Floor Statements

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. President, this week, we are considering important legislation to authorize spending for the Department of Defense. Among the many activities supported by this funding are our efforts to fight al-Qaida, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups around the world and prevent another terrorist attack on our country.

The bill includes funding for a number of key priorities relating to our fight against terrorists. It provides $130 billion to fund our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan remains the front line in the battle against terrorism, as it provides a haven for thousands of Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. And, as U.S. troops pull back from Iraqi cities, our mission in that country will increasingly focus on counter- terrorism. It funds a number of key initiatives to enhance the safety of our troops and our citizens from terrorist threats, including funding for detecting and defeating improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. It funds some of our most important efforts to prevent unsecured nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists. It expands the size of our Special Operations Forces--the elite commando units like Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets--who lead this Nation's global ground fight against terrorism.

While the Special Operations Forces provide us a unique and unsurpassed capability, they are hardly the only group of Americans on the front lines of this fight. The Special Operations Forces are part of one of three key groups of people in our government who play a critical role in this fight. Military service members, who are fighting house-to-house, street-to-street, and village to village in Iraq and Afghanistan to identify and eliminate terrorists and insurgents. Members of the Foreign Service and USAID who, in addition to carrying out our Nation's diplomacy, are working with local leaders to build governing capacity, improve essential services, and foster economic growth. And members of our Nation's intelligence agencies, who provide the vital information we need both to keep these other public servants out of harm's way and to take the fight to the terrorists.

I want to pause for a moment to recognize and commend their tremendous service to our Nation. The courage, endurance, and sacrifice they exhibit on a

daily basis exemplify the highest values of our great Nation. And while our country has made great strides in honoring the contribution of our military service members, many of our diplomats and intelligence personnel consistently demonstrate their patriotism and commitment with hardly any public recognition.

I would like to especially honor the men and women of our Nation's intelligence services. The U.S. intelligence community has been under fire in recent weeks. The recent controversy is not over whether the CIA has done enough to go after bin Laden, or about whether it has done its job effectively. It is about whether senior leaders in the Bush administration mismanaged and misrepresented a particular program. That is an important question that our Intelligence Committee will seek to answer, but it should not call into question the distinguished service of the officers who continue to do a remarkable job for our country.

I have seen first hand some of the military and intelligence officers who are hunting Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. CIA and Air Force personnel are working around the clock, 24 hours a day, supporting the missions of Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles. Their work is a clear example of military and intelligence personnel making a significant difference in protecting the safety of American citizens on a daily basis.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1474 be star printed with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, July 23; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 89, S. 1390, which is the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to the Defense authorization bill is 1 p.m. tomorrow.

Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day as we work through amendments to the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Dodd, the Senate adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, if any, the Senate will resume consideration of the Defense authorization bill. There will be 2 hours of debate prior to a vote on the Levin-McCain amendment regarding F-22 funding. Senators should expect the first vote to begin shortly after 12 today. The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for our weekly caucus luncheons. After that time, the bill will be open for further amendment. I hope Members who have amendments they wish to offer will do so at the earliest possible date.

Madam President, notwithstanding the order of July 16, 2009, I ask unanimous consent that the Levin-McCain F-22 amendment be considered on Tuesday, July 21, beginning immediately after the opening of the Senate on that day and extending for up to 2 hours, and the vote on the amendment occur upon the use or yielding back of time, as provided for under the previous order which established the parameters of considering the amendment, with the other provisions of the July 16 order governing consideration of the Levin-McCain F-22 amendment remaining in effect; further, that on Wednesday, July 22, at 9:30 a.m., after opening of the Senate, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1390 and the Thune amendment No. 1618, with the time until 12 noon for debate with respect to amendment No. 1618, and the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Thune and Durbin or their designees, with no amendments in order to the Thune amendment during its pendency; that adoption of the Thune amendment requires an affirmative 60-vote threshold; further, that if the amendment achieves that threshold, then it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if it does not achieve that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that at 12 noon, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.

Madam President, for the information of the Senate, on Tuesday the Senate will convene at 10 a.m.; therefore, the vote on the Levin-McCain amendment is expected to occur around 12 noon. That is expected to be the first vote of the day.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the July 15, 2009, letter from Attorney General Holder to Senator McConnell and myself be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate convene as a court of impeachment in the trial of Samuel B. Kent on Wednesday, July 22, 2009, and the Secretary of the Senate inform the House of Representatives that the Senate will at that time receive the honorable managers on the part of the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to touch the Moon, our Nation rejoiced not just because we were launching a new era of exploration and technology. When the Apollo 11 crew touched down in the Sea of Tranquility, our country cheered more than just a stunning success for science.

When 40 years ago tonight, man first set foot on another world, we celebrated the fact that those first men were Americans.

On the evening of July 20, 1969, millions of Americans watched with Walter Cronkite, who passed away just 3 days ago. As Armstrong leaped off the ladder, the anchorman took care to note that the astronaut was a ``38-year-old American.'' Because he was an American--a boy scout from Ohio and a pilot in our Navy--we all were proud.

We were proud that an American vehicle was the first manned spacecraft to make it to the Moon's surface, that an American's footprint was the first to be pressed upon it, and that our American flag was the first to be planted within it. America was moving mankind forward, and we were proud to be leaders.

But the story of the journey we celebrate today did not begin on the breathtaking night when the Eagle landed.

It began years before: in the imaginations of Americans everywhere, in laboratories and hangars in Florida and Texas, and in a stadium in Houston where President Kennedy told us that we will choose to reach the Moon within the decade and do other great things, ``not because they are easy, but because they are hard . . . because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone.''

We now must be willing to accept today's challenges. We must be willing to accept the challenge of making it easier to live a healthy life in America. We must be unwilling to postpone our responsibility to fix what is broken.

We now have a chance to be proud once again. We have the chance to lead once again, and for our entire Nation to again achieve dramatic goals, like making health care more affordable, more stable and more secure.

America is the last major industrialized nation on the planet that refuses to ensure all of its citizens can get health care. In the greatest country and the largest economy the world has ever seen, hardworking Americans live in fear as they live one accident, one illness, or one pink slip away from losing their health coverage.

How much longer can the country that led the way to space be content to stay in last place? How much longer can we sit this one out? How much longer can we say no?

Our health care system is not healthy. The cost of doing nothing is too high, and not acting is not an option.

The story of the Moon landing did not begin with that one small step for a man, and it did not end there either. President Reagan credited our willingness to reach for new heights with helping our country ``recapture its spirit of vitality and confidence.'' He pointed to the space program as proof that ``the pioneer spirit still flourishes in America.''

Today that spirit must prevail over partisan passions. If we confront this crisis together, we can once again restore the vitality and confidence of America, and of all Americans.

Forty years ago, no political party had a monopoly on the lunar landing. A conservative who looked to the heavens took no less pride in our achievement than did a liberal. It was not a Republican accomplishment or a Democratic accomplishment. It was an American accomplishment.

As we said at the beginning of this year, our strong preference is to fix health care as one collaborative Congress, not as two competing parties. As we have said throughout this debate, we will continue to work with the other side in good faith and we want to pass a bipartisan bill.

I remain optimistic that both Republicans and Democrats recognize how urgent this is. The health of our citizens and our economy are at stake, and neither will be able to recover if we are unwilling to accept this challenge.

When we make it easier for people to stay healthy--when we make it easier for people to afford to care for their loved ones--when we choose to do what is right, what is necessary and what is overdue--not because it is easy, but because it is hard--we will once again proudly rejoice together, as Americans.

Madam President, following leader remarks, there will be a period of morning business today for 1 hour. The Republicans will control the first 30 minutes, and the majority will control the second 30 minutes.

Following that morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Defense bill. Today we have two matters that are pending. One is the F-22. In the bill there is a provision to provide an extra $1.75 billion for more F-22s. Senators Levin and McCain, the two managers of the bill, have offered an amendment to strike that. I would hope we can have a vote on that today. That has been pending for several days. In addition to that amendment, we will have a vote in the next 14 hours on the hate crime amendment to this legislation. We can either do it earlier today or after midnight tonight, but we are going to do it before we adjourn here today.

Madam President, I have five children. As they have grown, we have moved on a number of occasions. But I have been able to keep, as one of my prized possessions and bring back memories of my younger days, a number of things. If you have children, as the Presiding Officer knows, it is hard to keep things from being broken or misplaced. But I have a number of things I have been able to keep. One is the badge I wore when I was a Capitol policeman here on Capitol Hill. I still have that. It is in my conference room, and occasionally I will look up and see it. It reminds me of my days here in a different capacity as a police officer.

I came to Washington, DC, as a young man to get my law degree. I had a wife and a little baby. I worked from 3 to 11 every night except Sunday. I went to law school full time. But my time as a Capitol policeman was something I will always remember. We did not have the training the police officers have today. That is a gross understatement. We had very little training. But I carried my six- shooter and my uniform, of which I still have some pictures. I am very proud of that. I did not do anything dangerous. I have said here on the Senate floor before, the most dangerous thing I did was direct traffic. I say that because the old streetcar tracks caused the cars to bounce around, and you sometimes would wonder if they would get you because they were going fast up Constitution.

So having had little experience as a police officer, in the sense that we now see these police officers protecting us, I have a deep and genuine appreciation for the sacrifice the men and women who are Capitol police officers make. When I was a Capitol policeman--all men, no women. But now, all over the Capitol complex, there are hundreds of women who help protect us.

The reason I make this brief introduction is yesterday afternoon, our Capitol police once again did their jobs with great bravery and skill. Fortuitously, this came at such an interesting time. Next week, a week from tomorrow, we are going to have a ceremony here in the Capitol, as we do every year--I believe this is the 11th year--where we recognize the bravery

of two Capitol police officers who were killed, Officers Chestnut and Gibson.

Gibson I knew. We were on a Senate retreat in Virginia, and my wife became ill. Gibson is the man who ran with all of the paraphernalia to make sure she was going to be OK. He was profusely perspiring. I can still remember very clearly this wonderful hard-working man. He came to save my wife.

Well, these two officers were killed. In the process of their being murdered by a madman, we do not know how many people's lives were saved in the Capitol complex. But it was the impetus that caused us to complete this great Capitol Visitor Center that we have, in the sacrifice that they certainly did not intend to make but they did make because of their training and skill.

Yesterday, an armed man fled a traffic stop, driving erratically around Capitol Hill. We do not know all of the details, but we do know that he struck a parked car, we understand now a motorcycle and a police car, a Capitol police car, and he almost ran over two police officers.

But when he got out of the car, a block from where we are right now, he came with an Uzi-type weapon, semiautomatic weapon, and started firing at the police and anyone else around them.

Fortunately, the Capitol police officers stopped him before he had a chance to do any harm. He was shot numerous times as was required under the circumstances. But the interesting part about this is what did the police officers do when the firing stopped, when they could no longer hear the bullets. They immediately ran over and administered first aid to this domestic terrorist. They tried to save the life of a man who seconds earlier tried to take theirs.

I do not know how we define heroism, but I think that is a pretty good description. An investigation is, of course, underway. We do not know all of the details, nor can we know how many lives these officers saved yesterday. And we cannot sufficiently thank them for what they did. But on behalf of the entire Senate, we appreciate each of them. I admire what you do. Wherever we go on this Capitol complex, there are people looking over us. That is not the way it always was, but now with terrorism, with there being a war that is being waged against our great country, we have had to have all of these police officers protect not only us but all of the people who come here on a daily basis.

We have people whom we can see in uniform. We have people we do not know are police officers; they are in plain clothing. We deeply value the honorable work these men and women do for us every day, putting their lives on the line to protect people they do not know.

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

Mr. President, Senator McConnell and I appreciate everyone's patience.

I now ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the Hatch amendment, Leahy alternative to Brownback amendment and Brownback amendments specified below, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Leahy amendment No. 1511; further, that when this agreement is entered, amendment No. 1539 be withdrawn, and that the following list of amendments be the only amendments on the subject of hate crimes remaining in order during the pendency of S. 1390: Hatch amendment regarding alternative; Leahy or designee alternative to Brownback amendment; Brownback amendment regarding first amendment protections, Leahy or designee alternative to Sessions death penalty; Sessions amendment regarding death penalty; Sessions amendment regarding servicemembers; Sessions amendment regarding attorney general regulations; that all of the above amendments be first-degree amendments except the Hatch, Brownback and Leahy alternative to Brownback

amendment which are second-degree amendments to the Leahy amendment No. 1511; and that debate on any of the amendments listed above be limited to 40 minutes each, prior to a vote in relation thereto, except the Hatch, Leahy alternative and Brownback amendments; and the cloture vote debate time be limited to up to 4 minutes each, equally divided and controlled in the usual form, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that if there is a sequence of votes, then any subsequent votes after the first would be limited to 10 minutes each; that upon disposition of the listed amendments, all postcloture time be yielded back; further, that the Hatch, Leahy alternative to Brownback and Brownback amendments be first debated and voted tonight, that upon disposition of those amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on amendment No. 1511; that if cloture is invoked, then amendment No. 1511, as amended, if amended, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that notwithstanding adoption of amendment No. 1511, as amended, if amended, the remaining amendments relating to hate crimes still be in order; further, that if cloture is not invoked on the Leahy amendment, then the motion to reconsider be considered entered and the part of the agreement relating to the amendments with respect to hate crimes be null and void; provided further that if upon reconsideration, and cloture is invoked, then the remaining amendments not disposed of prior to the cloture vote remain in order; further, that the next first-degree amendment in order to S. 1390 be a Republican amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment during today's session, with the amendment being offered tonight and debate commencing on the amendment when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill on Monday, following disposition of the Leahy alternative and Sessions amendments listed above; that upon disposition of the Republican amendment specified above, Senator Levin be recognized to offer the Levin-McCain amendment relating to the F-22, with debate on that amendment limited to 2 hours, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Levin and Chambliss or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of that debate time, the Senate proceed to vote on the amendment, with no amendment in order to the Levin-McCain amendment.

Probably around 3 o'clock. We are going to come in Monday at 1 and work through these amendments we have remaining on hate crimes, and then we would go to the matter that will be offered by the Republicans tonight. When we complete that, we will finish the work in 2 hours on the F-22 amendment.

So next week, everybody, we will start early on Monday, as I have indicated, and we will have, perhaps, some long days. This is an important piece of legislation.

We appreciate everyone's cooperation. It has been very difficult to get this, but I think it will move to get the Defense bill done at an earlier time.

We have already indicated the first one will be 15. We hope to do some by voice. That is possible.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, my understanding is the clerk will report the matter before the Senate at this time.

On behalf of Senator Leahy, myself, and others, I call up amendment No. 1511, which is at the desk.

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

I now ask for the yeas and nays.

I now call up a second-degree amendment which is at the desk.

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

I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, Senator Levin will give an explanation as to why the amendment was withdrawn. But my friend, the Republican leader, has the first right of recognition.

Health Care Week VI, Day III

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

Mr. President, under an order of May 5 and under the auspices of S. Res. 18, I made a temporary appointment of Sheldon Whitehouse to serve on the HELP Committee, while retaining my authority to make a permanent appointment to the HELP Committee. I now announce that as of today, Senator Al Franken is appointed to serve on a permanent basis to the slot that was occupied by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

Senator Whitehouse

Mr. President, Sheldon Whitehouse, since coming to the Senate, has truly been a workhorse. There isn't anything I have asked this fine man to do that he has not come forward with enthusiasm to do it. We have seen the brilliant work he has done on so many different occasions as a member of the Judiciary Committee.

His other assignments in the Senate have been just as auspicious as his work on the Judiciary Committee. His background is significant. He has a real interest in health care. His work on the bill that was reported out of the HELP Committee today was essential. All members of the committee, Democrats and Republicans, are astounded at how good he was.

I repeat, he enthusiastically accepted this temporary assignment while we waited for the long, never-ending situation in Minnesota to come to a close. Senator Whitehouse was far from just a seat-warmer. He dove into the issues and, to no one's surprise, was a substantive contributor to one of the most important bills the committee has ever marked up in the history of this country.

Without belaboring the point, on behalf of the entire Senate, I greatly appreciate his service on the committee, and I personally thank him, as does the entire Democratic caucus. I bet if a poll were taken of those who serve as Republicans on the HELP Committee, they would acknowledge his brilliance and hard work. I know Senator Kennedy, whom we have missed on that committee and the vital work he has done for decades in the Senate, is someone who has watched from afar and applauded Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. President, I came to the House of Representatives in 1982. In that class of 1982 was a young man from Arizona, someone who came with a certain degree of fame. His name is John McCain. He had served our country valiantly during the Vietnam conflict and spent 5 years in a prisoner-of-war camp in Vietnam. I have great admiration and respect for him. I want the record to reflect that my respect for John McCain is very deep. Not only did we come to the House together, but we also came to the Senate together. We were elected together in 1986. Our seniority is as close as it can get. We both have the same amount of service in the House of Representatives, so seniority is determined by how many people are in the State of Nevada and the State of Arizona. There are more people in the State of Arizona than in the State of Nevada, so he is one up on me in overall seniority in the Senate.

Having said that, recognizing who this man is, he was proudly the nominee for Republicans in the last election. I watched his campaign and admired his courage, the stands he took. While I may not have agreed with him,

I recognize he has strong feelings. But so do I.

The senior Senator from Arizona today said he was ``deeply, deeply disappointed'' that what he considers an unrelated amendment; that is, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill, has been added to this bill, the Defense authorization bill. I wonder on which recent morning did the Senator from Arizona wake up and suddenly feel so strongly. Where has he been in the past? Let me make a couple of comments about the remarks of my friend from Arizona.

First, his is a new outrage over a very old issue. The hate crimes bill was first added to the Defense authorization bill in a previous Congress. I didn't do it. The amendment today was an amendment I offered on behalf of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and other sponsors of this legislation. Senator Leahy would have been here, but he is a little busy with the Supreme Court nomination. The hate crimes bill was first added to the Defense authorization bill when George Bush was President, a Republican. Where was the Senator's disappointment then? I heard no big statements at that time, and no one else did.

Second, the Senator from Arizona has evidently not always held the belief he discussed today. This is a new conversion. He has evidently not always believed that bills must only contain amendments that relate directly to the underlying legislation.

It was just a while ago a bill came before the Senate known as the motor-voter bill, a bill to make it easier for people to register to vote. When they got their registration changed on their car, they would at the same time have the opportunity to register to vote. It was a unique and good idea, and it has allowed millions of people to register to vote who ordinarily would not register.

On that legislation, motor-voter, Senator McCain offered a line-item veto amendment. It had nothing to do with registration to vote. So it is hard to understand how his was the kind of related amendment he demands today. In fact, that issue went to the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court declared it illegal, unconstitutional.

It was a year before that that Senator McCain offered the same amendment to a research bill. Again, it is hard to understand how his was the kind of related amendment he demands today.

Additionally, Senator McCain offered an amendment that would change Senate rules about tax increases to a bill about unemployment compensation. It is hard to understand how his was the kind of related amendment that he suddenly today demands.

He also offered his line-item veto amendment to a bill that would give more rights to blind Americans. It is hard to understand how the line-item veto had anything to do with the visually impaired. But it appears this was the kind of amendment he demands today.

Again, Senator McCain offered an amendment about Medicare to a bill funding energy and water development, having no relation, obviously. It is hard to understand how his was a kind of related amendment that he demands today.

The third point I want to make is that the Senator from Arizona is not alone in offering such unrelated amendments. His Republican colleagues do it all the time. In fact, they are quite fond of doing it.

Where has his outrage been when that has happened, Mr. President? Where has the outrage been from the Senator from Arizona when, for example, one of his Republican Senator friends twice offered an amendment about the ACORN group? This is an organization around the country that is involved in a lot of different things. But he wanted to do an amendment on the economic recovery package related to the ACORN organization. That was a bill, of course, that had nothing to do with voting registration.

Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about prescription drugs to a bill that funds homeland security--no relation whatsoever. Where was the outrage of my friend from Arizona about that?

Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about the fairness doctrine--a fake issue meant exclusively to excite a very small segment of our population--to a bill that would give DC residents, finally, the right to vote. Where was the outrage of my friend from Arizona about that?

Another Republican Senator offered the same amendment; that is, the fairness doctrine; another Senator, same amendment, on the same conjured issue to the Omnibus appropriations bill. That is the bill we passed to keep our government running and complete unfinished business from the Bush administration. Where was my friend's outrage about that?

Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about union dues to that same Omnibus appropriations bill, having nothing to do with what we were trying to accomplish here.

Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about congressional pay to another appropriations bill, having no relationship whatsoever.

Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about rules surrounding charitable donations to the national service bill--no relationship whatsoever. I did not hear my friend say one word about that. The Senator from Arizona did not complain 1 minute about that.

Another Republican Senator offered an amendment about national language to a bill that helps us crack down on mortgage fraud. Now try that one. That is something that might stir up a little outrage but not from my friend from Arizona.

Another Republican Senator offered an amendment on auto dealers to a bill that funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where was the outrage on that--an amendment on auto dealers on a bill that funds our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the supplemental appropriations bill?

Mr. President, there are lots of other examples. Those are just a few. It is hard to understand how any of these amendments were the kind of related amendment Senator McCain demands today. But it is even harder to understand why the Senator from Arizona did not feel the need to express, as I have said, the outrage he did this morning.

Finally, I want to say that I would gladly, as a matter of principle, keep each of these bills separate; that is, hate crimes, Defense authorization. But the reality is, the Republicans' relentless and reckless strategy of slowing, stopping, and stalling has made it impossible for us to do so. My friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, knows the most recent example of this all too well. His Republican colleagues refuse to let us vote on his amendment, which I support. I support the F-22 amendment. I support that. Why can't we vote on that? This could have been done yesterday, the day before, today, but for the stubbornness of the Senate Republicans.

We have lots of work to do, a lot of priorities to fulfill, and a lot of mistakes in the last 8 years to correct. And we are trying to do that. The bottom line is, we would not have to take the time for such steps if the Republican minority would not waste the American people's time and money by making us jump through procedural hoop after procedural hoop just to do our jobs. Last Congress, 100 filibusters; this Congress, I think we are at 21 already this year--21.

To my knowledge, Senator McCain has never supported hate crimes legislation. If I am mistaken, it certainly would not be the first time, but that is the information I have. It is my understanding he does not think there probably is ever a good time to pass this important and overdue bill.

This is an issue here, a very important issue. And that is the real reason the Republicans, I assume, do not like to talk about the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill. But I am not afraid to talk about the issue.

A man by the name of Luis Ramirez was picking strawberries and cherries to support his three children and a woman he wanted to marry. When he was not working the fields, he worked a second job in a local factory in Shenandoah, PA. It is a coal town of only 5,000 people.

As he was walking home one Saturday night, six high schoolers jumped him in a park. They taunted and screamed racial slurs at Luis, who came to this small town in the middle of Pennsylvania from a small town in the middle of Mexico. But the boys did not stop with the taunting and screaming racial slurs. That was not enough.

They punched, beat, and kicked him. When Luis's friend pleaded with the teenagers to stop, one yelled back: Tell your Mexican friends to get out of town, or you'll be lying next to him.

These boys stomped on Luis so hard that an imprint of the necklace he was wearing was embedded into his chest. They beat him so badly and so brutally that Luis never regained consciousness. He is dead. On July 14, 2008--2 days after the beating and exactly 1 year ago yesterday-- Luis Ramirez died. He was 25 years old.

Hate crimes embody a unique brand of evil, and that is why the legislation is so important. It is terrorism; it is just a different kind than we normally see or think of. A violent act may physically hurt just a single victim and cause grief for loved ones. But hate crimes do more. They distress entire communities, entire groups of people, and our country.

Our friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, has for many years courageously fought for the legislation Senator Leahy and I offered as an amendment today to the Defense authorization bill. Senator Kennedy has correctly called hate crimes a form, I repeat, of domestic terrorism. It is our obligation to protect Americans from this domestic terror.

The hate crimes bill will help bring justice to those who intentionally choose their victims based on race, color, religion, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or disability. Disability--there are examples all the time of someone who may not be what ``normal'' may be; maybe they are mentally challenged. There are all kinds of examples of people for that reason taking advantage and hurting them. That is a hate crime.

Hate crimes are rampant and the numbers are rising. The Department of Justice estimates that hundreds happen every day. Now State and local governments are on their own when it comes to prosecuting even the most violent crimes and conducting the most extensive and expensive investigations. State and local governments will always come first, as they should, but if those governments are unwilling or unable to prosecute hate crimes--and if the Justice Department believes that may mean justice will not be served--this law will let the Federal authorities lend a hand to State and local authorities.

I spent some time yesterday with Judy Shepard. I have five children. I have four boys. I had never met Judy Shepard until yesterday. My wife, within the past few months, had lunch with her and a number of other people and sat next to her. She told me what a wonderful person she is. When I met with her yesterday, the thing she said that was so traumatic to me was: I only have one boy left. Two children; Matthew is dead.

The bill we have is named after Matthew Shepard, Judy's son. He was a 21-year-old college student when he was tortured and killed for being gay--and did they torture, did they torture. And that was not good enough for them. In the cold Wyoming night, they took him, before he was dead, and hung him on a barbed-wire fence.

When Wyoming police pursued justice in Matthew's murder, they needed resources they did not have. Laramie, WY, is where it is. Police could not call in Federal law enforcement for help--the law would not allow it--and their expensive investigation devastated that small police department. It was a police department of 40 people--not all police officers. As all police officers, some of them took care of the little jail, did jail duty, and they were responding to phone calls. Out of this 40-person police department, they had to lay off 5 people so they could prosecute this crime, this vicious crime, this hate crime. But it cost that little town a lot. When this bill becomes law, that will never happen again in Laramie, WY, or anyplace else in the country.

We must not be afraid to call these crimes what they are. The American people know this is the right thing to do. Hundreds of legal, law enforcement, civil rights, and human rights groups know this is the right thing to do. The U.S. Senate knows this is the right thing to do.

This bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money or doing so because he is gay or disabled or Latino or Jewish; that there is a difference between setting fire to an office building and setting fire to a church, a synagogue, or a mosque; that there is a difference, as we learned so tragically last month, between shooting a security guard and shooting him because he works at the Holocaust Museum.

It is a shame that we often do not discuss our responsibility to do something about horrific hate crimes until after another one has been committed. It means we always tend to act too late. But does this mean we should not act now? Of course not. It means, in fact, the opposite: it means we must act before another one of our sons or daughters or friends or partners is attacked or killed merely because of who they are.

We must act in the name of people such as Thomas Lahey, who, in 2007, was beaten unconscious in Las Vegas. Why? Because he was gay.

Not far from my hometown of Searchlight, NV, is a place called Laughlin, NV--25 miles away. It is on the river, a little resort community. We must act in the name of Jammie Ingle, who, in 2002, was beaten and bludgeoned to death in Laughlin, NV. Why? They thought he was gay.

We must act in the name of Tony Montgomery, who was shot and killed in Reno. Why? Because he was an African American.

We must act in the name of those who worship at Temple Emanu-El in Reno, a synagogue that has been firebombed time and time again by skinheads. We must act in the name of Luis Ramirez, whom I already talked about who died 1 year ago this week. We must act in the name of Judy Shepard, of her son, Matthew Shepard, whose family has fought tirelessly since his brutal death, his brutal murder, so others may know justice. If their country doesn't stand for them, if we don't stand for them, who will?

The F-22 is an airplane I have seen. A number of them are stationed at Nellis Air Force Base. Nellis Air Force Base has almost 15,000 people who are involved in that air base, civilian and military personnel. We are so proud of that. Nellis Air Force Base is named after Bill Nellis from Searchlight, NV. Bill Nellis was a war hero in World War II. He joined then the Army Air Corps, already having two children, was way beyond the age when he would be drafted, but he volunteered. He served 69 missions before a dive bomber went down in Belgium where he is now buried. We are proud of Nellis. We are proud the F-22s are there. But we have had enough F-22s at Nellis Air Force Base. We have enough F-22s anyplace else.

The F-22 is a Cold War weapon that has not flown a single mission over Iraq or Afghanistan--not one; not a training mission, not any kind of a mission. It is a powerful plane built to fight superpowers. But as we all know, the wars we fight today are not against superpowers. This generation of our military bravely fights a new generation of warfare against terrorists and insurgents. For today's national security needs, the F-22 is an overpriced and underperforming tool. And the nearly 200 we already have in our fleet is sufficient. It is a sufficient deterrent to the potential of conventional war. But some want us to spend at least $2 billion to keep making more of them. That is only the first step. Actually, it is $1.75 billion. I rounded it off to $2 billion. It is a very expensive plane to build and a very expensive plane to fly. It costs taxpayers $42,000 an hour to operate.

This technology is not suited for today's warfare. The radar in the F-22 means that when it flies over heavily populated cities such as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, its position is easily given away. We have at Nellis Air Force Base in the ranges there what we call red flag activities.

A couple times a year, we bring our fighting forces there, our air fighting forces, and they do mock exercises. It is a wonderful place, one of the few places in the world this can take place. They do all kinds of good things. Aircraft from all over the world come there to participate in these war games. If the F-22's radar is turned off to avoid being so easily detected, its agility is significantly compromised. We know that. This was proven recently in a recent exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, when an F-16 brought down in a war game an F-22 that simply had turned its radar off in a test fight.

There is broad bipartisan consensus that ending the F-22's production is in our national security interests. Here is a list of some who agree: Chairman Levin; Ranking Member McCain; Commander in Chief Barack Obama; the previous Commander in Chief, President Bush; the Secretary of Defense; the previous Secretary of Defense; the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I repeat; the ranking member, I repeat, of the Senate Armed Services Committee; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Can you believe that? And we are going to try to move forward in doing this, and no one wants it in the military. All of those have prudently pointed out that buying more F-22s that we don't need means doing less of something we do need.

Some have encouraged us to continue making this Cold War-era plane because it creates jobs for those who build them. Being a little bit personal here, the stealth airplane was developed in the deserts of Tonopah, NV. It was a wonderful thing our country did. Each of these airplanes had its own hangar up in the desert because the Soviet satellites came over, and they couldn't come out in the daytime. These pilots were trained so efficiently; everything they did was in pitch darkness, but that is where these airplanes were developed and flown.

There came a time after it became public that we had these stealth aircraft that they had to put them someplace. They put most of them at Nellis Air Force Base. The Pentagon, after they had been stationed there for a matter of months, made a decision: That is not good. We need to move them to New Mexico to an airbase. Pete Domenici, my friend, was concerned about whether they should go to New Mexico or Nevada. I said: Pete, I got a deal for you. I, personally, don't believe that what we do for the military is a jobs program. I think it is to make our Nation more secure. Let's have the General Accounting Office do a study, and if they come back and say it will save the country money and it will make our country more secure if they move them to New Mexico, I am not going to say a word about it. It took the General Accounting Office a matter of a few months to do this. They came back and said these stealth aircraft would be better off in New Mexico, and it will make our country more secure; they can train better there because of how much activity there is at Nellis, and it will save the country money.

That is how I feel about the military. I think we have to have the most sophisticated, secure weapons systems that exist, but it has to be something that is good for our country. It is obvious--with all these people from President Obama to President Bush to the Secretaries of Defense in the past to now--these airplanes are not necessary. They prudently point out that buying more F-22s that we don't need means doing less of something else that we do need.

I repeat: Some have encouraged us to continue making this airplane because it creates jobs for those who build it. I don't believe that is the purpose of why we are here. I understand the importance of jobs, but a more advanced jet, the F-35, which can be used by all branches of the military service, would create similar jobs--jobs that actually will enhance our national security. That is what this is all about. That is what this bill is about, the Defense authorization bill.

Finally, President Obama has pledged to veto this Defense authorization bill if it includes continuing to build this obsolete airplane. And he will veto it. That is a risk, and why would anyone want to take it? I spoke to the President's Chief of Staff yesterday. The President is going to veto this bill. This is kind of an: Oh, he will never do that. He will.

Cutting funding for wasteful programs is good for our economy, good for our workers, and good for the continued military dominance of our country. I oppose continuing to build a weapon that will compromise our national security. I oppose continuing to fund a program that will jeopardize our economy. I oppose wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money on a plane that doesn't defend us in our wars that we fight today and will not defend us in tomorrow's wars. I support moving our military into today's century the 21st century, not go back to the last century.

Now, finally, let me say this: I have called my friend, the Republican leader, and he will call in just a minute when he has some time because I didn't call him while he was in a meeting. I wanted to speak to him before I came to the floor, but I have something else I have to do tonight. We are going to vote on invoking cloture. We will see if we can get 60 votes on this hate crimes amendment that is on this bill. I would like to work it out so we can do it conveniently for everyone, sometime tomorrow. What I would like to do is set aside some more time if we want to debate more the hate crimes, set aside more time to do that, and if people want to do the F-22, let's do that. Let's get these two out of the way. I can't force an amendment vote on the F-22, but I can force a vote on cloture, and we are going to do that. We will do that tomorrow. Tomorrow may spill over until a little after midnight Friday morning, but we are going to do this. So everyone should understand the hate crimes bill is going to be voted on either tomorrow or very early Friday morning. I have said Friday there will be no votes, and that is by day. This will be in the middle of the night. I hope we don't have to do that, but that is when time runs out on this.

I think these two amendments are important. I understand the anxiety of those who would rather not have hate crimes legislation on this bill. I accept that. But I spent a lot of my time here on the floor, as I have outlined, wondering why in the world other people don't complain when they offer these ridiculous amendments on legislation that is so important. I have indicated that we are going to go back to the way we used to do business in the Senate. I have done that during the time I have had this job. We have this--this year we have had an open amendment process except on rare occasions. I have stood here when we have done abortion amendments, gun amendments, you name it. I have told Senator McConnell I wish this were not the case, but that is why we are here, to make tough votes and easy votes both.

So I hope we can work something out, where we can resolve this matter tomorrow during the daylight hours; otherwise, we will do it tomorrow night.