Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

Mr. President, as usual, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, when we are on the same wavelength. On this one, we are. I have to say that the original CHIP bill that virtually everybody acclaims as an excellent piece of legislation that has helped millions of children from working poor families, the only children left out of the process, wouldn't have come to pass except for the support of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. We both took a lot of flak during those early months when we were trying to solve this problem of the working-poor children.

I had two Provo, UT, families come in to see me. Both parents in each family worked. Each family had six children. Neither family, with both incomes, had more than $20,000 a year in total gross income. They clearly could not afford child health insurance. CHIP was the only answer to their plight. They were the only people left out of the process. They worked. They did the best they could.

I remember when the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and I sat down together. We are from two opposite poles in many respects, although he doesn't realize that he is a lot more conservative than he thinks. He thinks I may be a lot more liberal than I think. But when Kennedy and Hatch can get together, people around here say: Well, if they can get together, anybody can. People tend to get out of the way because they know it took a lot of effort for us to come together.

But the original CHIP bill could not have occurred but for my distinguished friend from Massachusetts and the work he did. Even though that hasn't been broadcast very much in the current debate, it is true. In the current debate, we wouldn't be as far along if it had not been for the efforts of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

There are two sides to this. Yes, there is a legitimate side in opposition to having CHIP be $35 billion above the baseline of $25 billion. That argument is that we are growing this program too fast and we are putting too many people in it who were not originally supposed to be in it. The fact is, when we wrote the original CHIP bill, we provided for a system of waivers because we were afraid we didn't cover some things that should be covered. What really bothers me is that the people complaining about CHIP costing so much today in this administration, my administration, are the ones who gave 14--well, the tail end of the Clinton administration but primarily this administration--waivers to allow this program to go to many more people than we had originally intended. In fact, two States have more adults on the program than they do children. That has caused a lot of angst. A several States are way over the 200 percent of poverty--one state even covers families with incomes up to 350% of poverty.

Let's put it this way: The opponents seem to ignore the fact that this bill covers 92 percent of kids who are under 200 percent of poverty. Yes, there is 8 or 9 percent who may be above but the

vast majority of them have lived with this program. We found that even with the moneys that we had in the original CHIP bill, which happened to be $40 billion over the last 10 years--that it wasn't enough to put all of the kids who were eligible on the program.

One of the higher costs we found has been documented by CBO. We rely on CBO around here. CBO said that the high costs come from trying to locate the kids to get them in the program so they have a shot at being healthy, so that they are not liabilities for society as a whole when they get older.

This program is very important. We fought hard to keep the program within the $60 billion--$25 billion baseline and $35 billion above the baseline, for a total of $60 billion. At first, those in the House wanted $100 billion. Then they came down to $75 billion. Finally, to their credit, they acknowledged that we were not going to do any better than $35 billion over the baseline, and Senator Grassley and I had to stick with that, with the hope that the administration would recognize how hard we had worked, how important this program is, this program which they themselves would like to reauthorize, and how difficult it is to get the additional 6 million eligible kids on CHIP. To be honest with you, it proved to not be enough as far as federal funding was concerned. And, we lost out on a lot of kids who should have had coverage through this program.

Through this bill, what we are trying to do is cover the kids who should be on the program. They are basically kids of the working poor. We did add pregnant women because we thought that since this involves children and it is so important to have good prenatal care and postnatal care for the health and well-being of those children, that is a logical thing to do.

Really what bothers me about the arguments on the other side--there are legitimate arguments, there always are on both sides--is that we spend about $1.9 trillion on health care in our society today each year. About $1 trillion of it is in the private sector, and about $900 billion is in the public sector. We are asking for $60 billion out of $1.9 trillion to help the kids who are left out of the program. The CBO says even at that, we will not put enough money into this program.

Then we have the argument: This is leading to one-size-fits-all Government-mandated, socialized medicine health care. I think you could make that argument on anything we do in health care around here that involves Government. But on the other hand, I don't want to leave these kids high and dry, either. So it is very important that we get this straight and do what is right.

I have appreciated the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. Many on his side don't care to ever ask where is the money going to come from to pay for these things. On the other hand, in a $1.9 trillion budget, it seems to me $60 billion is not too much, especially since we are covering kids who should be covered who weren't covered in a program that virtually everybody says is important, virtually everybody says we ought to have, just not as much. And even with the $60 billion, it is my understanding, according to CBO, we will not really cover all of the kids we should, but we will cover most, which is a big improvement over the current program.

I join with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts hoping that the administration will listen and maybe change its perception. There are good arguments on both sides. The better argument is to try to do what we can for these kids; that is, work on an overall comprehensive health care bill that will save money, have less Government intrusion, have more private sector development, give people more opportunities of choice, and give them the choice to bring costs down in the current system. People of good will on both sides could probably do that if we really set our minds, if we just don't make this one big political battle all the time. Unfortunately, it is a political battle over CHIP.

According to some in the administration, I am on the wrong side. I don't think so. I am on the right side. I believe this has to be done. Does that mean that I am not willing to modify and work and do what we can to come up with a comprehensive health care approach that emphasizes competition and opportunity, that will cover everybody? Of course not! I would like to get there. This is a bill which does not necessarily take us away from getting there, but I think some of these arguments which have been offered have been not very good and not very accurate.

Of course, and then I think we ought to get in this debate on hate crimes. I would want to yield to Senator Isakson, and then I will have my remarks a little later.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He is accurate on everything except one thing; that is, the 6 million children whom we were supposed to cover, we did on an annualized basis, but really only about 4.5 million were covered fully. I wanted to add that little bit because it is apparent this program has worked. It is apparent it has worked well under this administration as well as under the Clinton administration. It is apparent it has helped millions of kids who otherwise would not have been helped. It is apparent it has helped the children of the working poor. But it has not helped all of those who deserve that help. And, over the long run, if we help them today, it will save us money and problems in the future.

Frankly, this is an important debate. I acknowledge there are people who disagree. There were back then when we first created CHIP. But the fact is, this is a program which has worked. The administration has admitted it has worked. The Governors have admitted it has worked. Maybe it is mired in politics that I wish we were not mired in. My attitude is, let's think of the kids. If there is a way of improving it, I am certainly open to that, but we have come a long way, in a bipartisan way, to get where we are. That is not an easy accomplishment in a Congress that has been pretty partisan in many respects.

I do not think some have really recognized how difficult it was to get to where we are and how many concessions both sides have made, in particular the House. So I think this has been an important part, maybe, of the debate this morning.

But at this point, how much time would the distinguished Senator from Georgia want?

Mr. President, can I ask how much time the Senator would desire?

No objection.

Eight minutes, was it?

Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. President, how much time does each side have?

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I will take a few seconds, and then I will yield to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

To be honest with you, I don't think anybody differs with about 90 percent of what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts or the distinguished Senator from Oregon have said, but it needs to be pointed out that in every case they have cited, State law took care of it and took care of it stronger than this bill will take care of it.

Frankly, whether it is Matthew Shepard or whether it is Byrd or whether it is the other case the distinguished Senator from Oregon mentioned, there is no need to federalize these crimes because they are being taken care of.

I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, this has been an interesting exercise, as far as I am concerned, but I rise to oppose this hate crimes legislation. This is wrong--hate crimes legislation. Instead, we have the opportunity to support the prosecution of hate crimes in a meaningful and a legitimate way that is different from this.

I have said for years in this Chamber that violence motivated by bias against a particular group is abhorrent. Everybody in this body believes that. There is no issue here. We believe that. I believe such conduct must and should be made a crime and punished differently from other crimes. I know all of my colleagues share my conviction about hate crimes. But where should that conviction lead us? The conviction that hate crimes are abhorrent leads me to ask what Congress may properly do about it. That conviction cannot, however, justify supporting the wrong legislation.

The Senate has before it today two amendments which represent two different approaches to the problem of hate crimes. I believe the amendment offered by my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, is unwise, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Some would argue the ends justify the means. They say, if you believe hate crimes are abhorrent, then you must vote for the Kennedy amendment. That certainly is not true, and I urge my colleagues to resist that sort of misguided pressure.

Our obligation is not only to pursue the right goals but to do it in the right way. The Kennedy amendment would federalize the prosecution of hate crimes. It would create a new Federal felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for causing bodily injury to another because of that person's actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation--gender identity?--or disability.

This amendment is unwise because of how it is drafted and how its supporters are trying to get it passed. The Senator from Massachusetts introduced S. 622 in the 106th Congress. He introduced S. 966 in the 108th Congress. He introduced S. 1105 in April. It would prohibit violence motivated by an additional new category of bias. The amendment before us today would do the same. That process of adding categories constituency by constituency and extending the reach of the Federal hate crimes law could continue indefinitely.

When my colleagues consider whether to support the current Kennedy amendment, even if they have supported previous versions, they should know that this amendment before us today is broader than any version of this legislation ever considered by this body. In its latest iteration, the Kennedy amendment would prohibit violence motivated by gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Now, there has been no public discussion about what these terms mean, how they may differ, and whether they can be applied in anything approaching a consistent and reasonable way.

But let me address another problem with including the latest new category--what the Kennedy amendment calls perceived gender identity. The term ``perceived'' applies to gender identity as it applies to the other categories, and it refers to the perpetrator's perception. In other words, the amendment prohibits violence based on

what the perpetrator perceives to be the victim's gender identity. But the term ``gender identity'' refers to the victim's perception. Get that? The term ``gender identity'' refers to the victim's perception.

The online resource Wikipedia defines gender identity as:

Whether one perceives oneself to be a man, a woman, or

describes oneself in some less conventional way.

Now, the contradiction is obvious. The Kennedy amendment would criminalize violence based on the perpetrator's perception of the victim's self-perception. Whether or not this is good sociology--and I don't believe it is--it is bad legislation.

The Kennedy amendment is also unwise in the way its supporters are trying to get it passed. Even though my good friend from Massachusetts introduced it as a separate bill, we are here today considering it as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. Some justify that by saying it would also protect members of the military. This measure would protect those serving in the military as well as everyone it attempts to cover whether it is attached to this bill or any other bill on any other subject at any other time. So that is not a good argument.

Its proponents wanted to attach the Kennedy amendment to this legislative vehicle not because it is relevant to the Defense authorization bill but because we consider the Defense authorization bill around here to be what we call a must-pass bill. If the Kennedy amendment prohibited violence against individuals because of their status as members of the military, I suppose it might be more relevant to the Defense bill. But I note that the Kennedy amendment does no such thing.

The Kennedy amendment does not belong on the Defense authorization bill, especially when the President has already threatened to veto the amendment and may have to veto this bill because of this amendment, a bill that is absolutely necessary for the benefit of our soldiers.

Now, in addition to being unwise, the Kennedy amendment is unnecessary. State laws already provide for prosecuting the underlying violence prohibited by the Kennedy amendment. Laws against murder, rape, assault, and the like are State laws, and they should remain that way. Forty-six States also have hate crimes legislation on the books that either criminalize substantive offenses or enhance criminal penalties for existing offenses because of their motive or bias.

By the way, the murderers of James Byrd in Texas and Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, after whom this bill is named, were either sentenced to death or are in prison for the rest of their lives under State law, more than this bill would do. My point is, State laws have been taking care of these matters, and there is absolutely no evidence that the proponents of this bill have been able to show that States are not doing their job under their laws, which are better than this law.

While these are the most widely cited examples, the Byrd and Shepard cases, and the other case cited by my friend from Oregon to demonstrate the need for the Kennedy amendment, it would treat both of these hate crime murders more leniently than current State law does.

There is no evidence that State and local governments are incapable of prosecuting these crimes, or that they are failing to do so.

Fewer than 17 percent of all law enforcement agencies reported even a single hate crime in 2005.

Hate crimes account for less than one-tenth of 1 percent of crimes in America.

The majority of hate crimes involve such things as vandalism or verbal intimidation.

By requiring actual or threatened bodily injury, the Kennedy amendment focuses on an even smaller portion of hate crimes.

This means that States would be more, not less, able to address the hate crime problem themselves.

The States are, in fact, already doing so.

In addition to being unwise and unnecessary, the Kennedy amendment is unconstitutional.

Yesterday in this Chamber, my good friend from Massachusetts strenuously emphasized, clearly and unambiguously, that his amendment is not limited by existing Federal jurisdiction.

In fact, he deliberately wants to break this new Federal hate crime felony free from any such limitation.

In his words, the limitation of requiring Federal jurisdiction for such a Federal crime would be ``outdated, unwise, and unnecessary.''

He said the same thing in April when he introduced this measure as a separate bill.

But the requirement that Congress have authority to legislate on such an issue derives from the very Constitution that each of us has sworn to support and defend.

We must have affirmative authority, derived from the Constitution, to legislate.

By giving us only delegated powers, America's founders rejected the idea that the desirable ends justify the political means.

Federalizing crime is legitimate only when it is connected to a power properly exercised by the Federal Government.

Rejecting the requirement of Federal jurisdiction in the legislation before us is rejecting the limitations imposed upon us by the Constitution.

With all due respect to my good friend from Massachusetts, I do not believe the Constitution is outdated, unwise, or unnecessary.

In its findings, the Kennedy amendment cites the 13th amendment to the Constitution, which banned slavery and involuntary servitude, as a constitutional basis for this legislation.

Modern forms of slavery do exist, and I urge my colleagues to support efforts by the Departments of Justice, Labor, and State to uncover and eliminate such heinous practices as human trafficking and forced prostitution.

But that is not what the Kennedy amendment, or existing hate crimes laws for that matter, are about and they cannot hook their train to the 13th amendment engine.

Connecting 19th century slavery with 21st century perceived gender identity at least requires a long series of rhetorical dots, but it should require more than a storytelling imagination to produce sound legislation.

The Kennedy amendment's growing list of prohibited bias categories extends far beyond anything the Supreme Court has ever recognized as relating to the badges and incidence of slavery.

We do not have to speculate about other constitutional defects in the Kennedy amendment.

As I said yesterday in this chamber, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Violence Against Women Act--I was a prime sponsor with Senator Biden of that bill--because Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce did not extend to turning State crimes into Federal lawsuits.

The Court emphasized the distinction between the truly national and truly local and concluded that Federal legislation must be directed at such things as the actual instrumentalities, channels, or goods involved in interstate commerce.

The Kennedy amendment tries to avoid the same fate by appearing to require an interstate commerce nexus for some of the hate crimes it would cover.

If its backers are serious about this requirement, as the Supreme Court surely is, this would further reduce the hate crimes the Kennedy amendment would actually reach.

Their rhetoric and the ever-expanding list of prohibited bias categories in successive versions of this legislation, however, make me wonder whether they genuinely want the Kennedy amendment to be so narrowly applied.

As I said in this chamber yesterday, my good friend from Massachusetts, in the straightforward and direct way we have all come to appreciate and respect, has said unequivocally that all hate crimes will face Federal prosecution.

This will lead to a massive federalization of hate crimes that traditionally have been, and that constitutionally should remain, left to the authority of the States.

There is no need to burden prosecutors and courts and do such damage to our constitutional framework of government.

Our conviction about hate crimes cannot, it must not, blind our conviction about the need for wise legislation and respecting the fundamental limits of our constitutional authority.

While the Kennedy amendment is unwise, unnecessary, and unconstitutional, the good news is that we can do

something legitimate and meaningful about hate crimes without back- handing the Constitution.

The amendment I have offered would strengthen enforcement of hate crimes laws right where that enforcement may legitimately and most effectively occur, at the State and local level.

My amendment would charge the Comptroller General, in consultation with the National Governors Association and State and local law enforcement, with studying whether State and local governments are properly and effectively addressing hate crimes.

This would give us a more objective understanding of the nature and scope of the hate crimes problem so that we can better determine whether there is any basis for a greater Federal role before we go off on this massive sweeping legislation the distinguished senator from Massachusetts is urging. My legislation would help identify whether any gaps exist in the ability and determination of States to prosecute hate crimes and provide Federal resources to help them do so.

The authority to prosecute hate crimes rests with the States, and if we truly want both to address hate crimes and stay within our proper constitutional role, we can help the States effectively carry out their responsibility.

I said it before, and I will say it again.

Crimes of violence, no matter their motivation, are abhorrent.

I recognize that some crimes of violence are directed not only against individual victims, but against the groups or communities with which those victims identify.

Concern about hate crimes, however, is only the beginning of the discussion and the political ends do not justify the legislative means.

I know that my good friend from Massachusetts is genuinely passionate about what he sees as an injustice.

His amendment, however, is the wrong way to address the problem.

The Kennedy amendment is unwise, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.

It is unwise in its drafting and in the way its supporters are trying to get it passed.

It is unnecessary because States have their own hate crimes laws and are demonstrably able to address the problem.

It is unconstitutional because Congress lacks authority to create such a freestanding criminal felony unrestricted by Federal jurisdiction.

I urge my colleagues, instead, to do the right thing and to do it the right way by supporting the amendment I have brought to the floor.

I find no fault with people who are sincere in trying to do things that sincerely are well motivated. But we should live within the confines of the Constitution. There is no nexus that would justify this type of overwhelming legislation, imposed upon everybody in this country, when the States are already doing the job.

We have two hate crimes amendments before us today. One is extremely broad, probably unconstitutional, and likely unnecessary. The President has threatened to veto it. The amendment would torpedo the Defense authorization bill. The other is a more modest approach. My amendment would assist State and local law enforcement as they do the hard work of providing equal justice for all their citizens. The Kennedy amendment is sweeping, but it cannot realistically get done on this bill. Mine is a modest, and I believe adequate, approach to this problem, and it would become law. To quote an unappreciated political philosopher:

You can't always get what you want. But if you try,

sometimes, you'll find you get what you need.

I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on the Kennedy amendment and for cloture on my amendment and I think we will make better headway than we would if we agree to the Kennedy amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. President, I agree with 80 percent of what the distinguished Senator has said during this debate. The fact is, the very name of this bill makes the very point I am making. It is the ``Matthew Shepard Act,'' a heinous crime committed against him where both people were prosecuted and sentenced to life; in the Byrd case, sentenced to death. We are taking care of these problems. There has been no showing by the other side that the State prosecutors are incapable of doing so. The fact is, we do not need a massive Federal piece of legislation that would require the Federal Government to get into areas that clearly are not in interstate commerce but are subject to State laws that are being enforced. That is a very important point. We should be very loath to go beyond that point.

I thank my very loquacious colleague who feels very deeply, but I feel deeply, too, about the issue, about these people, about what is happening, and what I am saying constitutionally.

Mr. President, with that fine concession, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, briefly, let me outline the schedule for this morning. Under an order entered last night, there are 2 hours of debate equally divided prior to votes on pending cloture motions on the two hate crimes amendments.

Once the votes begin, around 11 this morning, there will be very brief debate between the votes, so Members

should remain close to the floor during that time.

Once action has concluded on the hate crime amendments, the Senate will then have a brief debate prior to the cloture vote on the motion to concur to the House amendments to the Senate amendments to the CHIP legislation.

Therefore, Members can expect five rollcall votes starting around 11 this morning.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes immediately prior to the first vote be controlled equally between the two leaders, with the majority leader controlling the last 5 minutes, and that after the first vote, the remaining votes be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if there are quorum calls during this time, they be evenly divided.

Mr. President, I see my friend and one of the principal architects of this CHIP program on the floor. I know he desires to speak for some time. I am glad to accommodate him. I think I am going to speak on both of the measures that are before the Senate, both the CHIP program as well as the hate crimes. So I do not know what the desire of the Senator from Utah would be. But I will be glad to yield to him.

Mr. President, will the Senator let me proceed for 2 minutes? I see the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from Utah. I want to say that the 6 million children who today are covered in all parts of the country, including my State of Massachusetts, would not be if it was not for the Senator from Utah. There was a very important insistence that has been sort of lost in this whole discussion and debate.

At the time we had talked about this program, I was very interested in expanding the Medicaid Program and moving that up. Medicaid deals with the very poor. The real question was the working poor for these programs. Senator Hatch insisted we should not expand the Government program, that we have to let the States participate and involve themselves in it. This was a very contentious discussion in the debate which, eventually, Senator Hatch was successful in winning. Then we would establish the criteria, at least, of the kinds of services that were going to be provided within that kind of a program. That was a very contentious debate, but again Senator Hatch insisted the States should make the judgments on this program. Then we had the issues about trying to make sure about the inclusion, having it be more sweeping, and Senator Hatch stuck by his guns to make sure the States were going to be the ones that were going to do the outreach and set up this program.

So those issues--in terms of when we are talking about these cliches of socialized medicine or Cuban-type of medicine--for those who are really interested in the philosophical underpinnings of this program, of why it is different from other programs, if they go back and look and carefully read the bill, I must say Senator Hatch's position of insisting that the States be the full partner and be the ones that are going to have the prime responsibilities has been the fact.

I think to the credit of the Senator from Utah is the fact that so many of the Governors are in such support of this legislation--not only Democratic Governors but Republican Governors--because they have seen, they have both the responsibility and the opportunity to make a difference for their constituents.

So that is just a small ``factoid'' about the history of the development of this legislation but one that should not be lost when people are thinking about whether this is just another kind of a governmental program. The Senator insisted on principle on a number of these important philosophical issues, and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, came together to support the recommendations that eventually were worked out with members of the Finance Committee and Senator Baucus, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Chafee, and many other colleagues. But the underpinnings were from the Senator from Utah. I think history ought to reflect that. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, may I ask a question? I have no objection, but is this going to be within the time as expressed by the leader?

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

On each side. Good.

Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes, and the Chair will notify me when that time has expired.

Mr. President, as we mentioned at the opening this morning, there are going to be two major decisions by the Senate this morning: one on dealing with the children's health issue, which we have had a good discussion of here this morning, and the other issue on the hate crimes legislation, which we have been attempting to realize for a period of some 10 years.

This is not a new issue to the Defense authorization legislation. We have passed it by more than 60 votes on the last occasion we had it. We passed it by a majority on other occasions. So for those who sort of suggest it is not appropriate that we deal with this, the majority-- Republicans and Democrats alike--have overwhelmingly supported the legislation. But it has been a strong minority that has resisted it and refused to let it move on into law. We finally are at a time and a place and a judgment where the House of Representatives now has moved in favor of the legislation. We have an opportunity today to do it. We haven't taken an unreasonable period of time.

The application of this legislation and why it should be here is a very simple and basic and fundamental one; that is, what the Defense authorization bill is about--dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas and the support that our men and women ought to get in dealing with terrorism overseas. This is about terrorism in our neighborhoods-- terrorism in our neighborhoods--and making sure we are going to fight it. We can talk about having the MRAP, which I support, in the Defense authorization bill. We are fighting overseas with all of our weapons. We want to fight terrorism at home with all of our weapons.

We want to be able to have a value system that is worthy for our brave men and women to defend. They are fighting overseas for our values. One of the values is that you should not, in this country, in this democracy, permit the kind of hatred and bigotry that has stained the history of this Nation over a very considerable period of time. We should not tolerate it. We keep faith with those men and women who are serving overseas when we battle that hatred and bigotry and prejudice at home. So we are taking a few minutes in the morning to have this debate and discussion.

I urge my colleagues to join me, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Senator Smith, and 31 cosponsors of the Matthew Shepard Act by voting in favor of cloture and our underlying amendment today. Hate crimes are domestic terrorism. Like all terrorist acts, they seek to bring fear to whole communities through violence on a few. Just as we have committed ourselves to fighting terrorists who strike from abroad, we must make the same commitment to swift and strong justice against homegrown terrorists. We have worked hard to ensure that all of our citizens can live without fear of victimization because of their race, religion, and their national origin. We have made progress over the years, but we need stronger tools to ensure that all Americans--all Americans--are protected under the law.

Hate crimes challenge us to recognize the dignity of each individual at the most basic level. When victims are selected for violence because of who they are--because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation--it is a crime that wounds all of us. Each person's life is valuable, and even one life lost is too many. No member of our society--no one--should be the victim of hate crimes. Today we can send a message that no one--no one--should be a victim of a hate crime because of their disability, their sexual orientation, their gender, or gender identity.

Hate crimes are especially heinous because they deny the dignity, the humanity, and the worth of whole segments of our society. They inflict terror not only on the immediate victims but on all their families, their societies, and, in some cases, an entire Nation. A hate crime against one member of another group shouts to the other members: You are next. You better watch your step when you leave your home, when you go to work, when you travel. This is domestic terrorism, plain and simple, and it is unacceptable as an assault from our enemies abroad who hate us just as irrationally.

At bottom, hate crimes strike out at our most fundamental, moral values. They deny the teaching that we are all--even those viewed as outcasts among us--members of the human family. They seek to divide that family by labeling some so unworthy that they should become objects of violence. They reject our great national motto, ``E pluribus unum''--out of many, one. Instead, hate crimes seek to divide us, to reject whole communities by terrorizing their members.

Centuries ago, Blackstone wrote:

It is but reasonable that among crimes of different

natures, those should be most severely punished which are the

most destructive of the public safety and happiness.

Hate-motivated crimes are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness and should be punished more severely than other crimes. That is why over 1,400--1,400--clergy from across the spectrum of religious traditions have come together to support the Matthew Shepherd Act. They write:

Although we come from diverse faith backgrounds, our

traditions and our sacred texts are united in condemning hate

and violence. As religious leaders, we are on the front lines

dealing with the devastating effects of hate-motivated

violence. Our faith traditions teach us to love our neighbor,

and while we cannot legislate love, it is our moral duty to

protect one another from hatred and violence.

These leaders of America's religious communities have called on Congress to stand united against the oppression imposed by violence based on personal characteristics and to work together to create a society in which diverse people are safe as well as free.

Mr. President, I yield myself 3 more minutes.

Mr. President, The Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan advocacy organization representing 75 different religions, said hate crimes are an assault upon ``the belief that lies at the core of our diverse faith traditions--that every human being is endowed with dignity and worth.''

This is what The Interfaith Alliance said:

Hate crimes are an assault upon the belief that lies at the

core of our diverse faith traditions--that every human being

is endowed with dignity and worth.

Dignity and worth.

The simple fact is, hate crimes are different and more destructive than other crimes. As my friend, Senator Hatch, stated during our debate in 2000:

Crimes of animus are more likely to provoke retaliatory

crimes; they inflict deep, lasting and distinct injuries--

some of which never heal--on victims and their family

members; they incite community unrest and, ultimately, they

are downright un-American.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to send a clear and unambiguous message that hate-motivated violence in any form, from any source, will not be tolerated. Hate crime perpetrators use violence to dehumanize and diminish their victims. This legislation fights back by reinforcing this country's founding ideals of liberty and justice for all.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are fighting for freedom and liberty. They are on the front lines fighting against hate. We are united in our effort to root out the cells of hatred around the world. We should not turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism at home. We owe it to our troops to uphold those same principles at home. We should not shrink now from our role as a beacon of liberty to the rest of the world. When the Senate approves this amendment, we will send a message about freedom and equality that will resonate around the world.

If America is to live up to its founding ideals of liberty and justice for all, combating hate crimes must be a national priority. Now is the time for

Congress to speak with one voice, insisting that all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. We must pay more than lipservice to this core principle of our democracy, and we must give those words practical meaning in our modern society. No American should feel they are second-class citizens because Congress refuses to protect them against hate crimes.

Far too many times, hate crimes have shocked the conscience of the country. Tolerance in America still faces a serious challenge, and we must have the courage to act. As the Reverend Sockman said:

The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The

test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.

Most of us in this Chamber have lived our lives in the majority, and it is time for us to recognize the courage of those who have lived their lives in the minority and stand up for tolerance. When bigotry exists in America, each of us is diminished. Injustice inflicted on any among us is injustice against us all.

As Leviticus commands us:

You may not stand idly by when your neighbor's blood is

being shed.

For too long, the Federal Government has been forced to fight this injustice with one hand tied behind its back. We know some crimes are motivated by a desire to harm whole communities. It is time those crimes were punished in a manner that is equal to their destructiveness.

The President has threatened to veto this legislation if it comes to his desk, but I urge my fellow Senators to display the same kind of courage that came from David Ritcheson, the victim of a brutal hate crime that scarred him both physically and mentally. Rather than living in fear, David bravely came before the House Judiciary Committee and courageously--courageously--described the horrific attack against him the year before.

We should fight to protect the rights of our fellow citizens such as David and not let a veto threat stop us from doing the right thing. With both the Senate and the House moving forward on this legislation, I hope the President will hear our call and that he, too, will support this much-needed measure.

Nobel Prize laureate Elie Wiesel said:

Indifference is always the friend of the enemy--

Indifference is always the friend of the enemy--for it

benefits the aggressor, never the victim, whose pain is

magnified when he or she is forgotten.

Today, we can take a strong stand against indifference and intolerance.

Dr. King reminded us all that ``our lives begin to end the day we become silent against the things that matter.'' Today, this body has a chance to break the silence. It has the chance to speak with one voice in support of the value of every individual in our society. Join me and my colleagues in breaking the silence. Make the fight to end violence driven by bigotry the high national priority that it should be. Now is the time because, as Reverend Martin Luther King reminded us:

The time is always right to do what is right.

Now is the time for Congress to speak with one voice and insist that all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protections of the law. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to my friend from Texas. We have spent more time in quorum calls around here over these last few days. We spent a good deal of time on a poster--expressing the will of the Senate on various posters. We spent hours on those issues. Talk about delaying paying for the troops. I didn't hear those arguments when we were trying to uparmor HMMWVs last year. So I have difficulty in giving a lot of focus and attention to it.

Quite frankly, I imagine the Senator is talking about the DREAM Act, which will permit children who have been in this country for 5 years-- brought in by their parents through no fault of their own--that we either permit them to go through an education or join the military-- join the military. That has something to do with the Defense authorization bill--when we find out that many units are not being kept up to speed. So we will move ahead.

How much time do I have, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to my friend from Utah describe this legislation. He has followed one of the great traditions of the Senate. That is, he has misrepresented and misstated my position and then he has differed with it. I know that technique because I have used it a few times myself.

I hope, for those of our colleagues who have been following this debate, to keep in mind very briefly--I outlined earlier the principal reasons for this--but with regard to what is happening in the local communities, and in the States, the fact is the National District Attorneys Association is supporting this legislation. Do you believe if we were doing all the things the Senator said, if we were violating everything local and State, the National District Attorneys Association would be supporting this? The National Sheriffs' Association is supporting it, as is the States Attorneys General of the United States. The principal law enforcement agencies in the States are supporting it. Do you think they would be supporting this if it was unconstitutional? You don't think they would have the opportunity to know what is constitutional or not constitutional? And you don't think they understand what is necessary to protect their citizens from the viciousness of hate crimes?

There it is. I ask unanimous consent the entire list be printed in the Record.

I will mention a few. They include the Anti-Defamation League, Human Rights Campaign, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Why? Because, as we know, hate crimes are increasing. They are not diminishing in the United States of America. They are increasing. All the statistics demonstrate it.

What is also demonstrable is what local law officials point out by their support. They do not have the tools or the will to deal with the most vicious types of attacks that take place upon individuals because of who they are. That is why they support this rather measured proposal that we have, that will give help and assistance in attacking the problems of hatred at home like we are attacking the problems of hatred abroad.

This is not such a strange issue.

Will the Chair let me know when I have a minute left, please.

My friend, Senator Hatch, pointed out during our debate in 2000:

Crimes of animus are more likely to promote retaliatory

crimes; they inflict deep, lasting and distinct injuries--

some of which never heal--on victims and their family

members; they incite community unrest and, ultimately, they

are downright un-American.

No one could say it better. He understands that is what we are talking about and whether we are going to battle that with both hands, not with one hand tied behind our back as exists at the present time. It is the local law officials who are stating that. Even the Justice Department said the same a few years ago.

Finally, on why this is such an extraordinary situation--this is what the Justice Department says.

Local authorities may not have the tools or the will to

prosecute a particular bias-motivated crime fully.

We put this aside. This, basically, is a moral issue. It is a moral issue because of the viciousness and the motivational aspects of hatred and bigotry. Our Founding Fathers, as brilliant as they were, wrote prejudice in the Constitution of the United States. They wrote slavery in the Constitution of the United States. This Nation has been battling for 230 years to free ourselves from the stains of discrimination, and we are not there yet. We suffered the brutalities of the Civil War. We went through the period of Reconstruction. We have faced those issues on the floor of the Senate: In 1964, the Civil Rights Act; the 1965 Civil Rights Act; the 1968 Civil Rights Act. We went on to knock down the walls of discrimination.

When we knocked down the walls of discrimination on the basis of race, we also, history will show--we knocked them down with regard to gender, we knocked them down with regard to ethnicity, we knocked down a lot of them in terms of disability. We have not with regard to sexual orientation. But we have made remarkable progress. No nation in the world has made that progress--no nation.

That is one of the reasons I am as proud of this Nation as I am. But it is a continuing process. If we do not understand that out there, as the various statistics of the Justice Department and the Southern Poverty Law Center say, there are these centers of hatred and bigotry that exist out there, that are hating and demonstrating and killing our citizens on the basis of those definitions.

That is continuing, and the question is whether we are going to do something about it. We are not going to solve all of the problems with legislation, but if we do not solve this one, we miss a golden opportunity.

I finally say, to those who have talked about, we are adding this on the Defense authorization bill, we have had more time in quorum calls around here. We have not taken a great deal of time. We are taking 2 hours this morning on SCHIP and hate crimes. We have not taken up a great deal of time.

The majority of the Members have supported this. On three other occasions, a majority of Republicans and Democrats have supported this concept--on three other occasions. Let's get the job done. We have that opportunity this morning.

Finally, this is about the morality of our country, the values of our country. That is directly tied into what our men and women are doing overseas in resisting terrorism and fighting for the values here at home. One of the values that is here at home is the value of honoring the dignity of the human being and the individual. That is why

all of those in the great religious faiths, the Interfaith Alliance, 75 different religions--the belief that lies at the core of our diverse faith traditions is that every human being is endowed with dignity and worth. That is why 1,400 members of the clergy have pointed out: Our faith traditions teach us to love our neighbor. While we cannot legislate love, it is our moral duty to protect one another from hatred and violence.

This is from the religious community.

So we have on that standard above the Presiding Officer ``E pluribus unum''--``out of many, one.'' We have a responsibility, to the extent we can, to eliminate division, to eliminate the hatred, to eliminate the bigotry, and to become one Nation with one history and one destiny. This amendment moves us on that road to the kind of country this Nation deserves to be. I hope our colleagues will support this amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the leadership, we would be glad to have a voice vote, if that is acceptable, satisfactory. We would vitiate the need for the yeas and nays and move to a voice vote, if that is satisfactory.

As a result of this vote, we would be glad to vitiate the need for the yeas and nays on this amendment and have a voice vote, if that is acceptable.

Then, Mr. President, if I could just have everyone's attention for a minute, we are prepared to accept the Hatch amendment, if that is satisfactory.

Then, Mr. President, I would like to see if we could have a voice vote now on the underlying amendment.

Mr. President, we are willing to accept the Hatch amendment. It requires a study and requires some authorization for helping local communities. I would hope the amendment would be unanimously accepted. I intend to vote for it, and I would hope all the Members would vote for it. I understand we are going to order the yeas and nays now. I hope we will vote in favor of the Hatch amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Senator Biden will control the time.

Mr. President, I have discussed with the Senator from Delaware modifying his amendment expressing the sense of Congress on Federalism in Iraq.

My concern with the wording of the amendment stems from the fact that the Iraqi Sunnis did not participate fully in the drafting of the constitution of Iraq and the Sunni community voted overwhelmingly against it but were unable to prevent its adoption in a referendum. As a result of their dissatisfaction with the constitution, an agreement was made to convene a Constitutional Review Commission to review the constitution and to make recommendations for changes to the Iraqi Council of Representatives for submission to the Iraqi people. One of the benchmarks that the Iraqi political leaders agreed among themselves called for the Constitutional Review Commission to be formed by September 2006; for the Commission to complete its work by January 2007; and for a constitutional amendments referendum to be held, if required, in March 2007.

The Constitutional Review Commission has not completed its work despite several extensions of time; the most recent extension being until the end of this year. In recognition of the agreement to have a Constitutional Review Committee, the legislation establishing procedures for the creation of new federal regions in Iraq will not go into effect until 18 months after enactment of the legislation, which is April 2008.

Accordingly, I appreciate the modifications that Senator Biden is making to his amendment to reflect that the political settlement regarding federalism referred to in his amendment should be based upon the ``final'' provisions of the Iraq constitution. This will allow for the possibility of changes being made as a result of the work of the Constitutional Review Commission. I also appreciate Senator Biden's modifying the amendment to note that whatever the political settlement is, be it pursuant to the current or revised constitutional provisions, it should be based on the ``wishes of the Iraqi people and their elected leaders'' as we don't want to suggest that we are trying to impose anything on the Iraqis.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Reserving the right to object--and I won't--is this the amendment which the unanimous consent agreement, previously arrived at, referred to?

Reserving the right to object, is there any time agreement on this amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes in support of the Webb-McCaskill amendment that would establish a contracting commission relative to contracting in Iraq, but it also does another very important thing, which is it broadens the jurisdiction of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, or SIGIR. Over the last 4 years, the United States has spent more than $20 billion on reconstruction contracting in Iraq. In report after report, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, SIGIR, has demonstrated that this effort was poorly planned, inadequately staffed, and poorly managed.

For example, the special inspector general has reported that plumbing was so poorly installed at the Baghdad Police College that dripping sewage not only threatened the health of students and inspectors but could have affected the structural integrity of the building.

The special inspector general reported that the security walls built for the Babylon Police Academy in Hilla were full of gaps and deficiencies, some of which were filled with sandbags; lighting systems and guard towers called for in the contract were never installed. As a result, the academy was vulnerable to attack.

The special inspector general reported that a prison in Nasiriyah was originally supposed to house 4,400 inmates, but the scope was reduced to the point where it would only house 800. After most of the available money had been spent, the contract was terminated due to schedule delays and cost overruns.

He reported that neither the government nor the contractor could verify the status of a new oil pipeline from Kirkuk to Baiji because project monitoring was very limited and sporadic. However, at least 25 percent of the welds on the pipeline was defective, and one major canal crossing was only 10 percent complete. The failure to complete this project resulted in the loss of as much as $14.8 billion in oil revenues to the Iraqi Government.

He reported that after the Army Corps of Engineers spent $186 million on primary health care centers throughout Iraq, the contract was terminated with only 6 health care centers completed, 135 partially constructed, and the remainder ``descoped.'' The special inspector general determined that the contractor had lacked qualified engineering staff, failed to check the capacity of its subcontractors, failed to properly supervise the work, and failed to enforce quality control requirements.

The Department of Defense has spent even more money on logistical support contracts for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been numerous indications of fraud, waste, and abuse in these contracts as well. For example, recent press reports indicate that the Department of Defense contracting officials in Iraq and Kuwait received millions of dollars in kickbacks, tainting several billion dollars of DOD logistics support contracts. Similarly, the Armed Services Committee held a hearing in April on Halliburton's LOGCAP contract for logistics support in Iraq. Our committee learned that the company was given work that appears to have far exceeded the scope of the contract. All of this added work was provided to the contractor without competition. The contractor resisted providing us with information that we needed to monitor and control costs. There are almost $2 billion of overcharges on the contract, and the contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharges.

Unfortunately, the special inspector general does not have jurisdiction over Department of Defense logistic support contracts, and the Department of Defense inspector general who does have jurisdiction refused for several years to send auditors to Iraq and is now playing catchup. As a result, billions of dollars have been spent on these contracts without sufficient oversight.

In addition, there have been numerous reports of abuses by private security contractors operating in Iraq. More recently, the Iraqi Government has complained about an incident in which employees of Blackwater, Inc., allegedly opened fire on innocent Iraqis in Baghdad. This incident is apparently the latest in a long series of similar cases in which Blackwater employees were alleged to have used excessive force.

Unfortunately, the special inspector general does not have jurisdiction over private security contractors. The DOD inspector general does not have jurisdiction over State Department contractors like Blackwater either. Published reports in the last few weeks indicate that the State Department inspector general has systematically avoided looking into allegations of contract abuse in Iraq.

In short, despite almost 5 years of allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq contracting, we continue to have huge gaps in our oversight of these activities. The Webb-McCaskill amendment will address these gaps by, first, establishing an independent commission to look into Federal agency contracting for reconstruction, logistical support, and the performance of private security and intelligence functions in Iraq and Afghanistan; and, second, expanding the jurisdiction of the special inspector general to logistical support contracts and contracts for the performance of private security and intelligence functions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Under this provision, the special inspector general, in collaboration with other relevant inspectors general, would conduct a comprehensive series of audits of logistical support contracts and private security contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan comparable to the audits the special inspector general has already conducted for Iraq reconstruction contracts. The commission would review these materials, conduct hearings, and issue a report identifying lessons learned and making specific recommendations for improvements that should be made in future contracting.

So the Webb-McCaskill amendment would ensure that we finally have appropriate oversight over the full range of contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will ensure that we are in a position to learn from the mistakes we have made, and we will be better positioned to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. I hope there will be a broad bipartisan vote for Webb-McCaskill, just the way there is already broad bipartisan sponsorship for their amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his question. Our committee, as the Senator knows perhaps better than any other Member of this body, has a huge responsibility month

after month, year after year, on the authorization bill. Most of our focus is on that bill in terms of staff assignments.

We also from time to time do have oversight hearings. We have had a couple on Iraq, but in terms of what is needed with the immense fraud and abuse and waste that has gone on in Iraq, we could assign our committee nothing else and still not catch up to what needs to be done relative to the waste and the fraud and the abuse that has taken place in Iraq contracting. We have perhaps three or four staff members assigned to investigation. They are in the middle of an investigation now. They could not possibly--with the very small number of staffers assigned to that responsibility--take on the breadth of work which needs to be done relative to Iraq.

Also, this amendment not only has a contracting commission, but it also is going to amend the Special Inspector General Act relative to Iraq to fill in a number of gaps which exist in the inspector general's jurisdiction.

The areas which I just outlined that the current special inspector general does not have jurisdiction over, we must have a modification of that jurisdiction in order that the special inspector general will have that capability which is now omitted from the tasking of the special inspector general. As the Senator also knows because he was responsible for the appointment of a number of these commissions, our committee supports, and indeed has led the way, in the creation of independent commissions all the time. It was not an abdication of our jurisdiction or our authority when the Packard Commission was created, when the section 800 commission was created, or when the Service Acquisition Reform Act Commission was recently created. There are many commissions that we appoint, and we are leading the way and have led the way to have created, and in no way does that diminish the jurisdiction of our committee.

In fact, it is quite the opposite. The creation of these commissions has been able to lead to reforms, legislative reforms at times, which our committee then is able to take up and adopt, hopefully, in many cases, and in fact has adopted in many cases.

So there is nothing novel about the creation of commissions. As a matter of fact, I think the Senator from Virginia, perhaps almost on his own, was the creator of a commission which we recently heard from to give us the independent assessment of the military capability of the Iraqi military forces, the commission led by General Jones.

Did we outsource to the Packard Commission, the reforms they recommended?

I don't think working closely with the Commission collaboratively in any way means they are not going to report to us. They will continue to report to the Congress. There is no shift of the reporting function. As a matter of fact, the IG for Iraq does not have the authority which should have been given to him, and would now be given to him by this bill, for instance, on logistics support contracts. Why in heaven's name should the special IG not have logistics support contracts jurisdiction?

I have never seen as much fraud, waste, and abuse. There is no analogy in the history of this country, I don't believe, for the amount of fraud and waste and abuse that is taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think our committee could do anything else if we took on that responsibility. I think we would be having hearings every week, when we need to have hearings on all of the other matters under our jurisdiction. I don't know that we could do an authorization bill properly if we took on this responsibility. It is too massive.

I wonder whether the Senator can give me one example in American history where there has been this degree of waste, fraud, and abuse. We now see a massive investigation taking place because of the alleged fraud of a number of members of the armed services. I cannot remember anything comparable. This is a massive undertaking. It is most appropriate that we have a special commission to do that. There is no reason why they should not work in concert with an IG. We don't want them overlapping and conflicting.

The issue is whether we are going to take on this responsibility one way or the other. This is only one practical way to do it. I wish we had the resources and time in our committee to do the kind of oversight that has to be done relative to Iraq. To me, it has been the most shocking abuse of the taxpayers' dollars that we have seen. As a practical matter, I think the former chairman of the committee would acknowledge it would take a huge amount of staff and committee time.

I want to give one example. We have an ongoing investigation right now, and it is very small relative to the size and scope of this one. We wanted to talk to a witness. During this investigation, a number of witnesses talked to us voluntarily, but a few witnesses would not. In our committee, we don't even have subpoena power unless the full committee votes for it. The Senator from Virginia was very helpful to me, as he remembers, in getting the full committee to vote for a subpoena. I extended my appreciation to him then, and I do it publicly now for his cooperation and that of Senator McCain. Every one of those subpoenas required a vote. Then there had to be a hearing. We have to go through a hearing of our committee to hear from a witness that is subpoenaed, even though that should be through a discovery process. Even our rules are so limiting in our committee that we could not undertake an investigation of this scope.

This is a massive undertaking. To me, it would be suggesting, for instance, that if there was an Iran-Contra Commission, somehow or other the appointment of that Iran-Contra Commission--there was a special committee of the Congress. Was that an abdication of the work of the existing committee? I don't think so. It fit a special need at that time. Each of the committees from which that special committee was drawn didn't have the resources to do it on their own. So each of these are designed for a purpose.

I don't know why there would be objection. The reason for the length of time that the amendment takes is twofold: One is that this is a major investigation that will take a lot of time because its scope is huge. Secondly, we want to take it out of politics. I think the sponsors will speak to this, and perhaps already have. This should not be something where there is going to be a report in the middle of a Presidential campaign. It ought to end after that campaign is over. I think they provide for interim reporting, as I remember, in January after the Presidential campaign.

So I hope there will be bipartisan support. It is not a political effort. The report comes after the Presidential

campaign. There is no practical way that our committee has the resources to undertake the travel and the responsibility and the scope of this. This is huge. There has never been this degree of waste that I know of in American history. I know enough about this already from our one hearing, on one matter, involving one contractor, involving the scope of a contract that we touched literally with the tail of an elephant or donkey. It is massive.

I plead with the former chairman here, who knows exactly the responsibilities of our committee, who knows more than anyone in this body what responsibilities our committee has, that there is no practical way, given our bill that comes up every year, given our nominations process with which the Senator is fully familiar--we have four nominations that we have to hear tomorrow. We have dozens of nominations each year. On top of all of that, we have oversight, which we try to do in a number of areas. We had oversight on the Boeing contract. That was one contract that took a significant amount of time. We did some major good. I don't know the magnitude, but if you look at the Boeing contract, for instance, this contracting abuse scandal has to be a multiple of 10 to 100 times that one investigation. I plead with my friend to support this as the only practical way to get our hands around this situation.

Mr. President, today I am proud to join my colleague, Senator Bingaman, to introduce a package of four bills aimed at helping seniors get the assistance they need with their Medicare prescription drug costs. Thirty-nine million individuals now have access to affordable prescription drug therapies through Medicare Part D, many for the very first time. But low-income beneficiaries still are experiencing difficulties taking full advantage of the program's benefits. I believe the bipartisan package of legislation we have developed will go a long way to removing programmatic barriers that are limiting seniors from getting the help we intended them to have when we created Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program.

The low-income subsidy (LIS) is one of the best features of Medicare's new prescription drug benefit. Over the past few years, I have conducted extensive oversight of the program's implementation, especially through my work as Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Special Committee on Aging. Through hearings and staff-level investigations, I have identified a number of concerns with both the administration and the overall effectiveness of Medicare Part D's LIS. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) have made a great deal of progress to ensure that the benefit is working well for all beneficiaries. But their efforts can only go so far. Ultimately, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure that all low-income seniors who have difficulty paying their prescription drugs costs get the help they need.

Two of the four bills that Senator Bingaman and I are filing today are based upon initiatives that I introduced during the 109th Congress. The first is a measure that would create parity in the cost-sharing charged beneficiaries living in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Under current law, dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries, those who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare coverage, receive a subsidy from the government to pay the benefit's required $250 deductible. These individuals also qualify for reduced copayments for both generic and brand named drugs in the amount of one and three dollars respectively. If a dual-eligible beneficiary receives long-term care services in an institutional setting, such as a nursing home, he or she is exempt from paying the required copayment. Congress decided to provide this assistance because dual-eligible beneficiaries residing in nursing homes live off of very limited incomes. For instance, in Oregon the personal needs allowance beneficiaries receive each month for incidentals, including medications, is only $30. As many institutionalized beneficiaries are on multiple medications, they would not be able to meet their share of drug costs.

This is the very reason Congress provided institutionalized dual- eligible beneficiaries with an exemption from all copayments under Medicare Part D. However, many dual-eligible beneficiaries choose to receive long-term care services in home or community-based settings, such as assisted living or resident care program facilities. Almost all states have chosen to establish Home and Community Based Services (HCS) Medicaid demonstration projects that have expanded access to community based alternatives to an even greater number of low-income elderly Americans. The State of Oregon operates one of the Nation's most successful HCS waivers, serving an average of 23,500 dual-eligible beneficiaries

each year. My state has a thriving community based care industry that has provided many dual-eligible Oregonians the freedom to choose the care setting that best meets their own physical and social needs.

While dual-eligible beneficiaries are exempted from prescription drug copayments under Medicare Part D, those choosing community-based alternatives are required to pay them. This is despite the fact that beneficiaries choosing community based care options typically live off of the same limited incomes as those residing in nursing homes. While some states provide HCS beneficiaries' a larger personal stipend each month, many may have greater financial demands. At the end of the day, they are in no better position to pay the costs of prescription drugs than those beneficiaries living in nursing homes.

I also should note that their less restrictive living environments may require them to take additional medications to support their daily routines. It is not uncommon for dual-eligible beneficiaries in community-based care settings to be on 8 to 10 medications at a given time. At that level, even minimal copayments create a significant financial burden to these individuals.

The current dual-eligible copayment exemption policy not only is creating inequity in Medicare Part D, it is potentially restricting access to life-saving medications. This is not what Congress intended. I believe we need to do everything possible to support choice in long- term care, and by applying the current institutional copayment exemption more uniformly, Congress will ensure the Medicare drug benefit does not adversely affect beneficiaries' choices.

The second measure I am introducing today is based upon a bill I filed last year. That legislation sought to provide beneficiaries applying for LIS extra time to enroll into Part D if they had not received notification of their eligibility status by the time an open enrollment period ended. The bill also would have also waived the late enrollment penalty assessed to all beneficiaries who enroll outside of an enrollment period. Fortunately, CMS enacted an administrative solution to this problem, and allowed all LIS eligible beneficiaries to enroll into Medicare Part D at any point during 2006, and later extended that policy into 2007.

Now that Medicare Part D is fully implemented and policymakers have had an opportunity to assess how well the program is working, I believe that the administrative actions taken by CMS last year to create a special enrollment period for LIS beneficiaries should be made permanent. The Medicare Part D Outreach Enrollment Enhancement Act of 2007 does just that. It would create a 90-day special enrollment period for any beneficiary who applies and is approved for the LIS at any point during the year. It also would allow them to undergo a facilitated enrollment process overseen by CMS, so they get the help they need to select a prescription drug plan that best meets their needs.

Additionally, the bill exempts low-income beneficiaries from Medicare Part D's late enrollment penalty. While an enrollment penalty can be an effective means of helping drug plans better assess their risk in a given period, it is not fair to ask our low-income seniors--many who struggle with a number of challenging healthcare problems--to pay a higher cost simply because they need additional time to enroll in the program. Selecting a prescription drug plan can be a challenging feat, and it can be even more complicated if you are trying to make your limited income stretch as far as it can. We need to guarantee that beneficiaries have sufficient time to choose the most affordable plan that also meets all their prescription drug needs.

The measure also would create a new authorization to support the valuable work of State Health Insurance Programs (SHIPs). SHIPs provide a range of services to our nation's seniors, such as help choosing a quality prescription drug plan, applying for financial assistance with their drug costs and resolving general problems experienced with the drug benefit. Unfortunately, funding for SHIPs has not kept pace with the number of beneficiaries that age into Medicare each year. To remedy that, my bill creates a new authorization that increases funding in conjunction with growth in enrollment. The bill also provides funding for the new National Center of Senior Benefits and Outreach, created in the Older Americans Act last year. The Center is charged with developing ways to assist organizations like SHIPs to better target their efforts so that all seniors are fully aware of the benefits that might be available to them.

The next bill in the package we are filing today addresses a problem low-income seniors encounter if and when they enter into the drug benefit's coverage gap. While beneficiaries still have access to medications through their drug plans during the coverage gap, they may have to pay more for them. For those living on fixed incomes, this could present a serious problem as the out-of-pocket cost of many common prescription drugs can be quite steep. Fortunately, many safety- net programs, like community health centers and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), provide assistance to eligible low-income beneficiaries during the coverage gap. Effectively, they fill the role of the drug plan in providing beneficiaries access to their medications at a heavily subsidized cost.

This scenario presently works well for a number of low-income beneficiaries, but it is simply unsustainable in the long-run for two key reasons. First, from the perspective of beneficiaries, it is not right to ask them to continue paying premiums to their drug plans during the coverage gap when they are unable to generate sufficient out-of-pocket expenses to qualify for the program's catastrophic benefit. Many low-income beneficiaries who get ``caught'' in the coverage gap struggle with significant health problems, such as cancer or HIV/AIDS. These conditions often require costly treatment that a low-income beneficiary would likely have to forge without the assistance of a safety-net provider.

Second, the current scenario is placing a disadvantageous strain on the safety-net programs that assist low-income beneficiaries with their drug costs during the coverage gap. One of the primary reasons Medicare Part D was created was to provide relief to states and other safety-net providers who bore a lion's share of the responsibility of providing access to drug therapies for the Nation's seniors. While Part D has gone a long way to fulfill that intention, there is still much that can be done to help our safety-net providers. It is not right that service providers like community health centers and ADAP have been forced to provide discounted medications to low-income beneficiaries during the coverage gap, especially when the beneficiary has no way of accruing enough out-of-pocket costs for their Part D coverage to resume.

The bill Senator Bingaman and I are filing today resolves both these problems. It would allow safety net providers' drug costs to count toward a beneficiary's out-of-pocket costs so they are able to reach Medicare Part D's catastrophic benefit at some point. This will ensure that low-income beneficiaries have access to the full range of coverage under the program and will provide much needed fiscal relief to already strained safety net providers. Congress intended for all beneficiaries--especially those with limited incomes--to have full access to the benefits through Medicare Part D. This bill will guarantee that happens.

Despite the progress we have made in providing low-income seniors access to affordable prescription drugs, I find it troubling that recent estimates still show that there may be at least three million seniors eligible for the low-income subsidy who have yet to apply for it. While CMS, SSA and their community partners continue their vital outreach to capture these seniors, I believe the existing LIS application is too complex and is preventing seniors from getting the help they need. We need a simpler process that better reflects the true levels of assets and resources held by low-income seniors.

The last bill in the package I am filing today does just that. The Part D Equity for Low-Income Seniors Act is the product of months of bipartisan collaboration with representatives of groups like AARP, the National Council on Aging and Families USA. It aims to help SSA better target potentially

eligible beneficiaries and make the application process much simpler to complete.

First, drawing from a recommendation from the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, SSA is given the authority to use select tax information to help determine which Medicare beneficiaries might be eligible for extra help with their drug costs. With this data, they would be able to more efficiently contact beneficiaries and prescreen them for potential eligibility. I realize that some of my colleagues might have privacy concerns with such an arrangement, but I want to make clear that my bill is not giving SSA access to any data that they already do not have. In order to implement the Part B subsidy adjustment, the Medicare Modernization Act requires that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) send tax data to the SSA--they are legally prohibited from using it for any other purpose than Part B. We simply are establishing the same process for data exchange that already exists between the IRS and SSA so that SSA can more efficiently conduct its outreach work for Medicare Part D's low-income subsidy.

The bill also seeks to make the LIS application easier for seniors to complete. I have heard a number of complaints that the current form uses confusing verbiage and is overly burdensome in its reporting requirements. As a remedy, we eliminate the reporting of retirement account balances, the face value of life savings policies and in-kind contributions. This not only will make the form easier to complete, it will prevent seniors from the pressure of having to determine whether they should sacrifice their retirement income or long-term risk protection in order to pay their healthcare bills. I believe we need to be encouraging seniors to save for their later years in life, not requiring them to liquidate their futures to fill their prescriptions.

In order to make the LIS benefit more accurately reflect the assets and resources low-income seniors possess, our bill also proposes raising the current asset test limit to $27,500 for an individual and $55,000 for a couple. According to data from the SSA, this increase should help capture almost 40 percent of the individuals who are ineligible for the LIS benefit due to excess resources, and 50 percent of the couples. I realize this can be a sensitive issue for some of my colleagues--especially on my side of the aisle. We want to ensure that only those beneficiaries who truly are in need of help with their drug are eligible for government assistance. But, I also believe that we can be too heavyhanded and prevent those with legitimate need from getting it. The new asset/resource limits Senator Bingaman and I have proposed represent a good, bipartisan solution to the problem. I know many would like to see the full asset test repealed, but this year that may be a difficult feat to accomplish politically and financially. This is a reasonable step forward, one the advocates support. I hope my colleagues will as well.

I believe that the Medicare Prescription Drug Program is working for America's seniors and that we should not undertake a significant overhaul of the new benefit in this Congress. However, there is room for improvement, especially in regard to making the program work better for America's low-income seniors. I firmly believe that if Congress does not address some of these lingering problems this year, Medicare's long-term public image could be severely tarnished in the eyes of the very people it was created to serve.

One can learn a great deal about the character of a society by looking at how well it cares for its poor and vulnerable citizens. I believe my four bills that improve upon how Medicare Part D serves low- income beneficiaries will help cement the United States as a country that looks out for its citizens in need. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the full package and assist me in moving it through the process.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion and all pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Webb and myself, I call up amendment No. 2999 and ask that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, today we have an important opportunity to do some good-government. It is so hard in the context of the conflict in Iraq to get beyond some of the political posturing that has, frankly, been inevitable. As campaigns have occurred, and we have campaigns looming next year, there has been a tendency for this body to separate at the middle and not find common ground.

We have an opportunity this afternoon to find common ground, and my job over the next few minutes is to try to convince my colleagues that this attempt to create a War Contracting Commission is not about politics, it is about reform.

It would be hard not to notice the scandals that have occurred in relationship to war contracting. I come to this as a student of history and a huge fan of Harry Truman. I am honored to stand at his desk as I speak today. I am honored to follow in his tradition when he said: War profiteering is unacceptable, especially when you realize it is skimming away and denying the men and women who are fighting resources.

In a very modest fashion, at a time that he, frankly, was not supporting his President, who was of his party, he was saying to the President: We need to do some reform here, even though the President was a Democrat, just as he was, and he began looking at war profiteering. Frankly, that is where Harry Truman first made his mark in the history books of this country. It was because he realized this was so much bigger than being a Democrat or Republican; it was about how we behave when we place men and women in danger on behalf of our Nation. In that vein, this amendment is going to try to take the politics out of the issue of war contracting and try to make things better. Let me first summarize what the amendment is going to do.

It will establish an independent and bipartisan eight-member Commission--bipartisan eight-member Commission, four Republicans and four Democrats. They will study and investigate Federal agency contracting for reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, Federal funding and contracting for the logistical support of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Federal contracting for the performance of security and intelligence functions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will expand the special inspector general's role to include the responsibility of logistical support and security and intelligence functions.

Currently, the special inspector general, Stuart Bowen, only has jurisdiction over reconstruction funds in Iraq. Clearly, frankly, as I met with contracting officials on my trip to Iraq and Kuwait, where I spent most of my time talking to the people who have taken responsibility for issuing these contracts and monitoring these contracts, as I talked to all of them, I mean at every meeting I kind of just went: Oh, my gosh, this is so bad--except when I met with the

Mr. President, if I may address the question of the Senator from Virginia briefly, I think it is important to keep this in context.

First, the Senator from Virginia worries that the Armed Services Committee was giving up jurisdiction in order to form this Commission. I think it is important to remember that this mess is not just the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. This mess is also the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee. It is also the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In fact, an argument can be made that this is the modern-day Truman Committee, and the chairman of that committee is none other than Senator Levin, who chairs the Special Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

One could make the argument that the State Department should be answering to Foreign Relations for the messes in contracting in terms of reconstruction. One could argue that the active military should be answering to Armed Services. Government Affairs should be looking at the whole mess. The bottom line is that this Commission does two important things: First, it gets above all of the agencies to bring all of the problems to one place, so we don't have the turf fights over which committee has jurisdiction over this particular problem that we have encountered like never before. As the Senator from Michigan, chairman of the committee, said, we have never had this kind of problem before in terms of an armed conflict.

The other thing to remember is that, unlike those committees, this is bipartisan. This Commission is four Democrats and four Republicans. It is not a commission where one party is going to take precedence over the other party. We have a representative of the President and the Secretary of Defense on this Commission. So the bipartisan nature allows us to get above this knee-jerk reaction we have around here that if they are for it, we are against it; and if they are against it, we are for it. This is way too important to engage in that.

Finally, in terms of time period, this has a set time; it is only 2 years. The first report is due after the Presidential election in January 2009--the first interim report. Next year, when the capping report is presented to us, they can give it to this Commission, and they can look it over. Stuart Bowen is onboard with this. We discussed it at length, and he thinks this is a great way to move forward and get this above each individual committee and above some of the partisanship. Frankly, we have engaged in it. We are not without sin here. My party has engaged in partisanship over this. I understand that it may feel that this is an effort to engage in partisanship. That is why we went out of our way to say it is going to be bipartisan in nature, limited in time, getting above the various committees that have jurisdiction here because of the State Department's involvement, DOD's involvement, and the involvement of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--three different committees, including the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The first interim report is due January 2009. The final report must be presented by January 2010. This is a 2-year period of time to work and collaborate.

By the way, I tried to count up--and I am sure the Senator from Virginia is aware of this--how many people we have working in the Department of Defense in auditing and auditing-related activities. There are 20,000 people. Now, if you think about that in the context of what has gone on, you realize we need some help. How do we have 20,000 people in contracting and auditing and related investigative activities in the DOD and have the kind of runaway abuse that we have had.

By the way, in talking to the generals in Iraq who are involved, they were focused on their mission. I have no ill will toward these commanders who were trying to get a job done in terms of a military context. That is why we need this Commission, to give the military clear guidance, along with the State Department, of how we fix this systemically. What kind of training do we need to do? These detailees within these various areas given the contract oversight responsibility, the CORs, are not trained right now. They don't have the core competency in terms of contract monitoring that we must have under these conditions where we are contracting at an unprecedented level. If you look at the modifications we have made, where we have actually said we are not ever going to allow this Commission, in terms of members leaving, to get to anything other than a four-four, we are never going to have a situation where it is not completely bipartisan and where they are not going to focus with expertise on ways they can guide our committee and guide the committee I serve on, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and guide the Foreign Relations Committee in making sure we help the State Department and Department of Defense and any other Government agencies involved, including inspector general agencies and other auditing agencies. Frankly, GAO does a lot of this work for Congress, and we take their reports.

I think that in light of what has occurred and the scope of this beyond the jurisdiction of any one committee, 2 years is a reasonable finite time to come with concrete, meaningful suggestions that get us above this partisan rancor over the conflict in Iraq and using it as a political football that we have a tendency to throw around here with some frequency.

The Senator's leadership on this particular issue is so key to us having success with this amendment. I ask the Senator to take some time to look at it. I will be happy to visit with him about the conversation I had with Stewart Bowen about the valid approach we are making that I think will bring about some of the same positive results that were brought about in the past, whether it was the 9/11 Commission, the Baker-Hamilton Commission or the other commissions the Senator from Michigan referenced that the Senator has been involved with and party to in terms of wanting outside eyes at some point to help us get beyond some of the stuff that goes on that we cannot help.

I think it is tremendously important, and I implore the Senator from Virginia to take a look at it again and see if we haven't done the things that will reassure him this will be an augmentation of the Armed Services Committee's work instead of an abdication of their responsibility.

I believe that what happened was in an unprecedented fashion, we engaged in contracting--I know the Senator is a student of history, and if he looks back at the history of the Seabees and where the Seabees came from in terms of the idea that you are going to put people in the middle of a conflict who are not military personnel, in terms of doing ancillary activities apart from the direct military mission, it is unprecedented what we have done in this conflict in terms of the contracting.

I don't think the active military was prepared for this kind of scope in terms of the types of contracts that were entered into, many of them not definitized, many of them not with the kind of oversight that one would expect for contracts that run into $15 billion, $20 billion per contract, in some instances. I think this was a matter of we need it now, we don't have the end strength to get everything done we need to get done; if we contract it, it is going to be cheaper in terms of legacy costs to get a worker to peel potatoes than to recruit a soldier to peel potatoes or to cook.

I understand that was done long term because it had the potential for efficiencies, it had a potential to preserve our ground strength for the military mission and to allow us to not incur the legacy costs of another member of the active military.

In reality, because they were not prepared in terms of their systems for this level of contracting and oversight, bad things happened--very bad things happened.

If we are going to continue to contract at this level, why not at this fork in the road embark upon a limited 2-year exercise in a nonpartisan way to get concrete suggestions with expertise and not creating a new bureaucracy, because they can access those 20,000 people, they can access the Army auditor, they can access the contracting agency within the Army, they can access all the inspectors general, they can access all the acquisition and procurement specialists. They can access that information, bring it together for the State Department and for DOD and say: If moving forward we are going to continue to contract at this level--and let's be honest, I think we are--then these are things we need to be doing.

If the military could do this on its own, we wouldn't have the ``lessons learned'' book in Bosnia not even getting to the people in Iraq until after they entered into most of these contracts. We remember the testimony from David Walker. He talked about the fact that even though they had drawn up the book and said these are all the mistakes we made in Bosnia, guess what. They forgot to look at the book before they began down the very same road in the Iraq conflict. That is what I want to prevent in the future.

This is about looking forward and not about looking back. This is about figuring out a way forward that we can responsibly contract in a way that protects our military and the strength of our military, and, boy, would I like the help of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia. I don't want to overemphasize his support, but there are few people around here who can get us past partisanship. I have noticed in my short time in the Senate he is one of the chosen ones. He can get us past that partisanship sometimes.

I am very hopeful and remain optimistic that I can convince the Senator from Virginia this is a measured and appropriate way to provide some accountability to all those men and women to whom he referred who are trying to do the right thing. We have not figured this out yet, and I think we have to try something different to see if we can figure it out.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I send a series of amendments to the desk which have been cleared by Chairman Levin and the ranking member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. Finally, I ask that any statements relating to these individual amendments be printed in the Record.

Nine.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.