfortunately, existing federal law hampers prosecutors from trying hate crimes effectively. right now current federal hate crimes law applies only when a victim is involved in particular activities, like serving on a jury or attending a public school. this legislation would protect victims of hate crimes in all situations, not just when a victim is involved in certain federally protected ones. this amendment would also expand federal hate crimes protection to those victimized based on sexual orientation or disability. 15% of all reported hate crimes are linked to sexual orientation. gay americans should not be

afraid to walk about freely, and violent individuals should know that the federal government will prosecute you if you commit a crime with hatred as the principal motive here. hate crimes are the ultimate expression of ignorance and hate, and we must strengthen our federal laws to protect people against them. senator kennedy first introduced this legislation in 1997, a year before matthew shepard and james byrd were killed because of bigotry. mr. president, it's time to pass this critical amendment, stand up for americans who are victims of vulgar and senseless acts of violence. that shouldn't be happening in america without severe punishment, without the reminder

that we are a nation comprised of many different ethnicities, different religions, different habits. there should not be any penalty severe -- that should not go without severe penalty if someone is attacked because their habit, their face, their color, their religion is different than the ones most popular. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: