quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you, very much. i would also ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. thank you, very much. first i want to congratulate, actually on the underlying bill, my friend and colleague and the leader of the armed services committee for all of his hard work on the bill that's in front of us and how important -- it's so important for the troops, and i just want to thank him for his leadership in such a strong way on behalf of men and women who are serving us every single day and all the things that they need to be able to be supported along with their families. so this is a very important bill, madam president, and i'm hopeful we're going to be able to move through this very

quickly. i did want to take a moment, mot though tonight to talk about health care, not about the specifics of the bill that we have been working on now for about a year. we've had forums and meetings and drafts and proposals and working sessions for about a year now i believe, and i want to commend senator baucus for the incredible amount of time he has put in as well as his staff, and he and senator grassley working as they always do so well together. there have been tremendous amounts of effort that have gone into this. and we'll speak more as the process moves along about the specifics of the health care legislation, but tonight i want to take just a moment to talk about why it's so important to do it.

you know, if the system worked well now for everyone in the country, if everyone could find and afford health insurance, we wouldn't be having this discussion, we wouldn't have had this debate, this wouldn't be something that would be a top priority for the president of the united states. but the reality is that the current system doesn't work very everyone, even if you're part of the majority that has health insurance, you are probably seeing your copays go up, your premiums go up, you may be worried about whether you will lose your insurance if you lose your job or your spouse loses his or her job. you may be in a situation where you can't find insurance because you have a preexisting condition that the insurance companies won't cover. there are many, many reasons why people today, even though they have some kind of insurance, are incredibly worried about the

future, about what happens when they get sick, or what happens when the get kids get sick. and then for those who don't have any health insurance, of course it's an even more challenging story. and we know that there are millions of americans -- 47 million and counting. in my home state alone, over 1 million people in michigan who have no insurance at all. and what happens to them when they get sick? or when the kids get sick? so this is a huge issue, and the time has come to decide that health care is a right, not a privilege, in the greatest country in the world. you know, madam president, we've been working for years. it's been 90 years, ever since president roosevelt wanted to have a health care system that all americans would be able to use as part of the social security program. we've been trying do this,

trying to get it right. at that time, 90 years ago, there wasn't the votes to do that. since then, harry truman wanted to have health care reform. it -- it didn't get done sm president johnso.president johny wanted to have a system that every american would be able to benefit from. that didn't get done, but i am very, very proud that a first major step was taken with president johnson and a democratic majority. and some republican colleagues joining with them. and i hope we're going to see that kind of bipartisan effort now. but we ended up with something called medicare. now, if seniors or people with disabilities could have been able to get health insurance that they could find and afford at the time, medicare would not have passed in 1965.

it passed, along with medicaid, for low-income seniors and families because people couldn't find insurance, they couldn't afford it. that's why it passed. we are now in the same situati situation. since that time in 1965, there have been a number of different efforts, a very important effo effort, one that there was bipartisan support to do here on children's health insurance that was a very important initiative to put in place but still not a system in america where everyone would be able to afford to buy insurance, to be able to get health care for themselves and their families. and so here we are today, and it's time to finish the job that was started years ago to finally say, okay, we understand that

health insurance isn't like other kinds of insurance. you can choose, madam president, not to buy a car. if you don't want to, you don't have to have car insurance. you can choose not to buy a house and not have homeowners insurance. you can't choose not to be a human being and to get sick. so it's different. and so the question for all of us is not whether or not people will ever need to use the health care system or whether or not they ever, in fact, will get health care. it's when and how and how expensive it will be. one of the major reasons today that the health care system is so expensive and, in fact, that we spend twice as much as any other country on health care -- and when you think about that, how crazy is that? we spend twice as much as any other country on health care and have over 47 million people with

no health insurance. now, any economist will kind of look at that and go that is a crazy thing. but we have a system now where the people that are uninsured or underinsured or have their premiums and copays going up too much and can't afford to use their insurance, go to the emergency room. moms and dads, you know, going to the emergency room with their children. i've had the opportunity to visit nursing -- or visit emergency rooms both when i have been in an emergency but also just there with emergency room physicians, with the nurses to watch what happens. and any time you have seen that, you know that there are lots of moms and dads that have no other choice for their children than to take them to the emergency room. we also have more and more people who, because the dental

problems, the inability to get basic dental coverage, end up in the emergency room of the hospital. when that happens, people are served. that's the job of the hospitals and i believe that we remembered be focusing on emergency -- that we should be focusing on emergency rooms and emergency room physicians and giving them -- giving them extra support because of what they do. but the reality is, they are served. and then who pays for it? well, everybody who has insurance pays for it because the hospital then takes the uncompensated care and rolls it over on to the costs of those with insurance. that's the system today. people get care. they walk into the emergency room sicker than they otherwise would be, maybe waiting till late friday night to have something happen and hoping that they weren't going to have to go

to the doctor because they couldn't afford it and they end up in the emergency room on the weekend. and the reality is, we have now institutionalized the system that is the most expensive way possible to provide health care in this country. so that is a huge issue. we know that if everybody's in, if everybody's is part of the system and you spread all the different ages and health conditions and geographic disparities and all the different pieces and variables in the system and you have everybody in some way covered, everybody in, that costs actually go down. which is also different than other kinds of goods and services. so health care is, in fact, different. but we now have a system where we are paying for this and providing for this in the most

expensive way possible. so there are many reasons, many, many reasons, why we need to have a sense of urgency about health care and what we are doing here, and we need to remind ourselves, madam president, daily that this doesn't go away just because we're not paying attention. when we're not paying attention, the prices go up. when we're not paying attention, people get sick. when we're not paying attention, businesses continue to either not be able to cover their employees or drop coverage because of what's happening on the cost. the only question we have is when are we going to act. that's the question for us. not whether or not we're going to pay for it, but it's how we're going to pay for it and are we going to create a system that over time actually lowers costs by doing the right thing and having a system that incentivizes the right things, or are we going to continue to

do what we do now: costs going up, exploding, and the availability of care going down? that's the system now. as we discuss all these issues -- and it's very complicated. all of us involved in this which it were not. it's an incredibly complicated issue. but as we have been working our way through this very hard, we've heard from lots of people in the discussion, those that operate as a business, who make a profit off this current health care system, those who are involved in it in various capacities. but, madam president, i don't think we hear enough from those who are affected, from people in michigan, people in north carolina, people around the country who are trying to take

care of their families, trying to be healthy, trying to get the care they need when they're sick, operating under this system. and so because of that, i set up on my web site something that i am calling the -- my health care people's lobby. we've got lots of lobbyists here, and i've invited people from michigan to be a part of my health care people's lobby and share their stories about what's happening to them. i want to share a few of those comments with my colleagues this evening, from thousands of people who are now a part of my health care peoples lobby. tricia kirsten from bloom field hills, michigan says she doesn't understand why some senators don't seem to understand the -- quote -- "unbelievable, daunting and debilitating effect the cost of health care causes their voters."

she's right. we all need to be paying attention to that. the cost of health care today, as i mentioned, is crushing our families and businesses large and small. and that has to be part of -- and it is. it is part of the goal. in fact, it is at the top of the list in terms of our goals, lowering the cost. janet rodriguez of saint joseph, michigan, wrote her health care premiums for her family of three are over $700 a month. because her employer pays a portion of her premium and because those premiums are going up and up every year, she hasn't gotten a raise in three years. madam president, this is a very common situation for workers who get their insurance through their employer, as you know. more and more people are having to trade off getting a wage

increase that would help pay for the mortgage and the food and clothes and maybe send the kids to college and trading that off for a health care cost increase that is occurring and their employers having to pay more of that or their having to pay more of that. cheryl krandall of pontiac, michigan, is about to lose her cobra benefits next month and has been shopping for personal insurance. within two weeks the price had already jumped $22 per month -- it jumped from $22 per month to $667 a month. so it was $22, jumped to $667 a month. that's $150 more than her house payment. more than her house payment. she says, "we are very, very frugal people.

no big vacations, no expensive toys. and we're not impoverished yet. but premiums like this for mediocre coverage, large deductibles, large copays can break even the most stable family. and you know that's what's happening. her story is shared by thousands and thousands of people i know across michigan. our current health care system is bankrupting too many families. we know that over 60% of bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses. 75% of families who file for bankruptcy actually have health insurance. and those who have insurance on average have medical expenses of over $18,000 when they file, even though they have a health insurance policy. it's even worse for those without insurance. sandra marzuski from waterford,

michigan, wrote to me that she and her husband have been without health insurance for seven months. she writes, "you have no idea the fear i walk around with every day." this is a fear faced by millions of americans, tens of millions of americans, hard-working americans, people who have done the right thing their whole life and now find themselves struggling in this economy and facing that fear, who after they put the kids to bed at night say a little prayer, "please don't let the kids get sick." they stay up worrying about what's going to happen if they do get sick. avoiding that cancer screening because they don't want to hear it if it comes back positive because they don't think they can do anything about it. it's a fear that grips the heart of too many americans, and it's

so critical that we move forward in a way that will allow us to address what is happening with american families. lee harshbarger of ypsilanti lived with that fear. he had no health insurance for nine years. thankfully his wife cares for him but they think what will happen if she loses her job or her employer has to cut back on insurance or drop insurance? what will happen then? it's not just families who are hurting either, madam president. we know it's our businesses, large and small. i've had so many small businesses come up to me and say you've got to do something. i want to cover my ten employees, my five employees. i can't even find insurance for myself at a reasonable rate, let alone a small group of people that work for me.

a.j. deeds from ann arbor, michigan, used to operate a small business in birmingham. they have 12 employees and they offered them health insurance. but they soon found their competitors didn't offer these benefits, and they were left behind competitively. so they faced what many businesses and families face, which is a race to the bottom. you can't compete if you offer health insurance or a good wage, so you drop the health insurance and you push down the wage. by 1997, he wrote they had to stop providing health insurance because they couldn't afford it anymore and be competitive with the other companies that didn't offer insurance. that same year a.j.'s first child was born, and his monthly insurance premium shot up to over $800 a month for three people. some have argued that a public health insurance plan would put

bureaucrats between you and your doctor. how many times have we heard that? but right now, madam president, we have a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, and it's an insurance company bureaucrat. this notion that the doctor can offer whatever test or procedure that he or she feels that they should for you is just not real. it's not the real world. it's not real that an individual who has insurance can just go out and see a doctor, or see any doctor they want, get any procedure, any treatment that they want. they first have to look through mounds of paperwork in the insurance policy to see if it's covered. and then they first call the doctor and make this to the insurance company to determine whether or not they will pay for it. i believe it's incredibly important that we create a system -- and this is what we are working to do -- that is

much more about doctors and patients, much more about that. and the critical part of this, and i appreciate that the industry is supportive of this, is changing the system so that someone can get insurance if they have preexisting conditions, that we change the rating to make it more affordable and do a number of other insurance regulation reforms. this is incredibly important. but it is also true that right now your decisions about health care depend upon, a, whether you have health insurance. and, b, what it will cover. what it will cover, what the copays are, what the premiums are. you are in a box that is dependent on whatever that insurance policy is and what it will cover. and the worst thing is when

someone pays in for years and believes something is covered, and it should be covered, and finds out it is not or finds out that they are ill and is dropped. so there are a number of changes that need to take place there as well. now, i have to say that -- i have to put a plug in. in michigan, we have by state statute established blue cross-blue shield as a nonprofit to insure everyone in the state the insurer of last resort. that has worked very well for us, and i appreciate the great work that they do. that is not true everywhere. and i think we have some serious issues around the for-profit insurance companies that we need to take a look at as it relates to the costs that people are

paying. robert baums from michigan, up in the upper peninsula, had to jump through hoops with his insurance company to get a medical device he needed. he was forceed to deal with in-network sellers even though he could have gotten the same device much cheaper from a different supplier. his 20% copay would have been much lower if he could have gotten a device from the seller of his choice. he couldn't -- if he could have gone where he wanted to go, it would have been cheaper, but he wasn't given the choice by the insurance company. he had to pay what the insurance company said or pay the whole thing on his own. bo stotcher from rochester hills is also fed up with her insurance company. she has an individual policy, which is one of the most expensive ways you can get

insurance. it costs her $400 a month as an individual, which she describes as sketchy at the least, where i have to pay $2,500 up front as a deductible. she's limited to two doctors' visits a year. two doctors' visits. talk about coming between you and your doctor. two doctors' visits a year. and she has a copay. she needed a routine medical procedure and had to pay over $700 out of her pocket. for people struggling to make ends meet, those kinds of costs just are not acceptable people can't afford this. again, this whole process of health insurance reform is about supporting doctors and nurses to be able to do what they were trained and want to do and to be

able to make health care available to americans young and old, with families, without small businesses and large. that's what this is all about. i'm very pleased that we are working on an approach that would give people choice, that would allow people to keep their insurance, if they wish to. and i think that many people, again, my own family would say we want to keep ours. well, in tk-bgz -- well, in, madam president, we're not in the federal system. we know that many people would say that they're satisfied, that they like what they have. and i say great to that. and we want to make sure, number one, that people can keep what they have. but if the system is broken for you, we want to fix it. that's what health reform is

about. keep what you have if you like it. let us fix what is broken so that everyone has the opportunity to have the health care that they need. there are a number of ways in which we are working to do that. i mentioned earlier making sure that everyone is covered as part of lowering the costs so we don't have too many people using the emergency rooms inappropriately. we know that payments to providers drive the system, and the proposal that we're all working on would focus on quality, not quantity of tests, would focus on health and wellness, not sickness. so we are incentivizing those things that allow people to be healthy, that encourage and support primary-care doctors as

the first line of defense, and nurses as the first line of defense so that people are being able to get the care and the funding they need, the screenings, the prevention that they need. that's all part of this very important change. the long-term savings in the system come from changing the system to health care rather than sick care. and quality rather than quantity. we also know, as i said before, that insurance reform is an incredibly important part of this, so everyone can get the insurance they need, that it's affordable and that they know they won't get dropped if they get sick. finally, i think it's very important that we have the right kind of mix of choices, that we have private-sector options, but there also be a public health care option that is consumer driven, that's a benchmark on

the true costs of providing health care so there can be competition. it needs to be level and fair competition. but i believe we need that competition. madam president, we've got a lot of work to do in the coming weeks. it's very important work. the american people have waited long enough for us to get this done. we know there are lots of pieces. it's complicated. people of goodwill are work together to come together on an approach. but we need to get it done because people in each of our states, my great state of michigan and all across the country, are counting on us because the system doesn't work now for too many people. and it's not acceptable.

getting sick is not a choice. worrying about your children, your family, your moms and dads, your friends and neighbors and what will happen to them when they do get sick is a fear or a worry that we need to be able to address. we need to take that worry off of the american people and say that we get it. health care should be a right, not a privilege in greatest country in the world. and that's what this work that we are doing is all about and i very, -- i very, very sincerely hope that we are going to have a product that will be widely supported, that we can move to the president as soon as possible. thank you, madam president, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president?

mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i ask that joe thomas of the senate judiciary committee be allowed the privileges of the floor throughout the debate on the pending legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr.ed to: madam president, what is -- mr. dodd: madam president, what is the business before the senate at this moment? the presiding officer: the senate is considering s. 1390. mr. dodd: and that is the defense authorization bill; is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. dodd: well, madam president, i'd like to spend a couple of minutes talking about one of the issues that we are going to be debating and voting on at some point in the next number of days and that is the consideration of the f-22 raptor fighter. and i first of all want to inform, as i have in the previous times, of my interest in the subject matter. i'm not a matter of this committee. i have great respect for carl levin. he's one of my dearest friends. as chairman of the committee. john mccain, who is the ranking republican on the committee, and others, my

colleague, joe lieberman serves on this committee, the armed services committee, and many others who've worked hard i know on the defense authorization bill. and one of the matters that is going to be a subject of some debate, as i mentioned, is the consideration of the f-22, the additional fighters that are -- have been voted on by the committee. a narrow vote, a 13-11 vote i'm told in the committee and that now senator levin and senator mccain will be offering -- or have offered an amendment that will strike the $1.7 billion for these additional aircraft. and i want to address that subject matter. my state is going to be adversely affected, somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs will be lost if this amendment carries. and obviously that's of great concern to us in connecticut. it's an argument i would hope would have some weight with our colleagues. we're all faced with these matters from time to time. but i realize that -- that just making a connecticut argument to 99 other senators is not necessarily going to prevail.

but i would hope my colleagues might be willing to take and consider what we're doing here. we lead the world in aerospace. there is no one even close to us in our ability to produce the most sophisticated aircraft in the world. the f-22 without any doubt would be the most sophisticated aircraft that any nation would have. we're told, of course, the chinese and the russians are quickly moving to a fifth-generation of aircraft to compete with the f-22. my concern is that, madam president, if we end up doing what the levin-mccain amendment does -- and that is to terminate this program prematurely -- we end up with a number of f-22's that would hardly provide the kind of security that -- that would be required. and for this $1.7 billion in this budget, we now have between 25,000 and 90,000 jobs that we'll be firing as a result. that's the direct impact, 25,000 jobs from this one aircraft will be lost. the indirect jobs are an

additional 70,000 jobs we're told by the analysis done of this -- of this aircraft. that's one aircraft. 70,000 jobs between direct and indirect jobs, for $1.7 billion. that's the cost, we lose that. i can't help but notice that only a few weeks ago that we spent $45 billion to prop up a failing automobile industry. chrysler, g.m. have gone through bankruptcy and the like. a lot of people lost their jobs. i was supportive of the effort to try and make a difference there. but in that case, obviously the industry had failed in many, many ways. had not modernized, had fallen behind world competition. so we've spent $45 billion of taxpayer money to prop up an automobile industry. and now we're paying a price for that. here we're talking about $1.7 billion to support an aerospace industry with 75,000 to 90,000 jobs at stake and we're about to fire them. that's what's going to happen.

we're about to say to 75,000 to 90,000 people because that gap will twist that, frankly, at a time like this when unemployment rates are now in excess of 10%, even though you're leading the world, even though you're sophisticated, we know that many of you are going to be not coming back to this industry, that we're basically saying that's not really relevant. so for $1.7 billion, anywhere close to 70,000 to 95,000 jobs across the country, that's -- that's a decision we've made and for those -- the $45 billion we spent on the automobile industry with taxpayer money to prop up those jobs, that was a different matter. i don't understand the logic of that in my mind. put aside the sophistication that this aircraft provides for our nation to bridge that gap between the f-22 and the f-135, i think we're making a huge, huge mistake. this is the very same government that that says our domestic auto industry is worth saving, and i

joined with my colleagues on that issue. as chairman of the banking committee, i led the fight to help save that industry in the united states senate, an industry ground into the ground by shoddy management and no business plan whatsoever. and while the government is picking winners and losers, i have to ask my colleagues do we truly believe the domestic auto industry is more worth saving than the aerospace industry? a few years ago the government mandated interest on the aerospace industry recommended -- and i quote -- "that the nation immediately reverse the decline in and promote the growth of a scientifically and technologically trained u.s. aerospace workforce." adding the breakdown of america's intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat to national security and our capability to continue as a world leader. end of quote. here we are with unemployment rates going through the ceiling and for $1.7 billion -- and it's

expensive -- we're about to lose 70,000 to 90,000 jobs in the aerospace industry. for the life of me -- again, i understand people don't like the plane and people get emotional about it. we've got a secretary of defense who thinks this is a matter of deep, deep concern. but we're about to make an incredible decision. we just spent $45 billion for a failing automobile industry, but we won't spend $1.7 billion to keep jobs in an aerospace industry where we lead the world, unlike the automobile industry. we're declining and falling behind the rest of the world. someday some generation is going to wonder what in the world were we thinking of? with jobs at risk, talented people, engineers, machinists, we're going to have a four-year gap between these two designs we're talking about. the commission also recommended that resolving the crisis will require government industry and

academia to work together to reverse this trend. i'm afraid the amendment, the $1.7 billion amendment with 70,000 to 90,000 jobs -- and those aren't my numbers. those are defense-related numbers for one aircraft, by the way. doesn't go beyond that. but you'll lose these people. you tell me how easy it is to reconstitute these kind of workforces we're talking about. i don't understand the logic of it. so, madam president, either today or sometime next week we're going to once again consider legislation to strip this provision of the bill. the reason we keep the most advanced fighter jet production lines humming. before that vote, i hope mile phao*eu colleagues would ask themselves a very simple question: at a time of heightened security concerns, economic uncertainty, is it really in our interest to canceling this program? according to the f-22's prime contractor, lockheed martin, the

f-22 employs 25,000 people across the nation and 17 thousand indirect jobs. with over 1,000 suppliers in 44 states, it has an economic impact of over $12 billion. the impact of the decision to kill the f-22 will have further ramifications. with this decision america's production lines of advanced tactical aircraft will grind to a hall and is not expected to ramp up again for another three to four years. what happens to that wrorbgs? i know what happens to it. my colleagues vote against this industry they'll be saying that the government will no longer support these 95,000 skilled workers across our nation. and to me, it just doesn't add up. it just doesn't add up. with the $1.7 billion that we're saving by adopting this amendment, this many jobs in aerospace lost, in my view, and the ability to reconstitute it at a time when our nation needs to keep people at work, but also to maintain our superiority.

the other day, madam president, i went to a chart explaining the capabilities of this aircraft versus those that exist by other nations around the world. and we are going to put ourselves at some risk, i would say to my colleagues. and that's not my conclusion alone. listen to general corley who heads up the combat command, who warns about this very issue. and having a general who heads up that much of our important mission here to publicly warn about this vote, the head of the international guard has made a similar warning to the country, that this is a very dangerous decision we're making by supporting an amendment that will have the impact of this vote. we have spent billions of dollars to develop this plane. billions here. we're supposed to build 380 of them, madam president. we're at 187. but anyone who knows anything will tell you that you never have 187. you always have some far smaller

number than that that are capable and viable at any one moment. clearly having a reduced number far short of the 380 i accept. we can talk about an export model, a dumbed down version that i'm told several nations of the world would be interested in purchasing to offset some of the cost. none of that becomes available if we adopt the levin-mccain amendment. i hear it would reduce our ability to do that at all, not to mention the jobs that would be lost. i would hope and urge -- i don't believe we're going to vote on this matter until sometime next week. but i would urge my colleagues to consider this issue. i know people have been calling and demanding that people line up and declare where you are, and we all have been through that in the past. i think as members, we have an obligation obviously to respond to the calls we get. but i would argue a higher responsibility to analyze what the implications are of a vote like this and the implications, i think, are profound and serious for our country in terms

of not only the economic impact of all of this and the national security impact, but, again, i don't know how you justify losing as many jobs as we could for $1.7 billion when you consider how much we've spent already to maintain or try to prop up an industry that, frankly, should have shown far more leadership. the industries involved in this are not failing. these are solid, sound businesses, and yet they're going to be damaged as a result of a vote here that could do great harm to these aerospace workers and to these companies around the nation who depend upon this work. so, madam president, i would urge my colleagues over the next several days to think through this issue to, examine some of these facts before coming here to cast a ballot here that could cost us dearly. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president, i i ask unanimous consent to call up the hatch amendment which is at the desk. i would like to speak to the hatch amendment that will be called up later. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president, as we've had the debate in this chamber over hate crimes legislation, one obvious fact is revealed again and again. the proponents of the matthew shepard's hate crimes prevention act have not taken the time to answer what should have been a threshold question: is it really necessary? just a few short weeks ago attorney general eric holder was gracious enough to testify before the senate judiciary committee on this legislation. during that hearing i asked him

specifically whether there was any evidence of crimes motivated by bias and prejudice are not being adequately addressed at the state level, whether there was a specific trend indicating that with regard to hate crimes justice is not being served in state courts. his answer was not surprising to anyone who's been following this debate for many years. but if your only knowledge of this issue came from the statements made by the democrats in support of this legislation, you'd probably be very surprised. his answer was, no, there is not any statistical evidence indicating that the states are not able -- are not up to the task of investigating, prosecuting and punishing crimes motivated by bias and prejudice. none. none whatsoever. in fact, the attorney general said quite openly, in fact, that the states were doing a fine job addressing these crimes. this is not a new revelation. in the years congress has been

tk-pbgt hate crimes legislation many of us have been asking similar questions, and we've received similar answers. in light of the democratic attorney general's own testimony regarding the states' laudable efforts, i say states plural, laudable effort to punish hate crimes, it is even more clear that the supporters of this legislation have not answered what would be a threshold question: is it necessary? the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of states have hate crimes statutes on the books, and the acts that are associated with this legislation -- murder, assault, et cetera -- are punishable in every jurisdiction in the united states. under our legal system, defendants will at times receive penalties that many believe are not sufficient given the nature of their crimes. in addition, because our criminal justice system is designed to protect defendants

and place the heaviest burdens on the government, some guilty parties undoubtedly go unpunished. but i've seen no evidence proving these inevitable occurrences happen more often in cases involving bias, motivated violence, and today no such evidence has been provided. my amendment is similar to legislation that i've introduced in the past. instead of expanding the powers of the federal government, it would mandate a study that would provide us with the information we should have before we even consider taking such an approach. specifically, my alternative would require a study to compare over a 12-month period the investigations, prosecutions and sentencing in states that have differing laws with regard to hate crimes. in addition, it would require a report on the extent of throughd states and the success rate of state and local officials in combatting them. the amendment would also provide a mechanism for the department of justice to provide technical,

forensic, prosecutorial or any other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime -- quote -- "motivated by animas against the victim, by reason of the membership of the victim in a particular class or group." unquote. and it would authorize the attorney general to make grants to states that lack the necessary resources to prosecute these crimes. contrary to what some of my colleagues may believe, congress does not have the power to act in any manner that it chooses. there are a number of constitutional jicials raised by this -- issues raised by this legislation including the content under the commerce clause and portions that could chill free speech in certain sectors of this country. this legislation would impede on tbrowndz that are traditionally left to the states. worst of all it would do so when -- if the attorney general is to be believed, the states are by

and large doing a good job addressing these crimes. that is not the question we're facing today. the question is whether given the current state of affairs in most states and the limitations on congress's power this measure iis appropriate. before we consider a broad and sweeping change in federal and criminal law, we should have enough information before us to determine whether or not such law is necessary. my amendment would help us get that information and in addition establish a role for the federal government that is more appropriate respecting the sovereignty of the states and the limits on federal power established under the constitution. it should be noted that this bill that has been called up is named the matthew shepard bill. what happened to mr. shepard was brutal, heinous, awful,

unforgivable. the fact of the matter is the perpetrators are now spending the rest of their lives in prison. because the local judiciary and system tried and convicted them. there is a real question whether we should put into law this ha hates crime bill that i believe will cause more problems than it will help with. especially since there is no basic evidence that the state and local governments are incapable or unable to take care of these type of crimes. i think there's a lot of bidding and act being like you're doing something when in fact all you're doing is gumming up the law if you pass this bill and i think doing so unconstitutionally and in the

end basically make it possible to bring hate crimes actions all over the country in a multiplicity of way that's will cost the government untold amounts of money that should not be spent. all of us are against hate crimes. every one of us will do everything we possibly can to get rid of them. until there is that evidence state and local governments are not doing the job and that evidence we've asked for for years now and they've never been able pro-dues any, -- produce any, until that is produced, we shouldn't pass legislation like this. madam president, i yield the floor or i suggest -- a senator: madam president? mr. hatch: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: thank you very much. there is soon to be announced agreement in that will be an amendment that i'm putting

forward to protect free speech. i would hope that all of my colleagues would join me in supporting the amendment that i'm putting forward on the hate crimes bill. i think it's very important that we protect free speech in this. and it has been one of the things that my colleagues who support the hate crimes legislation saying, look, we're protective of free speech and religious expression. if that's the case, i would hope that they would vote for the amendment that i'm putting forward. and it's important, i think, that we be very clear on the protection of free speech and religious expression as is protected under the first amendment in this bill as a way for it to be clear that these things are protected and i want to just read briefly the amendment that i'm putting forward. as it paragraph long. and i think just by reading it it will help explain some of this to my colleagues. nothing -- nothing in this section or an amendment made by this section shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes any rights under the

first amendment to the united states constitution or substantially burdens any exercise of religion regardless whether compelled by or central to a system or religious belief, speech, expression, association if such exercise of religion, speech, expression or association was not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or insight an -- incite an act of imminent violence against another. in other words, that is some lawyer ease in that. what it says is that you have free speech unless it is intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or insight a physical act -- an act of physical act against another. if you try to incite people of physical violence or imminent act of physical violence, you're

not protected. but everything else is free speech and may be seen by some as religious expression. we're trying to narrow this in on tying it into the actual act that takes place and not be a bill -- an act that intimidates people's expressions of their ideas or religious convictions that may hold. i would hope my colleagues would look at this and say, yes, that's what we mean to do in this and not to have a chilling affect on all free speech, on all free expression, on all free expression within a religious organization or group that may have some differing views. i don't think, frankly, if we have a bill that intimidates or chills first amendment free speech or religious expression that it's going to stand constitutional challenge. that's why i'm putting forward this amendment. the current language of this bill attempts to protect the free exercise of religion solely to a first amendment

constitutional framework. i think this is problematic because the supreme court is severely limited those first amendment rights particularly regarding free religious expression as a result of a decision in the employment division department of human resources of oregon versus -- v. smith. the congress after that opinion was issued was quick to recognize the damage done to religious freedom in smith and in response passed the freedom restoration act. this act serves as a framework by congress to protect religious free speech and other context. that's what this amendment is taking from, is this bill that has already passed this congress by a wide margin of religious freedom restoration act. my amendment adopts language from that bill in contrast to the free exercise jurisprudence of the supreme court, the courts have noted that the congressionally created religious freedom restoration act model has clarity and ease

of construction. numerous claims that were unsuccessful under the first exercise clause jurisprudence of the supreme court have either preveiled or entitled to remand for more favorable review under the original restoration freedom act. my act protects motivated speech, but it protects speech. if you're in a narrow category where you intend this speech to cause somebody bodily harm, then you're not froactd and you shouldn't be protected. if otherwise you exercise your right of free speech or religious association, you are entitled to the protection under the constitution. so it would be my hope that -- that my colleagues would look at this amendment and they would say that -- that what we're putting forward is an amendment that has passed this body previously, passed this body in a strong bipartisan vote. it is one that we want to stick with that definition and not this broader one that can be interpreted as liting first

amendment free expression. that is the amendment i put forward. i ask that my colleagues look at the heaped myself. it is one pair -- at the amendment. it is a one paragraph process. with that, i will yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, both senator mcconnell and i appreciate everyone's patience. i ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the hatch amendment, the leahy alternative to the brownback amendment and the brownback amendment specified below the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the leahy amendment 1511. further that when this agreement is entered, amendment number 1539 be withdrawn and that the following list of amendments be the only amendments on the subject of hate crimes remaining in order during the pendency of s. 1390. that would be hatch amendment regarding alternative. leahy or designee alternative to brownback amendment.

brownback amendment regarding first amendment protections. leahy or designee alternative sessions death penalty. sessions amendment regarding death penalty. sessions amendment regarding service members. sessions amendment regarding attorney general regulations. that all of the above amendments be first-degree amendments except the hatch-brownback and leahy alternative brownback amendments which are -- i'm sorry, which are second-degree amendments to the leahy amendment 151511 and that -- 1511 and that debate be limited to 15 minutes each. and cloture vote be limited to up to 4 minutes each equally divided and controlled in the usual form and the time be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. if there is a sequence of votes that any subsequent votes after the first-degree amendment be ten minutes. that upon disposition of the listed amendments all postcloture time be yielded back. further that the hatch-leahy and

brownback amendments be first debated and voted tonight. upon disposition of those amendments, senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on amendment 1511. if cloture is invoked amendment 1511 if amended be agreed to and the motion to table be laid upon the table. further, remaining amendments relateed to hate crimes still be in order. further, if cloture is not invoked on the leahy amendment, the motion to reconsider be considered entered and the part of the agreement relating to the amendments with respect to hate crimes be null and void. provided further that if upon reconsideration and cloture is invoked, the remaining amendments not disposed of prior to cloture remain in order. further, that the next first-degree amendment in order to s. 1390 be a republican amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment during today's session. if amendment being offered tonight and debate commencing on the amendment when the senate

resumes consideration of the bill. following the disposition of the leahy alternative and session amendments listed above, upon disposition of the republican amendment specified above, senator levin be webgd to -- be recognized to offer the levin-mccain amendment relating to the f-22, with debate limited to two hours with the time equally divided and controlled between senators levin and chambliss or designees. upon the use or yielding back of that debate time the senate proceed to vote on the amendment with no amendment in order to the levin-mccain amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: reserving the right to object, and i will not object, and i will ask my friend the majority leader, am i correct that after the four votes tonight the next votes will be on monday at roughly what time? mr. reid: probably around 3:00. we're going to come in monday at 1:00 and work through these amendments we have remaining on the hate crimes and then we

would go to the matter that will be offered by the republicans tonight. when we complete that, we will finish the work in two hours on the f-22 amendment. so next week, everybody, we're going to start early on monday, as i've already indicated, and we'll have some, perhaps some long days. this is an important piece of legislation. and hopefully we can get through some of it. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: as i indicated earlier, madam president, we appreciate everyone's cooperation. it's been very difficult to get this, but i think it will move -- get the defense bill done at an earlier time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: would the majority leader yield for a question? will these votes be 10-minute votes? mr. reid: the first one will be 15. we hope to be able to do some by

voice. that's possible but not certainly definite.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: madam president, i call up my amendment number 1610. i ask that it be brought before the body. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kansas, mr. brownback, proposes an amendment numbered 1610 to amendment number 1511. mr. brownback: madam president, i ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brownback: madam president, this is part of the agreement that we have on votes on side-by-sides. and i just would say to my colleagues in a very brief fashion here, what this amendment does is put forward and into this bill language that this body has already passed by a vote of 97-3. it's language that was in the religious freedom restoration act.

it's to protect individuals' religious freedom, their religious freedom of expression. as i mentioned, it's passed this body overwhelmingly. it narrows in the definition, and it says if you intend to incite somebody to do physical harm to another individual, that's not protected speech. if you plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another, it's not protected. that is not protected speech. but otherwise, you do have free speech and the right to free speech expression and religious freedom expression. i think it's important that we have a very clear definition, a narrow definition, but a very clear definition of what is protected and what is not protected speech in this very critical area of first amendment rights and limitations that we're putting in here. so i would ask my colleagues, it is a very short amendment. it is a very important amendment on the hate crimes legislation that they would support this and vote for this, again, as many of my colleagues have already voted

for it in an overwhelming number. madam president, i thank my colleagues for their review of this. i hope they can vote for it. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: once this amendment for the senator from kansas is disposed of, i will then offer an amendment which would preserve the first amendment protections in the hate crimes bill and add language to clarify that nothing in this act diminishes the protections of the first amendment. now, of course, we could not pass a bill, as i'm sure the senator from kansas knows,

congress could not pass legislation that would diminish the protections of the first amendment, the first amendment being in the constitution, protecting us to have the right of -- the first amendment protecting our right to practice whatever religion we want or none if we want, and protecting our right of free speech. so when the -- at the appropriate time i will have an amendment to the senator from kansas, which would preserve first amendment protections in the hate crimes bill, add language to clarify that nothing in this act diminishes the protections of the first

amendment. i would assume the senator from kansas would have no objection to that. mr. brownback: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: i certainly don't have an objection to an amendment being brought up. i would just note that this is a very important area that we're treading on, limitation of people's free speech and religious soaks that they have. and what i am offering is something that passed this body by a large margin before, 97-3. i hope to see the language that the senator from vermont is putting forward. if it's the language that's currently in the bill, this is quite untested language in a very limited area. i read his language to be quite expansive. i think it would be questionable signing and going into constitutional territory. but the bigger point on this being that i believe my colleagues that want to pass the hate speech legislation have been saying all along this doesn't limit somebody's right

of free speech. it doesn't limit anybody's right of religious expression if they have different views. it's just about a violent act and association that would reflect hate in it. and so what i've done in two sentences is say, well, then let's be specific about that rather than very general about that in its interpretation and leaving that to the court. that's why fist lank -- that's why if i have the language correct, i really would hope my colleagues would look at both of these and say they do want a very narrow and specific definition put forward on this. mr. leahy: madam president, if the -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: if the senator would yield, i have no objection to accepting by voice vote his amendment. if the language was previously voted on in the last congress and pending for some time. mine is very short. i call on the senator from kansas or any senator to tell me if there is anything they disagree with.

it says "nothing in this division, an amendment made by in division shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the constitution of the united states. nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities, regardless whether compelled by or central to a religious belief, including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the constitution of the united states and peaceful picketing or demonstration. the constitution does not protect speech or activities consisting of, planning for, conspire to commit or committing an act of violence." does any member of this body, republican or democratic, disagree with that language? basically it says the

constitution is the constitution. we follow the constitution. i mean, does anyone disagree with that language? mr. durbin: would the senator from vermont yield for a question? mr. leahy: of course. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: does the senator from vermont recall that when attorney general holder appeared before the senate judiciary committee, that he was asked point-blank if in the course of a religious ceremony or religious observance that a person gave a sermon, made a speech that was negative toward people of different sexual orientation and that someone in the congregation, after hearing the sermon, committed an act of violence, the attorney general was asked would the person who gave the sermon, gave the speech be held responsible under the hate crimes act? and the attorney general responded, no, because the hate crimes act requires a physical act of violence in order for

there to be a prosecution. does the senator from vermont recall that? mr. leahy: i recall that very well, i say to my friend from illinois. i also note that every single republican, every single democratic member of the committee agreed with attorney general holder on that. as i said, my amendment simply says that you -- the constitution of the united states controls. it's the ultimate law of the land. i can't imagine anybody in this body disagreeing with that, especially every single member of this body has taken an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states. a senator: would the senator yield for a question? mr. leahy: of course. mr. levin: the senator from vermont's amendment makes it very clear that included in your

first amendment rights are the rights to peacefully picket or demonstrate. that is not included in the brownback amendment. would the senator from vermont agree, however, that we don't need to choose between the two amendments, they both state important truths and make very important contributions. is it not the vermont senator's understanding that both amendments can be adopted, that they are not at all inconsistent with each other? mr. leahy: i agree with that. speaking as the chairman of the committee, i would agree with both. mr. brownback: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: i thank the chairman of the armed services committee. i guess the conferees will have to deal with a difficult issue on something like hate crimes, which i have a grave question on

to why on earth we do this on a d.o.d. authorization bill. i would like it point out that my colleague the chairman of the judiciary committee has been in that for a long period of time knows these issues very well. what his puts forward is something that will be interpreted by the courts. will have to be interpreted by the courts and it has broader language. what i'm putting forward is very specific language that puts a clear intent of the congress not to limit certain types of speech but to limit speech that is associated with physical harm or the incitement of physical harm and that seems to me to be clearly appropriate for us to do. clearly -- probably a better thing to do on the hate crimes legislation for us to be very specific and narrow on this area where we're treading into first amendment religious expressions. i would like to read my language if i could to my colleague: that it says -- and this is the operative part of this. if such exercise of relegion,

speech, expression association was not intended to. so it protects every area except for what is not intended to plan or prepare for an act of physical violence or incite an imminent act of physical violence against another. getting into the category, the area. a lot of people are very concerned about, this about having their rights for religious expression an freedom. and i think is this a much tighter focus on this and i believe my -- my colleague would agree as a lawyer -- the presiding officer: the time on the amendment has expired, senator. mr. brownback: i ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time when -- when we're ready to vote on this -- on the brownback amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: parliamentary inquinny. i understand that the first vote under the unanimous consent will be on the leahy amendment, is that correct? in terms of these two amendments. the presiding officer: hatch and then -- after the hatch -- leahy and then brownback. mr. levin: after the disposition of the hatch amendment, the first amendment between these two would be on the leahy amendment? the presiding officer: that's correct, senator. mr. levin: i would hope to expedite things that the senator from vermont would consider a voice vote. both of these amendments should pass and would pass. even though the senator from kansas wants a roll call, both amendments should be adopted if the senator from vermont can accept a voice vote when it comes his turn, it will indicate the clear will of the body and we proceed to another clear view

of the body. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i'm willing to voice vote both of them. i intend to vote for both of them. we're saying that you have a freedom of religion and the courts can -- can't undermine the first amendment. this is horn book law. this is your first week of law school. no court's going to disagree with that. i am perfectly willing to accept both by voice vote. so i offer -- i offer my amendments to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. leahy, processes amendment number 1613 to amendment number 1511. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i call up amendment number 1611 and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from utah, mr. hatch, proposes amendment 1611 to amendment number 1511. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: the purpose behind this amendment is simple. the -- the -- the threshold question, is it really necessary? my amendment would mandate a study to determine whether the states are adequately addressing

bias motivated violence. to date we've seen no evidence that they are not. in fact, we've asked the attorney general to -- for years now to come up with any evidence that he can and in the hearing before the judiciary committee recently he specifically stated that the states are doing a good job at addressing hate crimes. it would also authorize the justice department to provide limited aid and assistance in the state prosecution of bias motivated crimes. in almost every case raised by the proponents of a horrific act of violence motivated by prejudice, the perpetrators have been dealt with adequately at state level. the matthew shepard case, the two perpetrators are spending life in prison. in other cases some have had the death penalty and others have spent life in prison. before we start overwriting state efforts, i believe me should make an effort to determine whether or not there is a legitimate federal rule in the prosecution of hate crimes.

that's what my amendment would do. i hope my colleagues consider voting for it. the presiding officer: the president from vermont. mr. leahy: the hatch amendment kills the hate crimes legislation. if you want to kill the hate crimes legislation, vote for the hatch amendment. if you don't want to kill hate crimes legislation, if you want a chance to vote on something, the senate has voted for time and time again, then vote against the hatch amendment. mr. hatch: mr. president? mr. leahy: the attorney general testified at the request of the republicans, testified before the senate judiciary committee, and endorses the legislation before us. the hatch amendment perhaps well meaning, i assume it is, would, in effect, eviscerate the hate crimes legislation. it would kill the hate crimes legislation. the question is very simple. vote for hatch, you kill the

hate crimes legislation. vote against it, we have a chance to vote for a hate crimes legislation. something that the senate's voted for several times before and something the attorney general supports based on a hearing we had at the request of the republicans within the past week. mr. hatch: mr. president, do i have any time remaining? the presiding officer: the senator from utah, 40 seconds remaining. mr. hatch: my amendment doesn't kill the hate crimes opportunity here. it says let's do a study. let's know what we're talking about. let's see if there's a real need for this bill with all of the constitutional ramifications this bill has, it says let's be cautious, let's just not go into the maelstrom without knowing what we're talking about. mr. levin: any time remaining for the opponents? the presiding officer: 45 seconds.

mr. levin: the hatch amendment is clear. line 6 and 7, lines one two on page two. it says that the divisionee of this act relating to hate crimes and made by that division shall have no force or effect. it's explicit. it says no hate crimes legislation instead a study. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah you have 15 seconds. mr. hatch: all it says is we would go a different route. we would do the study first so we don'to half docand -- and do something unconstitutional. i ask forthe yeas and nays on -- for the yeas and nays on the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? in appears to be. all time has expired on the hatch amendment. the yeas and nays are called. call the roll. vote: ,

vote:

vote:

i

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 29. the nays are 62.

the hatch amendment is not agreed to. mr. leahy: move to reconsider. a senator: move to lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the amendment from the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, this amendment's very simple. anybody can read it in about one minute. all it says is nothing shall add to or detract from the first amendment to the constitution. no court in the country would rule otherwise. it simply says you have the right of free speech in this country. nothing could take from it. nothing add to it. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it.

mr. leahy: move to reconsider. the presiding officer: the ayes do have it. a senator: move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: the amendment is agreed to. without objection, so ordered. the question is on the amendment from the senator from kansas. mr. brownback: mr. president? mr. president, this puts into the bill the language that we put in the religious freedom restoration act that passed this body 97-3. mr. roberts: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. brownback: this is much more targeted, so it doesn't leave it to the interpretation of the court. it expresses what this body previously expressed. continuing's important that we -- i think it's important we put this forward. it says if you're intending to incite physical violence or imminent threat, that is not protected speech. otherwise you have protected speech. it puts a much finer definition, i think is important for this

legislation. and i would urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays have been ordered on the amendment. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or change their vote? any senator wishing to vote or change their vote? the yeas are 7, the nays are -- 78, the nays are 13. the brownback amendment is agreed to. without objection. the senate will come to order. the clerk -- the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the leahy amendment number 1511 to 1309 the defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010 signed

by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the mandatory quorum call is waived. the question is -- is it the sense of the senate that the debate on amendment 1511 recovered by the senator from -- offered by the senator from vermont, mr. leahy, 151 to 1390? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: