Wed., Sept. 26, 2007: Hate Crimes & A Children's Health Care Bill (S-CHIP)

[19:44]
Wrapping up. Majority Leader Reid (NV). Tomorrow: begin at 9:00. Then cloture votes on: Kennedy Hate Crimes Amendment and a Hatch alternative to the Kennedy Amendment. These cloture votes will take 60 yeas to pass. From there, perhaps a vote on the Children's Health Insurance legislation. Looking a week ahead, Reid says he wanted to have appropriations bills passed for the Defense Dept. and a collection of depts. including the DEA.

The Senate passed two resolutions today. The Biden Iraqi Federalism resolution and the Kyl/Lieberman resolution urging the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization.

[18:30]
Orrin Hatch (UT) rises in opposition to the Kennedy Hate Crimes Amendment. This amendment would give the feds jurisdiction over crimes motivated by race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, etc. The sticking points are the gender identity language and the law's constitutionality. Hatch right now is wondering what "gender identity" really means. What crimes could be classified as motivated by gender identity (and therefore carry a stiffer penalty)?

Hatch says that this amendment should not be attached to the Defense Bill. Moreover, Hatch says that the states are handling hate crimes adequately and, hey, the states can issue death sentences for such crimes while Kennedy's hate crimes amendment does not include death penalties.

Finally, Hatch says that the amendment is probably unconstitutional. The amendment seeks to bring all hate crimes within the jurisdiction of the feds. Hatch says that this will federalize basic criminal law. The unconstitutional argument involves the question of whether the federal gov't has jurisdiction over such crimes. Recall the Violence Against Women Act from the nineties, which was held unconstitutional because Congress did not have the authority to pass the legislation. Congress relies on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify its jurisdiction over many matters. To use the Commerce Clause as justification, the regulated activity must be "interstate" in nature. Hate crimes are arguably not interstate in nature (as opposed to mail fraud or wire fraud, etc.)

[18:16]
Chuck Grassley(IA) and Orrin Hatch (UT) are sponsors of the reauthorization of the children's health insurance legislation, a.k.a. S-CHIP. I want to make it clear that S-CHIP is its own bill, while much of the other debate going on right now concerns (amendments to) the Defense Bill.

Bernie Sanders (VT) is speaking. He wonders why it is that, when it comes to funding wars, when it comes to giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton, the U.S. has a seemingly endless supply of money. But when it comes to health care for children, the President threatens to veto legislation because it is too costly.


[16:45]
Votes on S-CHIP and Kennedy's Hate Crimes Amendment tomorrow morning.

Precap:
I haven't caught much of today's debate but going into today the two primary measures under debate were (1) a Kyl/Lieberman Resolution declaring that Iran's Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization; and, (2) a Biden et al. resolution supporting the divsion of Iraq into federalist states along Shia/Sunni/Kurdi lines overlaid with a weak federal government.

As for the Revolutionary Guard resolution. Those favoring it say that the IRG is supplying arms, ranging from rockets to roadside bombs, in an effort to fight a proxy war against the U.S. and to kill U.S. soldiers. Those opposed to the resolution, including Kerry and Webb, are fearful that the resolution seems similar to the legislation Congress passed which granted Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

As for the Iraqi Federalism, it has a surprisingly bipartisan cast of support ranging from Brownback (KS) to Hutchison (TX) to Biden (DE). The resolution, according to Biden, introduces no new ideas. The Iraqi constitution, passed a couple of years ago, allows for the division of Iraq into three states based on geography/ethnicity, i.e. Shia/Sunni/Kurdi states. These states would be under the umbrella of a weak federal government. Federalism means strong states, weak central government. As I understand it, all the Senators are saying is this: we think we should go ahead and divide Iraq into these states sooner rather than later. There is some opposition to this resolution because there is a set of politicians that believes that any drastic change in Iraq right now, while THE SURGE is still ongoing, represents some kind of surrender or pull-out.

In any event, the Dems wanted to bring both to a vote last night but there was a filibuster, more or less, on the Biden federalism resolution, meaning Repubs were blocking it from coming to a vote. So the Dem leadership responded by saying, Fine, then no vote on Kyl/Lieberman.