John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Why don't we wait until after the Senator from New York finishes, to make sure there is no one else who wants to speak on the amendment of the Senator from Florida.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas concerning North Korea. I must say I was entertained by the outlook--as far as North Korea's behavior is concerned--by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I can't remember when I have disagreed more. The State Department's 2008 Country Reports on Terrorism stated that ``as part of the six-party talks process, the U.S. reaffirmed its intent to fulfill its commitment regarding the removal of the designation of the DPRK as a state sponsor of terrorism in parallel with the DPRK's actions on denuclearization and in accordance with criteria set forth by law.'' They certainly haven't taken any action on denuclearization, and it certainly hasn't been in accordance with the criteria set forth by law. There was a problem with this trade, however. We delisted North Korea, and we got something worse than nothing. Facts are stubborn things. In response to our action, Pyongyang has embarked on a pattern of astonishing belligerence and has reversed even the previous steps it had taken toward the denuclearization prior to its removal from the terrorism list. A few facts. In December 2008--just 2 months after the United States removed Pyongyang from the list--North Korea balked at inspections of its nuclear facilities and ceased disablement activities at the Yongbyon reactor. In March, the regime seized two American journalists near the China-North Korean border and subsequently sentenced them to 12 years of hard labor in the North Korean gulag. These are two American citizens who may have strayed over a border. Does that mean they are sentenced to 12 years of hard labor in the most harsh prison camps in the world? What are we going to do about it? It is remarkable. Two weeks later, it tested a long-range ballistic missile, in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and then announced it was expelling international inspectors from Yongbyon, reestablishing the facility, and ending North Korean participation in disarmament talks. In May, Pyongyang conducted its second nuclear test; in June, a North Korean ship suspected of carrying illicit cargo departed North Korea in likely defiance of U.N. Security Council obligations; and earlier this month, Pyongyang again launched short- and medium-range missiles into the Sea of Japan, including on the Fourth of July. All these are indications that the North Koreans somehow should not be listed as terrorists? I think we ought to, frankly--I respect and appreciate my friend from Kansas. Maybe we ought to have a binding resolution, rather than a sense of the Senate. It is remarkable that these events have taken place against a backdrop of belligerence and intransigence by North Korea. Pyongyang has never accounted for or even acknowledged its role in assisting the construction of a nuclear reactor in Syria, which the Israelis had to bomb. Similarly, it has refused to provide a complete and correct declaration of its nuclear program. Of course, something we all know, which is one of the great tragedies in the history of the world, is this is a gulag of some 200,000 people, where people are regularly beaten, starved, and executed. According to the Washington Post, most of them work 12- to 15-hour days until they die of malnutrition-related illnesses, usually at around the age of 50. They are allowed just one set of clothes. They live and die in rags, without soap, socks, underclothes or sanitary napkins. It is a horrible story. It is not an accident that the average South Korean is several inches taller than the average North Korean. This regime may be the most repressive and oppressive and Orwellian in all the world today. So the Chinese have been serious--according to Mr. Kerry, the Senator from Massachusetts, the Chinese have been resolute on the issue of the ship inspections. The U.N. Security Council resolution calls for monitoring and following of the ship, and if the decision is made that they need to board a North Korean ship, if the North Koreans refuse, then the following ship cannot board but can follow them into a port, where the port authorities are expected to board and inspect the vessel. And then that violation is reported to the U.N. Security Council. That ought to rouse some pretty quick action. I don't share the confidence of the Senator from Massachusetts that if a North Korean ship goes into a port at Myanmar, you will see likely action, except maybe the offloading of whatever materials are being bought by Myanmar. Look, the North Koreans have clearly been engaged in selling anything they can to anybody who will buy it because they need the money-- whether it be drugs, counterfeit currency, nuclear technology or missiles. Every time we have held onto the football, like Lucy, they have pulled it away. I think this is a very modest proposal of the Senator from Kansas. I point out that years and years of six-party talks, different party talks, negotiations, conversations, individuals who have been assigned as chief negotiators who then end up somehow negotiating, with the end being further negotiations, has failed. If the North Koreans continue to test weapons, test missiles, sooner or later, they will match a missile with a weapon that will threaten the United States of America. Right now, those missiles they are testing go over Japanese territory. I think it is pretty obvious we are dealing with a regime of incredible and unbelievable cruelty and oppression of their own people. The newly published Korean bar association details the daily lives of the 200,000 political prisoners estimated to be in the camps. Eating a diet of mostly corn and salt, they lose their teeth, their gums turn black, their bones weaken and, as they age, they hunch over at the waist. This is a regime that, in any interpretation of the word, is an outrageous insult to the world and everything America stands for and believes in. I believe they will pose a direct threat, over time, to the security of not only Asia but the world. They were able to export technology all the way to Syria, obviously. Why should they not be able to export that to other parts of the world? I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment by the Senator from Kansas, and I hope we can vote on that sooner rather than later. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding that the amendment authorizes the additional forces Secretary Gates said yesterday in his speech that we need--or the day before yesterday. Why do we need to put this into the bill?

Mr. McCAIN. And there is no doubt that the Army very badly needs the help now and in the foreseeable future.

Mr. McCAIN. And if I could question the Senator further, perhaps this would illuminate any requirement for stop loss or for involuntary extensions in a combat area.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I congratulate the Republican leader on his statement. I think it was very thorough. I think it was very thoughtful, and I am sure it took a lot of hours of deliberation and observation not only of Judge Sotomayor's record but also of her testimony before the Judiciary Committee. So I congratulate the Republican leader on a very thoughtful statement and one that I think makes very clear the reason he reached the difficult decision to oppose the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court. I wish to say that we are supposed to be on the Department of Defense authorization bill. Obviously, we are not. We are on the hate crimes bill, which the majority leader decided was important enough to replace the proceedings of the Senate on the Defense authorization bill and the very urgent mission we have and obligation and duties we have as a Congress to authorize the means necessary to defend the security of this Nation and the men and women who are defending it. So we will be wrapped around the axle on amendments and which ones are allowed and time agreements. I am not saying this legislation would have moved forward smoothly; there are always some difficulties. But for many years now, I have been involved in the authorization bill, and this is the first time I ever saw the majority leader of the Senate come forward and propose a comprehensive piece of legislation which had not gone through the committee of authorization, and, of course, this side of the aisle then had to, as is our right, propose an amendment of our own. Of course, there is some reluctance on this side of the aisle to agree to a time agreement, and so we go back and forth. Meanwhile, the men and women of the military are in two wars and they don't quite understand why we don't just move forward and do what our oath of office requires us to do, and that is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. So I will continue to work with the distinguished chairman, and I am hoping we will be able to work together to get the legislation moving again. I understand there are four amendments to be considered on the hate crimes bill and that a gun amendment has been introduced and there may be amendments on that, and time agreements. Meanwhile, the issue of the F-22 and whether we continue production of it is set aside while we debate nongermane amendments to the Defense authorization bill. So I guess what is probably going to happen, from previous experience--and I don't know--probably around Thursday, the majority leader will come to the floor and say that we haven't moved forward and we haven't made progress, blame it on this side of the aisle, and file cloture. Then we will have a vote on cloture. I would imagine that given--I don't know how that vote turns out; it depends on whether Members on both sides of the aisle feel their amendments or their views have been adequately addressed. But I am convinced that we would have moved forward with the authorization bill, that we probably could have addressed the issue of the F-22--and I do not say this side of the aisle is blameless, but I do understand why, when we knew hate crimes was going to be brought up, that those who feel strongly on this side of the aisle--including the fact that it never went through the Judiciary Committee; it has never been reported out but is added on a defense authorization bill--had their concerns. So it is unfortunate. It is unfortunate, and it is not really a good statement about the way we represent the American people, because if there is any legislation we should be moving forward on--and I will take responsibility on this side of the aisle too--that certainly is the Defense authorization bill. I believe there is an unbroken record of approval of the Defense authorization bill over a many-year period of time. I hope that, on behalf of the greater good, we can sit down and work out amendments and work through the hate crimes and the amendment by the Senator from South Dakota, and we can move forward and get this issue resolved. I don't think it is the right way to do business, particularly when we are talking about the defense of the Nation. So I pledge to my colleague from Michigan, the distinguished chairman whom I have had the great honor of working with for many years, to try to work through this. But I still maintain that the fact that the majority leader of the Senate felt it necessary to bring a hate crimes bill up before the Senate on a defense authorization bill, which is clearly not germane, triggered this situation we are in today. Having said that, it is what it is, and so I will go in the back now and see where we can work out amendments, see if we can work out an agreement to have the hate crimes vote, to have the gun vote, and then hopefully work with the target of tomorrow morning for voting on the F- 22 since, as we have discussed in the past on the floor of the Senate, the importance of that vote is far transcendent of any single weapons system. It is really all about whether we are going to have business as usual and spend taxpayers' money on what the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and our other military leaders think should be spent on the Joint Strike Fighter rather than further production of the F-22. From what I understand, it may be a close vote and a very interesting one. I wish we were spending more time debating that than hate crimes and gun amendments. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. For how long?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, may I say for the information of my colleagues, we are working on a unanimous consent agreement so that we can take up the hate crimes issue, the F-22 amendment, and a Republican amendment. Both sides are working hard to get that resolved. Health Care Reform This is an interesting time in America and in the Congress. We have the very important Defense authorization bill before us. We have the hearings for Judge Sotomayor. We have the HELP Committee reporting out its legislation. There may have been more issues before the Congress, but I don't recall them in the years I have been in the Senate. Today we had an event that is in the ``you can't make it up'' category. I read from the CNSNews.com. It is entitled ``Joe Biden: `We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt.' '' I quote completely from the news report from CNSNews.com: Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money. ``And folks look, AARP knows and the people working here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,'' Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. ``It's totally unacceptable. And it's completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it. It can't do it financially.'' ``We're going to go bankrupt as a nation,'' Biden said. ``Well, people that I say that to say, `What are you talking about, you're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?' '' Biden said. ``The answer is yes, I'm telling you.'' That is a very interesting story. The thing that probably makes it more interesting is the Washington Post story today entitled ``CBO Chief Criticizes Democrats' Health Reform Measures.'' I quote from the Washington Post story: Instead of saving the federal government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would worsen an already bleak budget outlook, increasing deficit projections and driving the nation more deeply into debt, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this morning. Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose ``the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.'' ``On the contrary,'' Elmendorf said, ``the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health- care costs.'' Here we have on the one hand the Vice President today telling the American people that we have to spend money, we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt, and yet the Congressional Budget Office says that the proposed changes would weaken our economy and expand the Federal responsibility for health care costs. Continuing from the article: The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad [Democrat from North Dakota] has taken a leading role in that effort. This morning, after receiving Elmendorf's testimony on the nation's long-term budget outlook, Conrad turned immediately to questions about the emerging health care measures. ``I'm going to really put you on the spot,'' Conrad told Elmendorf. ``From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?'' Elmendorf responded: ``No, Mr. Chairman.'' Asked what provisions would be needed to slow the growth in federal health spending, Elmendorf urged lawmakers to end or limit the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits . . . That has a little echo associated with it. I don't know where that idea came from. . . . calling it a Federal ``subsidy'' that encourages spending on ever more expensive health packages. Key Senators, including Conrad, have been pressing to tax employer-provided benefits, but Senate leaders last week objected, saying the idea does not have enough support among Senate Democrats to win passage. Elmendorf also suggested changing the way Medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs. ``Certain reforms of that sort are included in some of the packages,'' Elmendorf said. ``But the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals.'' Then incredibly: Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid [of Nevada] dismissed Elmendorf's push for the benefits tax. ``What he should do is maybe run for Congress,'' Reid said. I have disagreed from time to time with the Congressional Budget Office. I have agreed from time to time with the Congressional Budget Office. But I don't think it is appropriate to use that kind of language from the majority leader of the Senate about these hard- working people. This wasn't just Mr. Elmendorf's product. This was the product of endless nights and days of work on the part of the Congressional Budget Office. If you disagree with them, as I have in the past, disagree and give your reasons for doing so. But for the majority leader to say that what he should do is ``maybe run for Congress,'' frankly, I don't think is an appropriate response to the incredible work that these individuals are doing. Continuing from the article: But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus . . . expressed frustration that the tax on employer-funded benefits had fallen out of favor, in part because the White House opposes the idea. Critics of the proposal say it would target police and firefighters who receive generous benefits packages. And if the tax is trimmed to apply to only upper income beneficiaries, it would lose its effectiveness as a cost- containment measure. ``Basically the president is not helping,'' Baucus said. ``He does not want the exclusion, and that's making it difficult.'' But he added, ``We are clearly going to find ways to bend the cost curve in the right direction, including provisions that will actually lower the rate of increase in health care costs.'' * * * * * Ideas under consideration include health-care delivery system reform; health insurance market reform; and empowering an independent agency to set Medicare reimbursement rates, an idea the White House is shopping aggressively on Capitol Hill. But Baucus is not giving up on the benefits tax. ``It is not off the table, there's still a lot of interest in it,'' Baucus said. Well, what this is all about--what this is really all about--is heading in the wrong direction with the wrong fundamentals of what the problems with health care in America are--a fundamental misunderstanding. The health care in America is the highest quality in the world. I went to M.D. Anderson with the Republican leader and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. At M.D. Anderson--one of the great, premier institutions in America, where cancer treatment is incredible-- there were people there from 90 countries around the world. Most of those people were wealthy people. They had the choice of going anywhere in the world to get the treatment they felt they needed. They came to the United States of America. That is true of the Mayo Clinic. That is true of many other medical facilities and institutions in America. So the problem with health care in America is not the quality of care. The problem with health care in America is affordability and availability. The cost of health care continues to increase--inflation of nearly double digits. We cannot afford it. The Vice President is right when he says it is unsustainable. But when the President says that we want to do nothing, obviously, that is not the view of Republicans. We believe you have to do a lot. We believe you have to do a lot, and that is increase competition in America so people will have choices, affordability, and availability, and not a government-run health care system. So the architects of the legislation passed through the HELP Committee and being considered by the Finance Committee and that came through the House were fundamentally wrong to start with. They were not attacking the problem of health care in America, and that is the cost. And the quality of health care in America is what needs to be preserved. How do you install competition? You install competition by letting people go across State lines to shop for the health insurance policy they want. That is prohibited now. Why is that? Why is that? The other is wellness and fitness. We are in agreement, I want to say, on a lot of issues that have not been highlighted in debate on the floor--Republicans and Democrats. Wellness and fitness, insurance policies that will encourage such things; rewards by employers for people who practice wellness and fitness. In fact, probably one of the best known individuals in America today is the CEO of Safeway. They have had an incredibly successful program for their employees, where if they practice wellness and fitness--they do not smoke, they regularly engage in exercise, including membership in health clubs--guess what. They are rewarded for doing so. And the overall costs of health care in Safeway have gone down. They have told every insurer: Come, if you want to insure our employees, encourage wellness and fitness and let them make a choice. Do so. That is the essence of what we have to do. The problem in America with health care is that too often there are fixed costs. There is no competition, and there are incentives to drive up the costs of health care. We all know that. We all know there are certain procedures which are more rewarding than others, and the system is gamed, and that there are billions--tens of billions--of dollars of fraud, abuse, and waste in the Medicare system that have been identified on numerous occasions. We also know that medical malpractice is a problem, and we need to reform it. Some years ago, the State of California--not known as a conservative State, to say the least--enacted fundamental medical liability practice reform. And guess what. It has resulted in cost savings. It is well known that physicians practice defensive medicine, which many times accounts for a 10-, 15-percent increase in those costs for fear of being sued. And the new technology, which has made such tremendous advances, then, indeed, increases costs because they are overused because that physician knows, in some States, in some cases and places, unless every kind of test is administered--whether that physician thinks it is needed or not, it is going to be administered and prescribed in order to avert the eventuality of appearing in court and not having administered all the necessary, or what the plaintiff's lawyers believe is necessary, tests and procedures. So look, we know now--we know now--from the Congressional Budget Office, for the second time, that this proposal is not going to cure the health care issues of America. It is time we went back to the drawing board. It is time Republicans and Democrats sat down at the negotiating table--not calling one or two Senators down to the White House, not trying to pick off one Republican or two Republicans, not doing that. I know that with this plan the Democrats and the administration may be able to pick off a couple Republicans and get 60 votes and enact this massive movement of the government takeover--eventual takeover--of the health care system in America, or we can sit down together for the first time with incredibly knowledgeable people. There is nobody who knows more about health care than our two doctors, Drs. Coburn and Barrasso. There is nobody who knows more about health care than Senator Enzi, who has been our leader in the HELP Committee--Senator Alexander. There is a lot of knowledge on health care issues. We could sit down together, scrap this idea, scrap this ``spend money to keep from going bankrupt,'' scrap this proposal where the Congressional Budget Office says ``the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs,'' that the measures would ``worsen an already bleak budget outlook, increasing deficit projections and driving the nation more deeply into debt.'' That is not the proposal the American people want to pay the penalty for. So events today have been very interesting. The fact is, what we need to do now is sit down together for a change. I have done it in the past, I will admit, on issues that are not of this magnitude. I do not know if there has been an issue that consumes one-sixth of the gross domestic product of this country that I have been involved in. Certainly other major issues, certainly working together with my friend and colleague from Michigan on the Defense authorization and other measures to preserve our Nation's security. But this issue, I must say, causes all others to pale in magnitude. But that is also the reason why we should sit down together and not pass legislation that is purely on a partisan basis. Let's listen to the experts. Let's listen to the Congressional Budget Office. I know of no one who believes there is bias in the Congressional Budget Office. As I say, sometimes I have been very disappointed or disagreed with them. But I know of no one who thinks they are not doing the very best they can under the intense pressures of getting out these numbers. I want to take this moment to salute the Congressional Budget Office, whether I agree with or disagree with them, for the incredible work they have done in the past. I hope at some point to be able, when this health care debate is over, to enter into the Record the thousands of hours that have been put in by the Congressional Budget Office and the staff there in trying to come up with their best assessment so we can legislate with the benefit of the knowledge that, frankly, only they possess. So let's listen to them. Let's listen to other outside experts. Let's recognize the fact that this issue has badly divided this Congress. But let's also listen to the fact that the American people are becoming more and more skeptical of the proposals we are considering or that have been reported out by both the House and the Senate HELP Committee and maybe start over and do something the American people can believe in and for which we can tell the American people we put their interest first. I note my friend, the Senator from Michigan, is on the floor. I hope we can give a ray of hope to our colleagues and let them know how they are going to be able to spend the rest of the evening. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know there are a lot of other issues that are consuming the interests of my colleagues and the American people, such as the confirmation hearings of Judge Sotomayor; the HELP Committee, of which I am a member, is reporting out one of the most massive takeovers and expenditures of taxpayer dollars in history; and we have this bill on the floor, and there are other issues. So it has probably gone unnoticed that we have seen another really--if not unprecedented, certainly highly unusual action on the part of the majority. Frankly, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the American people, elections have consequences. What we have just seen is an amendment before this body and a piece of legislation before this body that I think one could argue is probably of more importance than any other we consider because it authorizes the measures necessary to preserve the security of this Nation, care for the men and women who are serving in the military, and meet the future threats we will face in the 21st century. So what has happened here is that the majority leader, with the agreement of my friend from Michigan, whom I highly respect and regard, has made it clear that their highest priority is not that. Their highest priority is a hate crimes bill--a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatsoever with defending this Nation. My friend from Michigan just complained that we haven't had a time for the vote. Of course we haven't had a time for the vote on the Levin-McCain amendment because we have been made aware that a hate crimes bill--and by the way, not an ordinary, small, specific amendment, but 17 pages, plus 6 additional pages, encompassing a piece of legislation that is before this body that has never moved through the Judiciary Committee. It has not moved through the Judiciary Committee, the appropriate committee of oversight. So the majority leader of the Senate comes to the floor, after prevailing upon the distinguished chairman to withdraw his amendment-- an amendment of some consequence, a $1.75 billion expenditure, and, far more important than even the money, a real confrontation between special interests and the national interests--so that we can move to the hate crimes bill. The hate crimes bill is not without controversy, I say. In fact, it is interesting that on June 16, 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to the Vice President and to the leaders of the Congress opposing the hate crimes bill. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sends a letter saying: Dear Mr. President and distinguished Senators: We write today to urge you to vote against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. That is basically the bill the majority leader has just inserted into the process of legislation designed to defend this Nation's national security. Of course there are strong feelings on it. This is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee but, more importantly, could hang up this bill for a long period of time. While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars, we are going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that is more important--more important--than legislation concerning the defense of this Nation. I am sure the men and women in the military serving in his home State would be interested to know about his priorities. So here we are. Now we will go through--I am sure the majority leader will file cloture, we will go through 30 hours of debate, and we will have another vote. All of this is unnecessary. Why couldn't we move the hate crimes bill--remember, this is not a single-shot amendment on a specific small issue; this is a huge issue, the whole issue of hate crimes. It is a huge issue. It deserves hearings and debate and amendment in the Judiciary Committee. But what are we going to do? For reasons that I guess the majority leader can make clear because I don't get it, he wants to put it on the national defense authorization bill and pass it that way. He will probably succeed, and he will call it ``bipartisan.'' The last time I checked, it has 44 Democratic cosponsors and 2 Republicans. That is the definition, by the way, around here of bipartisan bills. That is the way the stimulus package was bipartisan. That is how the omnibus spending bill was bipartisan. And I am pretty confident that if health care ``reform'' passes, it will probably be in another ``bipartisan'' fashion. So we will have some hours of debate. We will have more exacerbated feelings between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle. I would imagine that the hate crimes bill, given the makeup of this body, may even be put on a defense authorization bill--a huge issue. A huge issue will now be placed on a defense authorization bill and passed through the Congress and signed by the President. That is a great disservice to the American people. The American people deserve debate and discussion and hearings and witnesses on this legislation. They deserve it. They don't deserve to have a hate crimes bill put on this legislation which has no relation whatsoever to hate crimes. I will probably have a lot more to say about this in the hours ahead. I have been around this body a fair amount of time. I have watched the Defense authorization bill wind its way through Congress, and occasionally, including at other times, I have seen amendments put on bills which are nongermane, but I haven't seen the majority leader of the Senate--the majority leader of the Senate, whose responsibility is to move legislation through the Senate--take a totally nonrelevant, all-encompassing, controversial piece of legislation and put it on a bill that is as important to the Nation's security as is this legislation. We are breaking new ground here, let's have no doubt about it. It is one thing to sometimes have one Member or two or others propose amendments that happen to be their pet project or their pet peeve. It is an entirely different thing--it is an entirely different thing, and I have never seen it before--that the majority leader of the Senate comes to the floor and introduces an irrelevant piece of legislation that is controversial, that is fraught with implications for this and future generations, to a bill that is totally nonrelevant. After 30 hours of debate, we will have a vote on closing that debate and including it in the legislation. I am deeply, deeply disappointed, and I question anyone's priorities who puts this kind of legislation ahead of the needs of the men and women who are serving our military with bravery, courage, and distinction. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to repeat and emphasize the unprecedented fashion that we are now addressing legislation that concerns our Nation's security and the well-being and welfare of the men and women who are serving it. I always thought the job of the majority leader of the Senate was to move legislation through the Senate. Obviously, the majority leader has come to the floor of the Senate and, at the request of the majority leader, the chairman of the committee has taken out an amendment that addresses a $1.75 billion F-22 amendment that the President has placed his personal stamp on passing, that the Secretary of Defense has viewed as one of his highest priorities, as did the Secretary of the Air Force and other administration officials. What did we do? We come to the floor and withdraw the amendment, withdraw it so we can take up a major piece of legislation. I am reminded that there are amendments proposed by various Members of this body who believe their amendments need to be proposed and believe there is no other avenue but to put them on pending legislation. The majority leader of the Senate can bring up legislation wherever he wants to. That is the privilege of the majority. That is the right of the majority. Here we are trying to address an issue of paramount importance to the well-being of the men and women of the United States of America. Here we are trying to address an issue of $1.75 billion, which has far more importance, in many respects, than the actual cost of the F-22s themselves, and without a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, without a bill reported out by the Judiciary Committee, which is the committee of oversight, the majority leader of the Senate has one very important amendment pulled and then puts in a piece of legislation which is far- reaching in the consequences and very controversial. I introduced into the Record a little while ago the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights opposes this legislation. Doesn't this legislation, the hate crimes bill, deserve the amending and debate process that legislation is supposed to go through--committees and then on the floor of the Senate, open to amendments? No, it has been inserted now on the Defense authorization bill, and within a short time, I am sure the majority leader will come to the floor and file a motion for cloture to cut off debate on an issue of significant importance to all Americans and railroad it through on a ``bipartisan basis,'' with possibly two Republican votes. That is not the way this body should work. It is an abuse of power. It does not make for comity on both sides of the aisle. In fact, those of us who are committed to seeing this authorization bill done as quickly as possible because we are worried about the security of this Nation take great offense when the majority leader of the Senate, whose job is to move legislation through the Senate, brings extraneous and unrelated legislation to a bill as important as this to the men and women of this country and our Nation's security. To somehow equate that with other amendments that have been proposed, from time to time, by Members on both sides, I think is not an appropriate comparison. I resent it a great deal. It is not good for the health of this body, in my view. Perhaps there is precedent for this. Perhaps there is precedent when a Defense authorization bill, an issue probably, as I say, of the highest criticality, with an amendment on it that the President of the United States has fully weighed in on and committed on, is taken off the floor, is taken away from consideration in order to put in an extraneous and very controversial full package of legislation. The hate crimes bill before us is not an amendment. It is legislation. It is an encompassing bill, 20-some pages long. We are going to have about 30 hours of debate, a discussion on it, the majority leader will come and cut off debate and we will probably pass it, thereby exacerbating a situation where those of us who oppose this legislation--and it is important legislation--will be faced with a dilemma of choosing between a bill which will harm, in my view, the United States of America and its judicial system and defending the Nation. I do not think that is fair to any Member of this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I will just take a few minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. That would be fine with me.

Mr. McCAIN. I am not sure what the Senator's reaction will be to what I have to say. I can't give him a specific time agreement. I am sorry. This is a vital issue we are addressing.

Mr. McCAIN. I will make my remarks as short as possible. I believe the Senator from Illinois has the floor; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to point out again, the legislation which is now pending has replaced the F-22, the Levin- McCain amendment. My argument is that the majority leader has put in legislation which is not relevant to the pending legislation, which is the Department of Defense authorization bill. I am perfectly willing for the hate crimes bill to come up under the regular order. Why it should be put on the Defense authorization bill, which will then not allow adequate debate and discussion of amendments, not to mention the fact that it hasn't gone through the committee of jurisdiction-- frankly, I do not think it is the appropriate way of using the Defense authorization bill. In fact, I think it is highly inappropriate. Therefore, why don't we do this, I ask the Senator from Illinois: agree that as soon as the Defense authorization bill is complete, we take up the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act under the regular order and do business the way the Senate should do business? Unanimous Consent Request--S. 909 So therefore, Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be immediately withdrawn; that no amendments on the topic of hate crimes be in order to the pending legislation; further, I ask that when the Senate completes action on the Department of Defense authorization bill, it be in order for the Senate to proceed to S. 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, under the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN. So, Mr. President, here are the facts. The fact is, the majority leader, whose job it is to move legislation through the Senate, is now blocking progress of Defense authorization--that progress through the Senate--by proposing an unneeded, irrelevant amendment, which is a large piece of highly controversial legislation. The Senate majority leader will come to the floor and he will file cloture. Then, after some hours--with no amendments because he will probably fill up the tree--the Senate will pass a highly controversial, highly explosive piece of legislation to be attached to the authorization for the defense and the security of this Nation. That is wrong. And why--I want to put it this way: It is unanswerable that we do not just take up the hate crimes bill in the regular order and allow Senate debate and discussion. That is how the Senate is supposed to work--not put it on a major piece of legislation. I will also point out to my friend from Illinois something he knows. It is one thing for someone who sits back there to propose an amendment to pending legislation because they feel that is the only way they can get their argument heard. The majority leader of the Senate has the authority to move whatever legislation he wants. And the majority leader of the Senate should move the hate crimes bill if he wants it considered rather than give it priority over the legislation that accounts for the national security of this country and the men and women who serve it. So I am sure there will be all kinds of comments about the Republicans blocking a vote, blocking this, blocking that. Why don't we take up legislation in the regular order? Hate crimes has been opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. This is a very controversial issue. By putting it on the DOD bill, we are not going to have the adequate debate, discussion, and amendment an issue such as this deserves. There is passion on both sides of the aisle. So it is obvious, whether it is the intention or not, what is happening here is the whole process of debate and amendment will be short-circuited, because we on this side of the aisle are more than willing to take up the legislation as a separate piece of legislation, debate, amend, and discuss it, and let the American people decide. Instead, the men and women in the military right now today are being shortchanged by putting irrelevant legislation that is highly controversial and highly complex on a bill designed for defense of this country and for the men and women who serve it.

Mr. McCAIN. Actually, I will be glad to yield. But if the Senator wants to have a colloquy, go ahead.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I respond to that?

Mr. McCAIN. It is one thing to have the chairman of the committee support it; it is another thing to have the legislation go through the committee with the proper debate and discussion and amendment. But go ahead.

Mr. McCAIN. In deference to the Senator from California, I will make my answer brief, just to say I do not think--as I have said in my previous argument, it does not belong on a defense authorization bill, particularly so moved by the majority leader of the Senate. But, Mr. President, the Senator from California is waiting, and I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, I am not asking that there be a time agreement on hate crimes, I am asking that the hate crimes bill be brought up as a standing bill. The Senator has 60 votes. The Senator could bring it up whether this side of the aisle objects or not as a freestanding piece of legislation. I object to it being considered on the Department of Defense authorization bill. It has no place for it. It should not be there. The longer we wait, the longer the delay is in providing the men and women of the military the tools they need. So I do object. And we should take this up. I am sorry my unanimous consent request was not agreed to--that we would take it up as a freestanding bill after the consideration of the Department of Defense bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from California for her courtesy.