National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are currently on the Department of Defense authorization bill and an amendment that has been offered by the Democratic majority leader relative to the creation of a new Federal crime of hate crimes.

Earlier, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, came to the floor to question the wisdom of adding that kind of legislation to a bill related to the Department of Defense. Most people, when they hear that argument, would say: Why don't they do these bills separately? It turns out that under the Senate rules, oftentimes there are few opportunities to move a bill forward. It is not at all unusual for Senators to come forward and offer what appears to be, and may in fact be, an unrelated amendment to a bill that is likely to pass and be signed by the President. Too often, we pass bills that die in transit to the House or once over in the House never see the light of day. They have the same complaint about the Senate.

This is legislation, hate crimes legislation, which we believe is timely, important, and which we want to make part of this debate and ultimately would like to offer it to the President for signature. It has been debated in the House of Representatives, and it is a bill that I think we can quickly come together with the House on and agree on common terms. So it is an important opportunity.

I might say to Senator McCain that I have offered what we would call unrelated amendments in the past, and he has as well. Going back many years, in 1993 Senator McCain offered a line-item veto amendment to a bill involving voter registration. He also offered that same amendment to research bills and to a bill involving the travel rights of blind individuals. He had a supermajority requirement to increase taxes added to a bill--unrelated--on the subject of unemployment compensation. So it is not unusual. I have done it. Senator McCain has done it.

In fact, this year we have seen it happen repeatedly. In fact, most of the amendments have come from the other side of the aisle. Senator Vitter--on a bill that tried to put the economy back on track--offered an amendment that was critical of an organization known as ACORN. It had nothing to do with the stimulus package. It was his personal feeling about that organization that led to the amendment. Senator Ensign of Nevada offered a controversial amendment which, in fact, stalled a bill that was relating to the voting rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia. Senator Ensign's amendment dealt with gun control, which didn't have a direct bearing on the question of DC voting rights. Senator DeMint raised the question of the fairness doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission--another amendment to the DC voting bill. Senator Thune of South Dakota offered an amendment relative to concealed firearms, again on the DC voting rights bill.

The list goes on. To suggest what was done this morning is unusual is to ignore the obvious. For the better part of this year, amendments have been coming from the Republican side of the aisle that are unrelated to the subject matter of the bill, and that has been a fact of Senate life.

This amendment being offered by Senator Reid, as well as many others relative to hate crimes, is a very important one. I would like to speak to it.

I speak in strong support of the passage of this hate crimes legislation. We plan on voting on it as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. For several years, the Senate has taken up these two measures, and for several years both the House and the Senate have passed the hate crimes bill only to see it blocked by filibuster threats or veto vows.

We are fortunate to have a new President who supports this hate crimes legislation. When the House of Representatives took up this legislation just a couple months ago, President Obama issued a statement which said:

I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all our citizens from violent acts of intolerance.

What a difference a year has made. When Congress took up the hate crimes bill last Congress, President Bush called it ``unnecessary and constitutionally questionable.'' He promised to veto it.

The American people said last November that they wanted a President who will take our country in a different direction. President Obama is doing that, and he is doing it on this issue as well.

The hate crimes bill has another important supporter who, sadly, cannot be with us on the floor today, and that is Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who has been our leader on this issue for over 10 years. I wish he were here to make another impassioned speech for its passage. Nobody speaks to this issue with more authority and clarity than Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy has been called the heart and soul of the Senate. Passing this bill will honor the great work he has given in his public career to the cause of civil rights.

The Kennedy hate crimes bill now before us is one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation of our time. I am proud to cosponsor it. I generally believe Congress should be careful in federalizing crime. In the case of hate crimes, there is a demonstrated problem and a carefully crafted solution.

Here is the problem--in fact, it is twofold. First, the existing Federal hate crimes law, passed in 1968 after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, covers only six narrow categories. In order for the current law to apply, a person has to be physically assaulted on the basis of race, national origin, or religion, while engaging in one of the following specific activities: using a public accommodation, serving as a juror, attending a public school, participating in a government program, traveling in interstate commerce, or applying for a job.

The Kennedy hate crimes bill now being considered would expand coverage so that hate crimes could be prosecuted wherever they took place as long as there is an interstate commerce connection, such as the use of a weapon. Federal prosecutors would no longer be limited to the six narrow areas I mentioned earlier in the bill passed some 41 years ago.

Secondly, the bill would expand the categories of people covered under the Federal hate crimes law. The current law provides no coverage for hate crimes based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Unfortunately, statistics tell us that hate crimes based on sexual orientation are the third most common after those based on race and religion. About 15 percent of all hate crimes are based on sexual orientation. Our laws cannot ignore this reality.

Let me address some of the arguments that have been made against this hate crimes bill. Some of my constituents--in fact, most of those who write in opposition to the bill--are writing either personally or on behalf of churches. There are people who believe this bill would be an infringement on religious speech. Their concern is that a minister could be prosecuted if he sermonizes against homosexuality, and after that a member of his congregation assaults someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. I understand their concern, but it is misplaced.

The chair of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, held a hearing last month on the hate crimes bill. Attorney General Eric Holder was the star witness. I attended the hearing and asked the Attorney General pointblank whether a religious leader could be prosecuted under the facts I just described. I talked to him about a minister in a church who might stand before his or her congregation and argue that the Bible states clearly, from their point of view, that persons engaged in homosexual conduct are sinners, and if after that sermon someone sitting in the congregation, in anger, turns and strikes someone who is gay, can the minister be held responsible for inciting this person to strike someone of a different sexual orientation. This is what the Attorney General said in response to this hypothetical question I raised:

This bill seeks to protect people from conduct that is motivated by bias. It has nothing to do with regard to speech. The minister who says negative things about homosexuality, about gay people, this is a person I would not agree with, but is not somebody who would be under the ambit of this statute.

Based on that representation from the Nation's top law enforcement officer, I hope some from religious communities who have been writing to my office will understand that my response to them over the months and years that they have been writing is consistent with the interpretation of this hate crimes bill by the Attorney General of the United States.

It is also important to point out that the Kennedy hate crimes bill requires bodily injury. It does not apply to speech or harassment. It does not apply to those who would carry signs with messages of their religious beliefs. Attorney General Holder assured the Senate that, unless there is bodily injury involved, no hate crimes prosecution could be brought. I don't know how he could have been clearer or more definitive. I am certain that some who don't want to accept the clear meaning of his words will dispute him, but he was very clear for all of the people of good faith who would listen.

And listen to the words of Geoffrey Stone, a first amendment scholar at the University of Chicago Law School:

It is settled First Amendment law that an individual cannot constitutionally be punished for attempting to incite others to commit crimes, unless the speaker expressly incites unlawful conduct and such conduct is likely to occur imminently. The last time the Supreme Court upheld a criminal conviction for incitement was more than a half century ago.

I also note that 24 States--nearly half of the States in America--have hate crime laws on the books that include sexual orientation, and religious leaders are not being prosecuted in those States. That is just not the purpose of the hate crimes laws. Prosecutors aren't going around looking to put ministers or people with religious beliefs contrary to certain sexual orientations in jail.

Moreover, I think it is time that many people in the religious community would come forward and support this legislation. They should take comfort in knowing that if they believe intolerance and hate are not part of their spiritual message, this law is a good law in support of their beliefs.

This law would go beyond the six narrow areas I covered earlier. It would be an important consideration since 20 percent of all hate crimes are committed on the basis of a person's religion. This hate crimes law will actually protect those discriminated against because of their religious belief. That should be another reason for those of faith to come forward and consider supporting it.

Another criticism of the Kennedy bill is one that has been around for a long time. It is an argument about States' rights. They argue there is no need to pass a Federal hate crimes law because the States can do the job on their own.

This argument is remarkably similar to one we faced almost a century ago when Congress debated an antilynching law. Between 1881 and 1964 there is evidence that almost 5,000 people--in fact, 4,749--were lynched in the United States. Predominantly the victims were African Americans. Yet Congress resisted addressing this problem for generations.

Let me read some quotes from a 1922 Congressional Record when Congress debated whether to pass a bill making lynching a Federal crime. One Member of Congress said:

The great body of the good people of the country know that the Federal Government should let the States solve these purely local questions. They know that peace and confidence cannot come from distrust and suspicion and that this Congress cannot, by statute, change God's eternal laws.

Another House Member said:

The question is whether or not we shall duplicate the State function by conferring the same power upon the Federal Government as to this class of crimes. Ours is a government of divided Sovereignties.

The arguments this year against the hate crimes bill sound very similar to the arguments in 1922 against the antilynching law.

We can all agree that criminal law is primarily a State and local function. It is estimated 95 percent of prosecutions for crimes occur at that level. But there are some areas of criminal law in which we have agreed the Federal Government can and should step in to help.

There are over 4,000 Federal crimes, 600 of which have been passed in the last 10 years. Hate crimes are a sad and tragic reality in America. Last month's horrific shooting, not far from here, at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, was the most recent reminder that hate-motivated violence still plagues our Nation.

Earlier this year in my home State of Illinois, two White men in the town of Joliet used a garbage can to beat a 43-year-old Black man outside a gas station while yelling racial epithets and stating: ``This is for Obama.'' The victim sustained serious injuries, lacerations, and bruises to his head.

Last year, a University of Illinois student was walking near his college campus with three friends when an attacker, yelling antigay slurs, pushed him so forcefully he was knocked unconscious and suffered a head injury.

These are incidents in my home State, which I am proud to represent, but I am not proud of this conduct, and I do not think America should be proud of this kind of intolerance and assault--physical assault--that has taken place.

According to FBI data, which is based on voluntary reporting, incidentally, there are about 8,000 hate crimes in America every year. Some experts estimate the real number is closer to 50,000.

The Kennedy hate crimes bill will not eliminate hate crimes in America, but it will help ensure these crimes do not go unpunished.

When Senator Kennedy introduced the hate crimes bill in April, here is what he said--for Ted, whom I wish could be with us today, I will repeat his words so he is part of the Record in support of this bill. Here is what he said:

It has been over 10 years since Matthew Shepard was left to die on a fence in Wyoming because of who he was. It has also been 10 years since this bill was initially considered by Congress. In those 10 years, we have gained the political and public support that is needed to make this bill become law. Today, we have a President who is prepared to sign hate crimes legislation into law, and a Justice Department that is willing to enforce it. We must not delay the passage of this bill. Now is the time to stand up against hate-motivated violence and recognize the shameful damages it is doing to our Nation.

In the words of Senator Kennedy, and in my own words as well, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pending before the Senate is the National Defense Authorization Act which is an annual bill considered by the Senate which basically authorizes the spending of money and certain policies for the Department of Defense. There is a lot of work that goes into this bill. It is put in primarily by the chairman of the committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, and by John McCain of Arizona. This bill looks to be over 1,000 pages long. They have put a lot of effort into this bill and are anxious to pass it.

An issue came up, an important issue about the F-22 airplane. This is a fighter plane that the current administration and others have said should be discontinued. Whenever a fighter plane is being built and is being discontinued, there are people who resist because each one of these Defense projects involves a lot of people, a lot of jobs, a lot of contracts that are important to businesses and families and communities. So there is resistance. But on the F-22 fighter plane, President Obama has gone so far as to say in writing: If you include more planes beyond the 187 allocated in previous legislation, I will veto the bill. That, of course, would call for a supermajority to override the veto, which is not likely to occur. So it is a promise or a threat from a President we have to take seriously.

The bill currently contains an amendment which expands the number of F-22 fighter planes that was adopted narrowly in the Armed Services Committee. The chairman and the ranking Republican have the same position as President Obama. They want to reduce or hold fast to the number of airplanes currently projected to be built and not to expand it, as this bill does. So they offered an amendment to stand with President Obama and delete the section of the bill which would call for more planes. That amendment, No. 1469, was offered on Monday to be considered by the Senate. A number of Members have come to support the amendment, and I am one of them. I support the President's position and the position of Senators Levin and McCain. There are others who oppose this amendment, clearly.

At one point, Senator Levin said: Let's move this to a vote. Senator McCain agreed, as we should. It had been pending for 2 days. Everyone knows what is at issue. It is contentious and clearly controversial, but we deal with those issues. That is part of our job.

At that point, the process broke down. The Republican side of the aisle objected to calling the amendment. That is when the bill came grinding to a halt. That is when Senator Levin said: We know that after this amendment on F-22s, we will go to an amendment on hate crimes legislation on the same bill. So he withdrew this amendment.

Clearly, the answer to this--one I hope we can work out at the leadership level--is for Republicans to agree that we have a vote on the F-22 airplane. We should. Senator McCain is anxious for that to happen so the bill can move forward. Once that vote is out of the way, we should schedule a reasonable time for debate and a vote on the hate crimes legislation, which is not new. We have considered this before. But we are bogged down.

At this point, tempers are flaring a little bit because this important bill is being held up over those two issues: whether the F-22 amendment by Senators Levin and McCain will come to a vote and whether the hate crimes legislation offered by Senator Reid will also then be considered and voted on. I hope both those occur. There is no reason why they should not. Those who think they might lose the F-22 amendment are resistant to calling it for a vote. But there will come a day when we have to face this issue with a vote. That is ultimately what the Senate is here for.

I might say about nonrelevant amendments, a position made on the floor by my friend from Arizona and others, it is a hard argument to understand in light of what we have been through.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a long list of nonrelevant amendments offered this year by the Republican side of the aisle to a series of bills considered on the floor.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. They run the range of things. I talked earlier about some of these amendments: an amendment relating to the regulation of guns in the District of Columbia put on the voting rights bill; an amendment relating to the fairness doctrine and telecommunications on the same DC voting rights bill; an amendment related to congressional pay on the Omnibus appropriations bill. The list goes on and on. I won't go beyond including it in the Record.

What the majority leader did today with the hate crimes legislation is not unlike what has been done repeatedly by the Republican side of the aisle over the last several months. Ultimately, these came to a vote. They were considered and voted on. That is all the majority leader is asking for, to bring the hate crimes legislation to a vote on this legislation.

There is clearly a way out of this. It is for the Senate to do its job, to vote on the Levin-McCain amendment on the F-22 fighters up or down. Let's see who prevails, understanding that if this provision stays in the bill and Levin-McCain fails, the President will veto the bill. That is a pretty ominous prospect.

Also keep mind that the hate crimes legislation is timely. It has passed the House of Representatives and should be considered by us.

I would like to say a word on it and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a publication by an organization known as Third Way which consists of statements of support from religious leaders for the Senate hate crimes bill.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, those who spoke in favor of the bill should be noted, their identities should be noted, because there is some argument, at least in the mail I have received from some religious leaders against the bill. Dr. David Gushee, distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University, has a well-thought-out statement in support of the bill; Rev. Derrick Harkins, senior pastor of the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church in Washington, DC, the same; Dr. Joel Hunter, senior pastor at Northland, has also come out in support; and Rev. Gabriel Salguero, executive and policy adviser of the Latino Leadership Circle.

The point I tried to make earlier and the one their support makes is that there are religious leaders who believe this bill is necessary to protect those who may be subjected to physical violence because of religious belief--we don't want that to occur--that intolerance is not consistent with American values.

Secondly, to those who argue that if we include sexual orientation in this bill, a pastor who sermonizes against homosexuality based on his interpretation of the Bible could be arrested for it, that is not true. As I quoted earlier, the Attorney General said, clearly, hate crimes legislation is focused on physical violence--not words, not harassment, but physical violence. If the religious leader is not engaged in physical violence against someone of a different sexual orientation, they will not be subject to prosecution under this bill. That has been made clear by the Attorney General, and the support of religious leaders indicates they understand that as well. We need to protect the people of our country against hate crimes and intolerance, but we also need to honor our constitutional guarantees when it comes to speech and religious belief. Those are consistent.

I look forward to the Senate coming to a conclusion, but I think those who have come to the floor and criticized the majority leader for this situation have not told the whole story. The whole story is the F-22 amendment by Senators LEVIN and MCCAIN was ready to be called, should have been called for a vote, and if it is scheduled for a vote, it can be dispensed with. I will support it. I have made that clear to the sponsors. Then we can move to the hate crimes legislation which the majority leader has brought before us, not unlike the many different instances this year when Republicans did exactly the same thing on the floor.

I urge those who might be off to lunch in a few minutes to use this opportunity. I see my friend from Arizona has taken the floor. I hope we can find an opportunity to work these two things out, perhaps bring to a vote the F-22 amendment, which I do support, the Levin-McCain amendment, to remove language in the bill on the expansion of the F-22 program. The sooner we can get approval from the leadership on the other side of the aisle, the sooner we can dispense with it one way or the other, up or down. Secondly, I hope we can then move to the hate crimes legislation which has been debated at length and is not unlike many of the other amendments which have been offered on the Republican side of the aisle on a variety of different bills during the course of the last few months. Bringing these two matters to a vote, perhaps we can then take up other pending matters on the Defense authorization bill on which I know the Senators from Arizona and Michigan have worked so hard.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. I just have a question, while my friend has the floor. I have been waiting to speak on the hate crimes bill. I am wondering if it would be possible, because I am not sure if Senator McCain has a lengthy statement, for him to work with us so we could get a time certain when I may make that statement.

Mr. DURBIN. I am going to yield the floor. Is the Senator seeking recognition?

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

Mr. DURBIN. Could I yield to the Senator from Arizona with the understanding that after he has spoken, the Senator from California would be recognized?

Mr. McCAIN. That would be fine with me.

Mr. DURBIN. Could the Senator give an indication of how much time he may require?

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. DURBIN. I understand it is.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. DURBIN. I will.

Mrs. BOXER. I am trying to get a sense for timing's sake. We all have obligations in our various committees and with constituents. I am wondering if I should speak first. My statement is only about 6 minutes. Then I could yield to Senator McCain. I think this hate crimes legislation is landmark legislation.

Mr. DURBIN. I think Senator McCain has asked to be recognized first. If I have any response to him, I will try to make it very brief. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Arizona has spoken, the Senator from California be immediately recognized.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Is there objection?

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I would say that the Senator from Arizona knows that on 16 different occasions this year Republican Senators have offered nonrelevant amendments to pending legislation. The Senator has done that himself. I have done it myself. It is not unusual or beyond the custom and rules of the Senate. And I believe Senator Reid has the right to do it on this critically important legislation which we can move to with dispatch. Based on that, I do object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. I want to make sure Senator Boxer has her chance.

If I could make two points in the nature of a question to the Senator from Arizona.

First, Senator Reid offered this amendment on behalf of Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is now presiding over the Sotomayor hearings. I know he supports it, and I support it as well, the hate crimes legislation, but I want to make that a matter of record.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I respond to that?

Mr. DURBIN. Yes.

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. DURBIN. The second point I would like to make to the Senator from Arizona is, when we asked for unanimous consent from the Republican side to move to the hate crimes legislation, there was objection. So it is not as if we have not tried to go through regular order. This seems to be the only path we can use to bring this matter to a conclusion. And I think it can be done in a responsible way quickly. It does not have to drag out over a matter of days. The Senator knows that. If we can get agreement on both sides to have a reasonable time for debate and a vote on the bill, I think that would meet the needs the Senator has suggested to get back on the substance of the Defense authorization bill.

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. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator from California will allow me to make a unanimous consent request before she speaks.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon, on Thursday, July 16, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Leahy amendment No. 1511, with the time until then equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that if cloture is invoked on amendment No. 1511, then all postcloture time be yielded back and amendment No. 1539 be agreed to; that amendment No. 1511, as amended, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that upon disposition of the hate crimes amendment, Senator Levin be recognized to offer the Levin-McCain amendment, and that the time until 5 p.m., Thursday, July 16, be for debate with respect to the amendment, with all time equally divided and controlled between Senators LEVIN and CHAMBLISS or their designees; that at 5 p.m., Thursday, July 16, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with no intervening amendment in order during the pendency of the F-22 amendment; further, that the mandatory quorum be waived with respect to rule XXII.

The purpose of this unanimous consent request is to achieve just what the Senator from Arizona asked for: a timely consideration of both amendments. We will be back on the bill on his amendment. I ask unanimous consent that we accept this schedule and move forward.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source