CHIP

Floor Speech

CHIP -- (Senate - September 26, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there are no others speaking on this Defense authorization bill, I would like to address my remarks to the Senator from Massachusetts, who is still on the floor and who spoke to us on the SCHIP proposal for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which has been in place for 10 years and works for so many children so effectively.

I might correct the Senator's presentation in one regard. I just left a meeting of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The request of this administration for the next year for the war in Iraq is $189 billion--$189 billion. That comes out to about $15 billion a month that they are asking for this war for the next year. It is my understanding that this bill we are going to present to the President to provide health insurance for somewhere in the range of an additional 5 million kids is going to cost us $6 billion or $7 billion a year. So the war in Iraq is costing us $15 billion a month; this program, which the President says we can't afford, to provide health insurance for our own children, will cost us about $7 billion a year--a year.

It would seem to me that a strong America begins at home. It begins with our families, our kids, with our neighborhoods and communities, and I think the President has overlooked that. If we are going to be strong for the future, we have to help our kids have the kind of health insurance coverage that gives them a fighting chance. So I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for an observation?

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. The $35 billion will not be paid for by the taxpayers.

Mr. DURBIN. That is right.

Mr. KENNEDY. Which is really extraordinary. We have done the education program, where we took some $20 billion from the lenders. This $35 billion is going to be paid for with the increase in the cigarette tax, which in and of itself will have an extraordinarily positive impact in the quality of health for children in this country and to the whole problem and challenge of childhood addiction to nicotine. So I think it is important.

We hear a great deal about: Well, the figures the Senator mentioned are dramatic in terms of the choice which is before the Members tomorrow in terms of priorities. But you even add to that the fact that the taxpayer is going to be spared that kind of additional burden, and it is difficult for many of us to understand the strong opposition of the administration.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. DURBIN. I might say to the Senator from Massachusetts that two out of three Americans support an increase in the tobacco tax for this purpose. It is a clearly positive thing for us to do. So unlike the Iraq war, which we are not paying for at all in this instance, we are paying for children's health insurance with a tobacco tax, and I think that is a much more responsible approach.

Mr. President, I have a statement here on the hate crime issue, but I see two other colleagues on the floor, and I don't know what their schedules are.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. My colleague and friend from New York has served in both the House and Senate, and he knows that often promises are made on important things we do. But we have kept our promise that we would have a pay-as-you-go plan. As we came up with new ideas for legislation, we paid for them--much different from what we saw around here as we were driven deeply into debt under the leadership of the other party.

The war in Iraq is a classic example. This President continues to wage this war and asks for money without any tax or cut in spending. He just adds to the deficit of this country--a deficit which, unfortunately, is out of control and makes us beholden, mortgaged, to some of the largest countries in the world.

So I would say we have kept our promise. It is a pay-as-you-go promise.

AMENDMENT NO. 3035

I would like to make this point on the hate crime amendment, and then I will defer to my colleagues, who may be speaking on the same subject.

Mr. President, the Senate is about to consider a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill dealing with hate crimes which broadens the scope of the Federal hate crime law in significant ways. It is one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in our time, and I am proud to cosponsor it.

Some people might ask: Haven't we moved beyond the need for this in this modern age of the 21st century? Do we still really need a hate crime law? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

As Senator Kennedy said on the Senate floor:

At a time when our ideals are under attack by terrorists in other lands, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that we practice what we preach and that we are doing all we can to root out bigotry and prejudice in our own country that leads to violence here at home.

Sadly, there is no shortage of bigotry and violence here at home. In the past week, there has been a national spotlight on Jena, LA, where White high school students put up nooses in a tree to intimidate African-American students--nooses--the ancient symbol of hatred and lynching.

The problems with hate crimes and racial tension are not confined to the South. Take a look at today's Washington Post. An article entitled ``Colleges See Flare in Racial Incidents'' said that a noose was found a few weeks ago at the University of Maryland outside the campus's African-American cultural center. This past weekend, a swastika was spray-painted onto a car parked on that same campus.

My home State of Illinois is not immune to this same problem. Last month, a judge in Chicago awarded $1.3 million to two victims of vicious hate crimes that were committed a few months after September 11 in Chicago's West Loop. The victims--Amer Zaveri and Toby Paulose are American-born citizens of Indian descent. The perpetrators yelled, ``Are you Taliban?'' and ``Go back to your country'' before punching them, assaulting them, kicking them, and smashing a beer bottle on one of their heads, causing facial fractures and lacerations.

Now, according to statistics compiled by the FBI, nearly 10,000 hate crimes are committed in America each year. Other estimates put the number closer to 50,000. An increasing number are committed against gays and lesbians, representing nearly 15 percent of all hate crimes.

The response from some Republicans, not from all--Senator GORDON SMITH of Oregon is a prominent cosponsor of the Kennedy bill on hate crimes--but from some others, is that we need to study this issue. The studies have been done over and over again. Sad to report, hate crimes are a reality in America today.

The existing Federal hate crime law was enacted 40 years ago, in 1968. It was passed at the time of Martin Luther King's assassination. It is an important law, but it is outdated. Its coverage is too narrow. Unless the hate crime falls within one of six very narrow areas, prosecutors can't use the law. For example, if it takes place in a public school, the Government can prosecute, but not in a private school.

This hate crime law we are considering would expand the categories of people who would be covered and the incidents covered as well. The current Federal law provides no coverage for hate crimes based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. Sadly, hate crimes data suggest that hate crimes based on sexual orientation are the third most prevalent, after race and religion. Our laws should not ignore reality.

Some people have suggested that banning hate crimes is a violation of the first amendment and the right to free speech. The Supreme Court has been very clear that is not the case. In 2003, in the case of Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of laws banning cross burning, one of the ultimate hate crimes. In her opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote:

To this day, regardless of whether the message is a political one or whether the message is also meant to intimidate, the burning of a cross is a symbol of hate.

This week we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the integration of Little Rock Central High School. Arkansas at that time was the crucible, the laboratory for us to test whether America was an accepting, diverse nation. Those nine students and those who stood behind them had the courage to step through those classroom doors and face the intimidation on the way. It is important the Senate have the courage to confront the injustice of our time and pass the bipartisan Kennedy-Smith hate crime amendment.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source