Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am honored to be here today. In a few hours, we will have achieved something truly great as a nation. Our first African American President has nominated the first Hispanic Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Times are changing.

If there are two words that sum up this nomination, it is these: ``It's time.'' It is time that we confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court who will improve its diversity. It is time that we confirm a moderate nominee to the Supreme Court who will pull it back into the mainstream and away from the extreme. It is time we confirm a nominee whose life story, personal history, intelligence, and experience represent the best America has to offer.

Judge Sotomayor's story is a true American story, a true New York story, and a great story. When Sonia Sotomayor was growing up, the Nancy Drew stories inspired her sense of adventure, developed her sense of justice, and showed her that women could and should be outspoken and bold. Now, in 2009, there are many more role models for a young student from her alma mater, Cardinal Spellman, to choose from, with Judge Sotomayor foremost among them.

If one listened to the debate over the last 2 days, one could easily think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not talking about the same person we are. Those who are voting for Judge Sotomayor's confirmation have focused, as they should, on her history and her record. Judge Sotomayor was a prosecutor and a commercial litigator. She was nominated to the district court bench by a Republican President. Her record shows she is a true moderate. She has agreed with her Republican colleagues 95 percent of the time. She has ruled for the government and against the immigrant petitioner in 83 percent of immigration cases. She has denied race claims in 83 percent of race cases. All of these numbers place her squarely in the middle of the judges on her circuit.

But my Republican colleagues have chosen instead to focus on the speeches she has given outside the courtroom. They have zeroed in on a few choice quotes we have heard over and over again about the ``wise Latina woman'' quote. Is this the same person who has sat on 3,000 cases in 17 years, who ruled against Hispanic and African American plaintiffs in a wide variety of cases, and who ruled in favor of a police officer who engaged in blatantly racist speech because the first amendment protected him? Should three words outweigh 3,000 cases? Only if you have something against her in the first place.

``Bias'' and ``activism'' are now code words for ``not hard right.'' My colleagues say they don't want activist judges. What they really mean is they don't want judges who disagree with them and who put rule of law ahead of moving America in ideological directions.

We must and will continue to fight for mainstream judges. We must and will continue to free our unelected branch of government from ideologues and result-oriented extremism.

With the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, we have an opportunity to restore faith in the notion that the Court should reflect the same mainstream ideals that are embraced by America.

Judge Sotomayor is clearly a moderate. She is highly qualified. She is extremely intelligent. She represents the American ideal that at the end of the day, race and ethnicity and class aren't supposed to predetermine anything; through hard work and a good education, a girl from a Bronx housing project can rise to the highest Court in the most democratic country in the world.

I am so proud to cast my vote for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Bennett to recognize the 25th anniversary of the Senate Employees' Child Care Center's founding and to congratulate the SECCC on its many years of service to the Senate.

The original families and those who have followed share many memories of their experiences with the SECCC. They recall the development of a playground in what is now Senate Parking Lot 19; the center's role in the creation of the congressional holiday ornaments; the day the children watched as the sculpture Mountains and Clouds was installed in the Hart atrium; and the annual Fourth of July parade, with the children dressed in red, white and blue as they march from the child care center to the Hart Office Building. Most important, they speak of the growth and development of their children.

The Senate is well served by the Senate Employees' Child Care Center and the staff members who work there. I want to thank the center for its 25 years of service to the Senate.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in wholehearted support of the historic nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to become an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have two words to summarize my feelings about this nomination: It's time. It is time we have a nominee to the Supreme Court whose record has proven to be truly mainstream. It is time we have a nominee with practical experience in all levels of the justice system, whose upbringing in a Bronx housing project, whose experience as a prosecutor, litigator, and district court judge has enabled her to see, as she said in her own statement, ``the human consequences'' of her decisions. And it is time that we have a nominee who is Hispanic, a member of the fastest growing population in America. Finally, it is time that we have a frank discussion about what is preventing so many colleagues on the other side of the aisle from supporting Judge Sotomayor.

In short, this is the time, and it is time. It is time we have a moderate nominee. It is time we have someone with a great family history, an American family history. It is time we confirm the first Hispanic Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Let's start with Judge Sotomayor's record, which is most important. Several of my Republican colleagues said, as they cast their votes against her in the Judiciary Committee, that they did not know what kind of Supreme Court Justice they might be getting in Judge Sotomayor. I find this conclusion to be confounding. Judge Sotomayor is hardly a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma. No matter what cross section we take of her extensive record, down to examining individual cases, we see someone who has never expressed any desire or intention to overturn existing precedent, nor have my colleagues been able to point to any such case.

Instead, we see someone who lets the facts of each case guide her to the correct application of the law. We see someone who does not put her thumb on the scales of justice for either side, even if any sentient human being would want to reach a different result for a sympathetic plaintiff.

We know more about Judge Sotomayor than we have known about any nominee in 100 years. The 30,000-foot view of her record, gleaned from numerous studies about the way she has ruled in cases for 17 years--and that is the best way to tell how a judge is going to be, to look at their previous cases--when you look at those cases, it tells plenty about her moderation.

She has agreed with her Republican colleagues 95 percent of the time. She has ruled for the government in 83 percent of immigration cases, presumably against the immigrant. She has ruled for the government in 92 percent of criminal cases, against the criminal. She has denied race claims in 83 percent of cases. She has split evenly in a variety of employment cases.

No matter how we slice and dice these cases, we come up with the same conclusion about her moderation.

Within the category of criminal cases she decided, she ruled for the government 87 percent of the time in fourth amendment cases. This is important because the fourth amendment is an area where decisions are highly fact based and judges have discretion to decide when police have overstepped their bounds in executing searches and seizures. But she has not abused this discretion. In the overwhelming number of cases, she sides with the government, deciding each case carefully based on the facts before her.

Let's also look further at her immigration asylum cases. There she ruled for the government, against the petitioner for asylum, in 83 percent of the cases. That is also telling of her modulated approach to judging. Asylum law, as her colleague Judge Newman has pointed out, gives judges a great deal of discretion to decide who can be granted asylum to stay in the United States. Judge Sotomayor has not abused this discretion a jot.

Given her upbringing in a Hispanic neighborhood of the Bronx, we might expect that her personal background would make her more, to borrow a term, empathetic to an immigrant seeking asylum. But the cases show that any perceived empathy did not affect her results. In fact, her 83-percent record puts her right in the middle of judges in her circuit.

Even in the realm of sports cases, which are always contentious and closely watched, Judge Sotomayor has shown her evenhandedness. She ruled for the professional football league in an antitrust case brought by a player and against Major League Baseball when she ruled for the players and ended the baseball strike.

I can go on. Judge Sotomayor voted to deny the victims of TWA flight 800 crash a more generous recovery because that was ``clearly a legislative policy choice, which should not be made by the courts.'' If you have empathy, you certainly are going to decide with the victims. I met some of their families. She did not. The law did not allow her.

Judge Sotomayor ruled against an African-American couple who claimed they were bumped from a flight because of their race. Again, against a couple, a case called King, that said they were racially discriminated against. She did not think the facts merited their suit.

Judge Sotomayor rejected the claims of a disabled Black woman who said she was unfairly denied accommodations that were provided to White employees.

My Republican colleagues did not ask her about these cases. Instead, they looked at her speeches, not her cases, and decided that Judge Sotomayor believed it was the proper role of the court of appeals to make policy, and they condemned her roundly for this view.

Then they criticized her for not making policy in cases where they disagreed with the outcome. This occurred in three cases--in Ricci, which involved the New Haven firefighters, a second amendment case, and a case involving property rights. I guess from the point of view of my Republican colleagues, judicial policy making is a bad thing except when it is not.

In each of these three cases they criticized, where they criticized the short opinions which she did not even write for herself, they said the ruling showed she was unable or unwilling to grapple with major constitutional issues. But in each of these cases, Judge Sotomayor agreed with the other two members of her court that the second circuit or Supreme Court precedents squarely dictated the result. There was no need for a fuller explanation. In fact, second circuit rules forbade panels from revisiting squarely divided precedents. In other words, in these cases, she was avoiding making policies. The cases were governed by the precedents. She was bound. They were decided by settled law. It was just the fact my friends across the aisle do not like what the settled law was. So we are getting awfully close to a double standard here.

In Ricci, they wanted her to overturn the second circuit discrimination law. And in the gun case, they wanted her to ignore a 100-year-old precedent that governs how the second amendment is applied to the States.

In the property rights case, they wanted her to ignore the law that governed the statute of limitations.

My colleagues asked Judge Sotomayor about an EPA case. In that case, she ruled the EPA had mistakenly considered a certain factor in deciding whether a company had used the ``best technology available'' to clean water. Even though she gave deference to EPA's interpretation of the law, Judge Sotomayor ruled against the government.

Yet, my friend, Senator Sessions of Alabama, stated that one of his reasons for opposing Judge Sotomayor is that she exhibits liberal progovernment ideology. It appears that being progovernment is a bad thing, except when it is not.

Let's talk about her answers to questions. Some of my friends on both sides of the aisle have said Supreme Court nominees need to be more forthcoming during the confirmation process. They fear that the hearings have become a little more than a choreographed Kabuki dance in which, as Senator Specter observed some time ago, nominees answered just enough questions to get confirmed.

I have shared this concern as well. It is too easy for a candidate who wishes to hide his or her ideology to decline to answer questions, to submit to cautious coaching, and to offer meaningless platitudes-- promises that they would keep an open mind, respect the law, give everyone an equal chance. Of course, they would.

Candidates with little to hide, not surprisingly, have answered more questions than stealth nominees who have truly been outside the mainstream. Examples of candidates who had nothing up their sleeves and answered questions in a straightforward manner include Judge Stephen Breyer in 1994. He answered the question posed by Senator Hatch: ``Do you believe that Washington v. Davis is settled law; and second, do you believe it was correctly decided?'' And then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg--despite criticisms that she begged off too many questions-- answered questions about abortion precedent and Casey.

Justices Alito and Roberts, in stark contrast, declined to answer question after question after question. Then-Judge Roberts would not answer the most basic questions about settled commerce clause jurisprudence. Then-Judge Alito would not say whether he thought the constitutional right to privacy included the holding of Roe.

I think we can see now, and I will discuss this in more detail, that this was part of a strategy to play an ideological shell game.

Now we are presented with a candidate whose views are truly moderate, as proven through the most copious records in 100 years. Nonetheless, my friend, Senator Grassley, of Iowa believes that ``Judge Sotomayor's performance at her Judiciary Committee hearing left me with more questions than answers.'' I have to respectfully disagree.

But Judge Sotomayor, again, in addition to her full and transparent record, proved in her answers that she is not a stealth candidate. On abortion and the holding of Roe, when asked by Senator Franken: ``Do you believe that this right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion?'' Judge Sotomayor answered clearly and to the point: ``The Court has said in many cases--and as I think has been repeated in the Court's jurisprudence in Casey--that there is a right to privacy that women have with respect to the determination of their pregnancies in certain situations.'' Clear. To the point.

When then-Judge Roberts was asked this question, he replied:

Well, I feel I need to stay away from a discussion of

particular cases. I'm happy to discuss the principles of

stare decisis, and the Court has developed a series of

precedents on precedent, if you will. They have a number of

cases talking about how this principle should be applied.

So who spoke clearly to the question? If you don't believe Judge Sotomayor did, how could you vote for Judge Roberts?

On property rights, when asked by Senator Grassley about her understanding of the Court's holding in Kelo, Judge Sotomayor explained fully her understanding of the Court's holding, and there is a quote. When asked about his view of Kelo, then-Judge Alito declined to discuss the case. There are many more examples of how Judge Sotomayor answered questions about existing cases in much fuller detail

than the past two nominees and certainly about the key cases--property rights and abortion--which we debate, as we should, in this body.

As I said at the outset, it is time. It is time for a searching examination of why some of my colleagues are still determined to vote against Judge Sotomayor. She has a remarkably moderate record, she is highly qualified, she answers questions, and she is a historic choice who will expand the diversity of the Court.

What nominee of President Obama's would my Republican colleagues vote for--one who would have reached out and found that the right to bear arms should be incorporated to apply to the States, despite 100-year- old precedent to the contrary; one who would have ignored the Second Circuit precedent and prohibited the city of New Haven from trying to fix a promotional exam to give minorities a better chance at advancement; one who declined to answer questions about existing precedence? In other words, an activist who was intent on changing the law?

Of course, we now turn to the last refuge of objection to Judge Sotomayor: her statements outside the courtroom. I have always been a strong advocate of the principle that we consider carefully each nominee's entire record, including speeches and other judicial writings. But Judge Sotomayor is different than most because she has an enormous judicial record to review and consider. She is not a stealth candidate. There is a push and pull here in terms of what is important to evaluate with respect to each individual nominee. With 17 years of judicial opinions, 30 panel opinions, and 3,000 cases in total, how much emphasis should we put on the three words ``wise Latina woman,'' whether we disagree with them or not?

I would submit the answer should be, compared to her copious record, not much. Nonetheless, by my count, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle asked no fewer than 17 questions about her ``wise Latina woman'' comment. In contrast, they asked questions of about 6--6--of Judge Sotomayor's cases over the course of the 3 days; 6 cases out of 3,000 in 17 years of judging.

I don't agree with this approach to analyzing her record. Nonetheless, I agree with my colleague, Senator Graham--who is voting for her after engaging in arguably the most searching examination of her speeches--that we are entitled to know who we are getting as a nation. He is absolutely right. Certainly it is appropriate to look at her speeches, but let us give them proper weight and proper context.

And let us be clear about another thing: Judge Sotomayor is no Robert Bork. She is no Judge Roberts or Judge Alito. She has not made comments outside the courtroom that indicate her strong views on abortion or her views that the power of Congress must be severely curtailed or that a substantial body of first amendment jurisprudence should be overturned. Again, if the standard is extrajudicial statements, my colleagues seem to be using a different standard for Judge Sotomayor than the standard they used for judges such as Roberts, Alito, and Thomas.

But let me give my friends some reassurance. The proof is in the pudding. Judge Sotomayor is and always has been a moderate judge. Similar to many judges across the country, she has remained neutral in race cases, in spite of her race; in gender cases in spite of her gender; in first amendment cases in spite of racist and repugnant speakers. The scales of justice in her courtroom are not weighted.

Let me now conclude by discussing the precedent set by past nominations--more broadly, where I think my colleagues are headed and where we ought to be going instead. In 2001, I wrote an op-ed arguing that we need to take ideology into account when evaluating judges. I wrote that op-ed because I was astounded by the nominees President Bush's administration was sending to the Senate.

The conservative movement had captured Congress and the White House for the first time. But even though conservatives--strong conservatives, hard-right conservatives--controlled these two branches, the hard right was not able to move the country as far to the right as they had hoped. So they turned to the judiciary. They couldn't do it with the President, even though they had elected him. They couldn't do it with the House or the Senate, even though, again, the hard right had predominated. So they turned to the one unelected branch--the judiciary--to advance the agenda they weren't able to move through the democratically elected branches of government.

The Bush administration complied with the hard right and nominated judges who were so far out of the mainstream it would have been irresponsible for us to confirm them blindly. So we asked them questions about their judicial philosophy and their ideology, and our questions were not met with thorough answers or with a demonstrated record of mainstream judging but with banalities or even obstinate silence.

If we tried to rank the ideology of nominees on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being all the way to the right, such as Judge Thomas, and 10 being all the way to the left, such as Justice Brennan, I think the Bush nominees to the Supreme Court and court of appeals were almost exclusively 1's and 2's--way over. If you looked at President Clinton's nominees, they were somewhat left of center. But not much, mainly sixes and sevens--prosecutors, partners in law firms--not lawyers who had spent their careers in activist causes.

President Obama has taken a different approach. He is trying to return the Court to the middle, to the pre-Bush days, the days of having judges who may not be exactly what the right wants in a judge or even what the left--the far left--wants in a judge. We are returning to the days where judges were fives and sixes and sevens--maybe fours. They were squarely in the mainstream. We are returning to the days when judges put the rule of law first.

Somehow my Republican colleagues are aghast. The only judges they seem to want to vote for are ones and twos--judges who are on the hard right. The President is not going to nominate judges who have that view. After all, elections do matter.

My colleagues say they do not want activist judges. What they mean is they do not want judges who will put the rule of law first. They only want judges who will impose their own ultraconservative views. An activist now seems to be not someone who respects the rule of law but someone who is not hard right. If you are mainstream, even though you are interpreting the law, you are an activist because you will not turn the clock back.

We must and will continue to fight for mainstream judges.

I have heard some say this fight isn't about Judge Sotomayor, given her proven record of mainstream judging and fidelity to the law. These commentators argue that Republicans are laying down their marker for President Obama's next nominee. I don't know who that nominee will be, but I am confident it will be a qualified candidate who is significantly more in the mainstream, if you take the mainstream being the actual place where the middle of America is--more in the mainstream than Justices Thomas or Scalia or Roberts or Alito or some of the nominations we considered under the Bush administration, such as Miguel Estrada or Janice Rogers Brown or Charles Pickering. I am confident the next nominee will be consistent with the nominees President Obama has been sending us--moderate, mainstream, and rule of law.

At one point, the Republican Party argued for precedent and for strict construction because they wanted to push back on certain new precedents they thought were beyond the Constitution--precedents such as Roe and Miranda. But things have changed. Americans have accepted Roe and Americans have accepted Miranda. Now my colleagues want to change the law, so they have changed their methodology without changing the nomenclature. They still call judges activist, even though they want to stick to established law. I think it is a shame.

It is a shame that some of my colleagues can't put aside their own personal ideology and vote for a judge whom they might not have chosen but who is unquestionably mainstream. It is a shame we will not have the kind of nearly unanimous vote in favor of this nominee that judges on both sides of the aisle--from Justice Ginsburg to Justice Scalia-- have received in the past. I think it is a shame the debate about this historic nomination has

been distilled to disputes over snippets of speeches.

But we are not going to let that stop the national pride we take in this moment. We are not going to let it stop us from confirming, by a broad and bipartisan margin, Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the first Hispanic Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In conclusion, as John Adams said: ``We are a Nation of laws, not of men.'' But if the law were just words on parchment, it would never evolve to reflect our own changing society. ``Separate but equal'' would never have been understood to be ``inherently unequal.'' Equality for women would never have been viewed as guaranteed under the Constitution's promise of equal protection under law. In fact, the second amendment might never have been viewed to extend beyond the right to possess a front-loading musket to defend, in a militia, against an occupying force.

With the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, we have an opportunity--a noble opportunity--to restore faith in the notion that the courts should reflect the same mainstream ideals that are embraced by America. Our independent judiciary has served as a beacon of justice for the rest of the world. Our system of checks and balances is the envy of every freedom-seeking nation. As I look at the arc of Judge Sotomayor's life, her record, and these hearings, I am confident we are getting a Justice who both reflects American values and who will serve them.

I yield the floor.

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

First, let me compliment my colleague from Connecticut for his great leadership on the issue of health care. As the acting head of the HELP Committee, he has done a great job on a bill that has garnered wide support and praise from the one end of the country to the other. So I salute him for his work and his diligence.

I rise today to speak in support of the critical resources provided in the Energy and Water bill, the bill we are debating, for Federal hydrogen and fuel cell research technology which will give America's automotive industry a much needed shot in the arm that it needs to revitalize and compete in the global market for fuel-efficient vehicles.

In June, I joined a bipartisan coalition of 17 Senators, and we wrote to protect the funding for this critical technology after hearing that the administration had significantly cut the budget for hydrogen research.

I generally agree with the administration on energy policy, but in this area, they are wrong. Hydrogen research is one of our futures. As a result, I thank Chairman Dorgan for helping. The fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water appropriations bill contains $190 million in much needed investment in hydrogen technology and fuel research and development. The $190 million that is included in the bill for hydrogen technology and fuel cell research is $37 million more than the House appropriations bill.

It is my hope that some of this money, particularly given the fact that we have added extra money, will go to the General Motors Honeoye Falls, NY, fuel cell facility. It has the potential to create 400 clean energy jobs. The facility is ideally situated to play a leadership role in transforming this technology into reliable and affordable options for all American drivers.

The bottom line is, the facility at Honeoye Falls is the only GM hydrogen fuel cell research facility in North America. There will not be another facility with its potential or progress. It is one of only four facilities in the world that can go from research to application in fuel cell development, and the only one in America. There is one in Germany and there are two in Japan.

If we are going to abandon this vital area of research, several years from now it will create real problems for our automobile companies which we hope can get back on their feet.

This is the only facility in the United States that can go directly from science to vehicle, as it did for General Motors in Project Driveway, where at Honeoye Falls the researchers there developed, designed, and engineered GM's Equinox fuel cell fleet. As I said, these are good-paying jobs in the Rochester area. Honeoye Falls is a suburb of Rochester where we desperately need jobs and have a great educated workforce. It will keep us globally competitive with Japan and Germany, which are ahead of us in fuel cell development and infrastructure-- something we cannot afford. At Honeoye Falls, zero tailpipe emissions and research, development, and engineering are all under one roof and are an American treasure.

Let me now talk a little more generally, not simply about Honeoye Falls but about hydrogen fuel research and the need for us to move forward.

As the United States forges a global relationship role in the development of new energy ideas and initiatives, it is critical that we protect the areas where we are already leading the competition. That includes hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. Any compromise in our Nation's investment in this cutting-edge area of research will diminish our accomplishments to date, hamper our ability to compete with other nations, and hamper the ability of companies such as General Motors and Chrysler to come back and be at the competitive edge. We have come too far to close the door on this important research, only to hand over the gains we have made to other nations such as Japan and Germany. By cutting this kind of research, by not funding Honeoye Falls, we would do just that.

In confronting the daunting challenge of climate change and dependance on foreign oil from dangerous areas of the world, we need to have all of the tools in our arsenal to achieve our long-term goals. No one should question the fact that hydrogen technology has a clear and important role to play.

As we all know, hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. We are never going to run out of it. Fuel cell vehicles are gasoline free, representing a dramatic opportunity to break from our current addiction to foreign oil. And fuel cell vehicles are emission free.

The National Research Council found that fuel cell vehicle technology should be a necessary part of our energy portfolio for achieving the target of 80 percent global greenhouse reduction in 2050. In fact, it is hard to see, if we do not do this, how we will meet that goal. That is an important goal.

In short, cars running on hydrogen have the potential to revolutionize on-road transportation, change our everyday travel experience, and clean up our environment by eliminating tailpipe emissions. Our Nation's automotive companies have made significant strides in meeting or exceeding the administration's interim goals for fuel cell cost, but they still have much work to do.

Meanwhile, while the United States--and I have just seen the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee come on the floor, and I salute him for understanding the need for hydrogen fuel cells. As I said, this is one area where the administration has a hard-to-explain blindspot.

While we are twiddling our thumbs in this area, debating whether we should fund it, other countries understand the importance of this technology and are aggressively moving ahead to develop hydrogen vehicles. By protecting our Nation's investment in this program, we can protect our current leadership position and develop hydrogen and fuel cells on a faster timeline than competing nations. The alternative--to abandon a promising technology and allow our work to be the foundation of our competitors' success--is not acceptable.

In conclusion, I hope this legislation, with its increase in hydrogen fuel cell funding, passes. I hope that in its wisdom the Energy Department will understand the necessity of continuing the research at Honeoye Falls and fund it accordingly.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so we can call up amendment No. 1764.

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

I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 5 minutes of the 15; Senator Bennett, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, be given 5 minutes; and Senator Chambliss be given 5 minutes, divided that way.

I rise to talk about Amendment No. 1764, called the MOVE Act, The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009. I first wish to thank my colleague, Senator Bennett, for his hard work. He was indispensable in getting this done, as were Senator Chambliss and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Cornyn, who had previous legislation that was similar. I also wish to thank the Chairman, Senator Levin, as well as Senator McCain, for helping us.

The MOVE Act is a bipartisanship solution to a serious, yet all too familiar, problem. The bottom line is, our soldiers overseas have a very difficult time in voting. With the MOVE Act, with 58 cosponsors, we can tackle this problem head on and make voting for our military overseas men and women easier.

We chaired a hearing in the Rules Committee that brought up the problems, and they are shocking. The bottom line is very simple. If you are in the military, it is very difficult to comply with State registration laws. You have to go through two post offices, military mail, and then the regular post office. There is no availability of notaries. Many States require notaries.

There is also the problem, of course, that you have to do everything, by many State laws, by mail. And the mail takes forever when you are overseas.

Couple that with the fact that for absentee voting, which by definition these voters have to use, there are serious deadlines. All too often our soldiers get their absentee ballot after the deadline has passed to send them in. All too often, even more frequently, the voting ballot does not arrive by the deadline the State has set.

So these are serious problems. The bottom line is, with technology, they all could be overcome. We have faxes, we have e-mails, we have computers, and we do not use them for our soldiers overseas. They can risk their lives for us, we can at least allow them to vote. They take orders from the Commander in Chief. They are the first people who ought to be allowed to elect and vote for a Commander in Chief.

If we can deploy tanks and high-tech equipment and food to the frontlines, we can figure out a way to deliver ballots to our troops so they can be returned and counted. That is what the MOVE Act does, correcting the many

flaws that riddle absentee ballots for overseas voting.

The numbers are very troubling. More than a quarter of all ballots either come in too late or are not counted. That is a serious problem. When our soldiers who have so much else on their minds go out of their way to get the absentee ballot cast, then it is not counted. That is frustrating. That is wrong. That is not American.

So our bill--and the details are available in the Record--deals with that issue. One soldier sent to the Overseas Vote Foundation a letter which said: ``I hate that because of my military service from overseas, I was precluded from voting.''

That soldier continues: ``Of all people, deployed servicemembers should have a guaranteed ability to vote.'' That sums it up. That sums it up.

The MOVE Act will ensure it by allowing ballots to be sent electronically, dealing with the time gaps and all the other problems we face. It is bipartisan. Again, both Senator Bennett and I on the Rules Committee support it. Senator Chambliss and Senator Ben Nelson, who have done such a good job, are the cosponsors of this legislation. We can finally solve this problem, which is unacceptable, by moving this legislation.

I ask my colleagues, how can a marine in Fallujah find a notary? Why are we making things so hard? How can somebody who goes out of his or her way to cast a ballot have that ballot not counted? This legislation solves the problem in a fair, measured way that is cognizant of the rights of States to set the voting laws as they wish. I hope we will have unanimous support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will note that this amendment passed unanimously out of the Committee on Rules, which has joint jurisdiction, last week.

I yield back all remaining time.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1564

Mr. President, I thank all my colleagues who are working with us on this amendment. The Senator from California, who will speak after me, has been such a leader on these issues. She and I were commenting that this is probably the most dangerous piece of legislation to the safety of Americans when it comes to guns since the repeal of the assault weapons ban, which she led the charge on to pass. I thank my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who has been a leader on gun issues and has done such a great job; also, Senator Menendez, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Durbin, and so many others who

are working with us today on this issue.

Today we are here to urge all our colleagues to oppose this legislation. The legislation would do nothing less than take State and local gun laws and tear them up. It would take the carefully crafted gun laws in New York and tear them up. It would do the same in 47 other States.

The great irony of this amendment is that the pro-gun lobby has always said: Let the States decide. Now they are doing a 180-degree turn and saying: Let the Federal Government decide and impose the lowest common denominator, when it comes to carrying concealed weapons, on all the States, except Illinois and Wisconsin which do not have any carry laws.

We know the gun lobby is strong. We know there are many Members on both sides of the aisle who believe strongly in an individual's right to carry arms. But this legislation goes way beyond the previous pro- gun laws we have voted on this session. It is a bridge too far. It threatens the safety of millions of Americans, particularly in urban and suburban areas. It directly threatens the safety of millions of New Yorkers. Let me illustrate.

Our neighboring State of Vermont--it is a beautiful State; I have great respect for it and its two Senators--is a rural State. It has a strong libertarian belief, and it has a very lenient concealed carry law. The Vermont law says that if you are 16 years of age, you can apply for a gun license and you automatically get a concealed carry permit and you get the gun. That is all you have to do.

Can you imagine if this law passed what would happen? Known gun runners would go to Vermont, get a gun license, get a concealed carry permit, and they could get 20, 30, 50 guns concealed in a backpack, in a suitcase, and bring them and sell them on the streets of the south Bronx or central Brooklyn, bring them to Central Park or Queens, and our local police would have their hands tied.

One of the points I would like to make to my colleagues about this amendment is it endangers not only the citizenry but our police officers. Today, at about this time, the mayor of the city of New York and our police commissioner will be speaking out against this proposal. Our police commissioner is particularly upset because his job is the safety of police officers. When a police officer stops someone in a car, they now have the safety and sanctity of mind to know that if that person has a gun in their car, it has been approved by the New York City Police Department. There are people who need to carry guns for self-defense or other purposes. After this law passes, they have no such peace of mind, no such safety. Imagine you are a police officer and you stop someone. They could be from 47 different States with 47 different requirements, and you are responsible to figure out if that person has a gun in his car and has the right to carry a gun in his car. It is impossible to do in our larger urban areas.

For that reason, each State has carefully crafted its concealed carry laws in a way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large urban areas, such as New York, merit different standards than rural areas, such as Wyoming. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we have had in reducing crime in most parts of America.

That is one point I wish to stress. One of the things I am proudest of, what our government has done over the last 20 years--Federal, State, local--is greatly reduce crime. My city of New York gained 1 million people, I think, in large part because people were no longer afraid to come and live in New York. If you ask the experts--not me, not Senator Thune, not any of us who have political beliefs that might differ--ask the police experts: What is one of the top reasons we have been able to reduce crime in our cities, it is that we have had reasonable laws on guns, and we have allowed our larger urban, more crime-ridden areas to have stricter laws than our rural areas.

I understand in my State of New York that guns are a way of life in large parts of the State, and I respect that. The Heller decision is a decision I welcomed. I talked about the right to bear arms in the Constitution. I believed in it even before Heller. But you know--and this is what I would like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and in the NRA--no amendment is absolute. You are right when you say: Why should the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments be expanded as far as we can and the second amendment be seen through a pinhole of militias? You are right. But similarly, no amendment is absolute.

Most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support laws preventing the spread of pornography. That is an infringement of the first amendment but a reasonable one because there is a balancing test. Most of my friends on both sides of the aisle would support libel laws. If somebody says something very defamatory about a citizen, they should have the right to sue, of course. That is a limitation on the first amendment. We don't rail against it.

The concealed carry laws of the States are reasonable limits on the second amendment. If you are to believe the second amendment should have no limits, of course, you would vote for this amendment. But then I ask you the contrary question that some who are pro-gun ask those of us who believe in more gun control. How is it that the second amendment should have no limits but the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth should have limits? Of course, if reasonable limits in a balancing test exist, and if there is any balancing test that makes sense, it is the one of allowing each State to come up with its concealed carry law.

I don't think this is an amendment of which anyone can be proud. I understand the power of the gun lobby. I understand we have different beliefs and represent different States. But we are not trying to say what South Dakota should do. Why should South Dakota say what New York or California should do?

When I spoke--and I have great respect for the sponsor of this amendment--when we were speaking in the gym yesterday morning, he said one of the problems he hears about in his area--and I understand it--is a truckdriver in the cab of his truck carries a gun and is allowed to carry a gun. Why should that truckdriver, when he crosses State lines, goes from South Dakota to North Dakota, be limited? I can understand that argument. But this amendment goes way beyond that. It doesn't talk about one weapon. It doesn't talk about a person who has been granted a license because he needs it for protection as he commerces across State lines. It is unlimited based on whatever the lowest common denominator State would do.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 30 seconds to ask the Senator a question.

Mr. President, I intend to speak on the Thune amendment and was scheduled to speak in the next few minutes. If it is OK with the floor leaders, if my colleague will speak for a brief amount of time, I am happy to go after him. It is up to the floor managers.

Mr. President, if my colleague needs 5 minutes, I am happy to yield to him, if I would come after that. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Mr. President, I know we are not now on the Thune amendment. I know we have gone aside to other amendments and that we will be debating Thune tomorrow morning, but there are so many of my colleagues who want to speak, and I have a lot to say. So I will speak for 5 minutes tomorrow morning, but I will give the bulk of my speech this afternoon.

Mr. President, I rise in staunch opposition to the Thune amendment. I believe it is a dangerous amendment that would go far beyond authorizing gun possession for self-defense and not only create a serious threat to public safety but also severely undercut American federalism.

Amendment No. 1618, authored by Senator Thune, would force States and localities from across the Nation to permit individuals from other States to carry hidden and loaded handguns in public, even where the elected representatives of those States have chosen to bar these persons from possessing firearms. The legislation would require every State with concealed carry legislation to honor concealed carry licenses issued by any other State so long as they abide by the State's location restrictions for concealed carry.

This amendment is a bridge too far and could endanger the safety of millions of Americans. Each State has carefully crafted its concealed carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. It is obvious what is good for the safety of people in New York City or Philadelphia or Chicago or Miami or Los Angeles is not the same thing that is needed in rural Idaho or rural Tennessee. Yet this amendment, in one fell swoop, says the protections some States feel they need to protect law enforcement, to protect its citizenry, would be wiped away.

The amendment will incite the dangerous race to the bottom in our Nation's gun laws. Let's examine the lineup of people who could carry concealed weapons in 48 States under this amendment. And I don't disparage each State for doing what it wants within its own borders, but why impose that on States outside their borders?

Arizona law allows a concealed carry permit to be issued to an applicant who is a known alcoholic. So alcoholics would be in the lineup. They could carry a concealed weapon in States outside of Arizona simply because Arizona allowed them to do so.

Texas, which is one of the top 10 sources of guns recovered in crimes in New York City, a city in which I reside, is obliged to issue a permit to a person who has been convicted repeatedly of illegally carrying a handgun. Therefore, we can place arms traffickers in this lineup.

Mississippi law leaves access to concealed carry permits for members of hate groups.

Alaska and Vermont allow adult residents of their States to carry a concealed weapon without a license or background check as long as they are allowed to possess a gun, even if they have committed violent misdemeanors, have committed misdemeanor sex offenses against minors or are dangerously mentally ill and have been voluntarily committed to a mental institution.

Again, each State has its own views. The State of Vermont is a beautiful State. It is different from New York State in many ways, and the laws that fit for Vermont don't necessarily fit for New York.

A 17-year-old Crip or Blood from New York--a member of a gang; dangerous, maybe violent--could head to Vermont, obtain a Vermont driver's license, buy a gun, and return to New York or he could buy a whole bunch of guns and return to New York. When law enforcement stops him, a loaded gun tucked in his pants or a whole bunch of guns in his backpack, all he would have to do is claim he is a Vermonter visiting New York, show his Vermont ID, and the New York Police Department would be unable to stop him. This runs shivers down the spines of New York police officers, of New York sheriffs, of New York law enforcement. And it doesn't just apply to New York. This could apply to any large State.

Imagine law enforcement stopping one of these characters with a backpack full of guns--a known member of a major gang--and having to let them go. Imagine how empowered gun smugglers and traffickers would feel. Their business would boom. These are people who make money by selling guns illegally to people who are convicted felons. They could go to the State with the weakest laws, get a concealed carry permit--if that State allowed it, and in all likelihood it might--and then start bringing concealed guns into neighboring States and States across the country. Their business would boom, but our safety would be impaired. Imagine routine traffic stops turned into potential shootouts.

Police officers in New York have the safety and the peace of mind in knowing that the only people who might legally have a gun are those who have been approved by the police department. That is how we do it in a city such as New York. We have had our problems with crime. Thank God it is much lower now, due to the great work of the New York City police. But now they would be totally unprepared, walking on tiptoe. And if the criminal simply said: I am from this State--wow. I shudder at the thought.

Beyond the very real threat this poses to law enforcement and the safety of our police officers and the safety of our citizens, it would create a logistical nightmare. A police officer making a stop of a car would have to have in front of him or her the laws of all 45 States that now allow or whose residents would now be allowed or even whose people had gotten carry permits who would now be allowed to carry concealed weapons in New York.

What about States rights? I have not been on the side--it is obvious--of the gun lobby for as many years as I have been here in the House and Senate. I have always believed, though, there is a right to bear arms and that it is unfair to say the second amendment should be seen through a pinhole and the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments should be seen broadly. I don't think that is fair.

But every amendment has limitations. Through the years when I have been involved in this issue, the NRA and other gun groups have argued, frankly, that the States ought to make their own decisions. All of a sudden we see a 180-degree hairpin turn. Now they are saying that the States cannot make their own decisions. Why is it that every other issue should be resolved by the States except this one? The amendment flies in the very face of States rights arguments and takes away citizens' rights to govern themselves.

I say to my colleagues who have laws and citizenry who probably want the laws not drawn as tightly as my State, if you open up this door, one day you will regret it. Because if you say that the Federal Government should decide what law governs, you are taking away States' right to govern themselves.

In the 1990s, after the passage of the Brady Act, the National Rifle Association funded multiple legal challenges to it, citing the 10th amendment, that the right to bear arms therefore resided in the States. Indeed, Mary Sue Falkner, who was then a spokesman for the NRA, said at the time:

This is not a case about firearms per se, but about whether

the Federal Government can force States and local governments

against their will to carry out Federal mandates.

Similarly, in reference to Brady, the NRA's chief lobbyist said that the Federal Government was getting too much involved in State affairs.

The gun lobby's rallying cry has always been, ``Let each State decide.'' But with this amendment, again, a 180-degree flip.

Clearly, large urban areas merit a different standard than rural areas. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It is wrong to take away any State's rights to make decisions about what can make a resident safer. A one-size-fits-all approach to community safety leads us down a very precarious road.

Make no mistake, this is a serious amendment. It is, even though not the intention of the author, a dangerous amendment. There will be needless suffering, injuries, and deaths if this amendment is agreed to.

I talked to my colleague Senator Thune. We are friends. We saw each other in the gym this morning. He said to me: What about truckdrivers who have the gun in the cab of their truck and ride across State lines? I am sympathetic to that. I supported laws that allow police officers in New York to carry their gun when they cross over into New Jersey to shop or whatever. But you do not need this law to deal with that problem, because it creates so many other issues. There are ways we can deal with the problem that the Senator from South Dakota brought up

to me in the gym this morning, without decimating State laws that protect individual safety.

Make no mistake about it, this amendment would affect every State in the country, but I do not see the Governors on board. It would affect every city in the country. I don't see the mayors on board. It would affect every county in the country, but I don't see the sheriffs on board. It would affect every town in the country, but I don't see police chiefs on board.

Before we rush to judgment, shouldn't we ask our Governors, our mayors, our sheriffs, our police chiefs if this will make our communities safer or less safe? If this will put the men and women, the brave men and women who defend us and protect us on police forces, in jeopardy? Why don't we seek their guidance?

I urge my colleagues to give thoughtful and careful consideration to the consequences of the Thune amendment. I believe if they do, they will vote against it tomorrow at noon.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to publicly thank the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police for their bravery and heroic work during a particularly challenging week. Last evening after attempting a routine traffic stop, an armed man opened fire at our officers. Despite the extreme danger, these officers reacted quickly and skillfully to ensure that the situation did not escalate and present danger to those in and around the U.S. Capitol. The officers who responded willingly put their lives on the line and we owe them our deepest thanks. My thoughts and prayers are with them and their families today.

We see the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police every day as we go about our business for the people of our home States. Tasked with protecting the iconic symbol of our democracy, the officers of the U.S. Capitol Police have shown a steadfast commitment to protecting us, our staff, our constituents, and visitors. The mission statement of the U.S. Capitol Police states their dedication to protecting ``the Congress, its legislative processes, Members, employees, visitors, and facilities from crime so it can fulfill its

constitutional responsibilities in a safe and open environment.''

I have no doubt in my mind that the Capitol Police has done just that in a manner that is nothing short of heroic.

The U.S. Capitol Police has faced every danger undeterred, ensuring that Congress and its mission can continue uninterrupted. Their courage, efficiency, and commitment allowed Congress to continue with its constitutional responsibilities. We could not do this without them. For this, and for our safety, all of us owe them a great debt of gratitude.

As we proceed today with the routine business of the Senate--floor consideration of the fiscal year 2010 Defense authorization bill, Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court nomination hearings and other myriad legislative tasks--all of us are able to breathe easily knowing that we are protected by such a dedicated and talented force.

Thank you again for all of your hard work and sacrifice.

Madam President, I rise in support of the vital legislation that is long overdue. More than a decade has passed since Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered. Yet the bill that bears his name is still not law.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act has broad bipartisan support here in the Senate, passed handily in the House, and has the unequivocal support of the President and the Attorney General. Indeed, Attorney General Holder recently told the Senate Judiciary Committee that passage of this legislation is one of ``his highest personal priorities.''

It is essential that we act now to pass this amendment and make the Matthew Shepard Act the law of the land.

According to FBI statistics, more than 9,000 violent hate crimes were perpetrated in 2007. However, experts tell us that since hate crimes often go unreported, the actual number is an order of magnitude higher.

Whatever the number--all hate crimes are unacceptable. They are crimes inflicted not merely on individuals, but on entire communities. As Mr. Holder put it, ``perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray, or whom we choose to love.''

Let me be clear: this legislation does not criminalize speech or hateful thoughts. It seeks only to punish action--violent action that undermines the core values of our Nation.

This legislation strengthens the ability of State and local governments to prosecute hate crimes by ``'providing grants to help them meet the often onerous expenses involved in investigating these crimes. It also enables the Justice Department to assist State and local governments in prosecuting hate crimes, or to step in when these governments fail to act.

Even though the aggregate number of hate crimes has slightly decreased nationally over the past decade, the number of crimes against certain groups has risen. Hispanic Americans have increasingly become the target of bigots' rage. And, according to a recent AP story, the number of fatal hate crimes against LGBT people increased by a shocking 30 percent last year.

Indeed, late last year, there was a particularly chilling hate crime perpetrated in New York against an Ecuadorian man named Jose Osvaldo. Jose, a father of two, was walking home with his arm around his brother and was viciously attacked with an aluminum baseball bat while his perpetrators yelled anti-gay and anti-immigrant slurs.

This legislation sends a clear message to those perpetrators and to all others: in America, we do not tolerate acts of violence motivated by hatred of vulnerable communities. In America, you are free to be yourself, and you should never be attacked for doing so.

What message will it send to Americans if we fail to pass this amendment? I wonder and I worry.

I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 227, the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act. This legislation, which will create the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park as a part of the National Park System, will preserve one of Upstate New York's most important historic sites.

Harriet Tubman entered American life as a runaway slave from Maryland

who made history by leading hundreds of slaves to freedom through the Underground Railroad. Although her courageous actions before and during the Civil War are well known to many Americans, Tubman's dedication to bettering the lives of former slaves after the war has been largely unrecognized in American History. In 1857, Tubman moved from Canada to Auburn, NY, where her close friend and U.S. Senator, William Seward, bravely broke the law by selling her a modest, two-story brick house. After the Civil War ended in 1865, Harriet Tubman returned to Auburn where she continued her humanitarian efforts by aiding aged African Americans and eventually opening a group home in 1908. Before her death 5 years later, the house provided refuge for 12 to 15 people. Harriet Tubman was also an active suffragist during the later years of her life. Her close proximity to Seneca Falls kept the city of Auburn a focal point in the women's rights movement. Harriet Tubman died in 1913 and is buried in the Fort Hill Cemetery overlooking the city of Auburn.

Whether it is the American Revolution, the War of 1812, or the women's rights movement, Upstate New York has been home to many of our Nation's most historic figures. Harriet Tubman's legacy is an important part of Upstate New York's history. The Harriet Tubman National Historical Park and Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park Act will establish the Harriet Tubman National Historical Park to preserve many significant sites relating to her life in Auburn, such as the Tubman Home, the Tubman Home for the Aged, the Thompson Memorial AME Zion Church, and her gravesite in the Fort Hill Cemetery.

I am committed to preserving Upstate New York's historic treasures so that future generations can learn the lessons of the past by visiting the homes of the people who changed American history. Preserving Tubman's home, gravesite, and other buildings where she lived her life are essential to protecting her legacy. Harriet Tubman's impressive life story is an example of how one should fight against injustice and work to alleviate the suffering of those around them. Her courageous spirit and compassion towards others still makes her a role model nearly 100 years after her death. I am proud that Harriet Tubman made Upstate New York her home, and I will continue to support the preservation of New York's numerous historic sites.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, July 15, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a markup of S. 1415, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Jean Bordewich at the Rules and Administration Committee, 202-224-6352.

Mr. President, today, I rise asking my colleagues to table the pending amendment filed by my distinguished colleague from Alabama to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.

His amendment would both make E-Verify permanent and would immediately mandate all Federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify.

First, I have good news for my colleagues and good news for my colleague from Alabama. The Department of Homeland Security has just taken action--they were planning to do it before. It is coincidental but fortuitous that it occurs right now. It addresses a good part of the issue that my colleague from Alabama has raised.

Today, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a statement indicating ``the administration's support for a regulation that will award Federal contracts only to employers who use E-Verify to check employee work authorization.''

As we all know, E-Verify is a voluntary system, not a mandatory system. For Federal contractors, it will be mandatory, which is half and the most operative part of my colleagues' amendment.

The administration's Federal contractor rule extends use of the E- Verify system to covered Federal contractors and subcontractors, including those who receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. The administration will push ahead with full implementation of the rule, which will apply to Federal solicitation and contract awards starting on September 8, 2009--within a couple months.

Accordingly, I believe Senator Sessions' amendment is moot so far as it applies to Federal contractors and doesn't need to be approved by us in order for E-Verify to apply in this context.

He has another part of the amendment, which is to make E-Verify permanent. I remind my colleagues that E-Verify is in effect for the next 3 years. Making it permanent will extend to the outyears, but as chair of the immigration subcommittee, and with the support of Chairman Leahy, I have been investigating this issue.

I say to my colleagues that I don't think we want to make E-Verify permanent because it is not tough enough or strong enough. There is a gaping loophole in E-Verify. It is the best we have now. We should use it for Federal contractors. I support that. But there is a big loophole.

Let's say an illegal immigrant wants to say they are John Jones from Syracuse, and they know John Jones's Social Security number. They can easily get a fake ID that has John Jones's address on it, and they can submit it into the system, and nothing in E-Verify will stop that illegal immigrant from getting a job. Once they are in the system, they are approved time after time.

What is more, nothing about E-Verify stops a citizen from loaning their identity to friends and family so they can get a job. We need a biometric system, with a picture and a biometric identifier. That is the only way we will stop illegal immigration. E-Verify doesn't do it.

I assure my colleagues on our subcommittee on immigration, under Chairman Leahy's leadership as chairman of the full committee, we are investigating a biometric system which will once and for all stop future illegal immigration. To make this system permanent, when there is a better system in the offing, is premature.

I urge that the amendment be tabled. The first part has been adopted, and the second part to make it permanent, when we already have it for 3 years, is wrong when we can do better 3 years from now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to respond for 1 minute, with the permission of both sides.

Mr. President, the Senator, my friend from Alabama, and I, in one sense, think alike on this issue--stopping future flow of illegal immigration. But he is right in that the order does not require them to check back with previous employers. That is not how E-verify works. They are not capable of doing it.

Obviously, we might want to set up 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 people and get them to start checking on previous employment, but that is not how E-verify works. It is one of the loopholes in the system. To say the administration is not doing it, that is true, but neither does E-verify require that. It probably should. But if we have a biometric, if we have a picture, it will be a lot better and we will not need it.

The Senator is sort of right and sort of wrong but always good- hearted.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Alabama and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Sessions' amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Sessions amendment would make E-Verify permanent and would immediately mandate all Federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify.

First of all, obviously, legislating on and delaying a critical appropriations bill, which is necessary for us to pass quickly to secure our borders, ports of entry, and our interior points of vulnerability, is a delay we do not need. But, secondly, and more importantly, despite claims that this amendment only seeks to reauthorize E-Verify for 3 years, which I do not oppose, the actual language of the amendment of my distinguished colleague would make E- Verify permanent and mandatory.

There would be nothing wrong with that if the system actually worked, but it does not. The distinguished Senator from Alabama and I agree upon one of the main seven principles for immigration reform which I issued 2 weeks ago; namely, that an employer verification system with tough enforcement and auditing is necessary to significantly diminish the job magnet that attracts illegal aliens to the United States. The bottom line is that they mainly come for jobs, and until they are tough on employers, wave after wave is not going to stop.

As we speak, even under the E-Verify system, any individual who steals a Social Security number--and that is easy these days--and has access to a credible fake ID can get a job in the United States. What is more, nothing about E-Verify stops a U.S. citizen from ``loaning their identity'' to their friends and family to get a job. In either of these cases--an illegal immigrant stealing a Social Security number and getting a fake ID done or some citizen, an employer or whatever, giving a Social Security card to the person--it doesn't do the job because that illegal immigrant can enter into the system. Once they are in the system, they stay in it, never to be removed. So E-Verify, frankly--and I know many in the immigrant community object to it because it only affects immigrants. But there is also another objection, and that is that it is just not tough enough, it is not strong enough. If we are going to make a system permanent, it really ought to work.

The current E-Verify system creates havoc for both employers and employees. No one has any certainty. Employers who accept all credible documents in good faith are not guaranteed they will never be targeted by ICE for turning a blind eye toward illegal immigrants in their workplace, and employers who question suspicious documents face potential lawsuits from U.S. citizen employees who can claim they were wrongly profiled as illegal immigrants.

There is only one way to really get a system that will stop illegal immigration and stop employers from hiring, and that is by creating a biometric-based Federal employment verification system that will give both employers and employees the peace of mind that employment relationships are both lawful and proper. It will also give the American people the same peace of mind. This system will be our most important asset in dramatically reducing the number of illegal aliens who are able to live and work in the United States.

There are many proposals for practical and effective biometric-based employment verification systems, and the immigration subcommittee, which I chair, will be vetting each proposal during our upcoming hearing on July 22. The distinguished Senator from Alabama, my friend, is a member of the immigration subcommittee. I invite him to engage in this critical process for our country during the hearing and ask all of the questions he would like to the distinguished panel of expert witnesses who will be appearing. We are not seeking to delay. I am eager to enact comprehensive reform with a strong, tough employer verification system.

An amendment making the flawed E-Verify system permanent and mandatory will only create more problems than it solves. Once we go down the road of making this flawed system permanent and mandatory, without fixing what is wrong with the program, we will waste substantial amounts of taxpayer money and we will make life more difficult, rather than simpler, for employers who wish to do the right thing, and for employees.

The time is coming for comprehensive immigration reform. The legislation will create the best employment verification system possible that will be a product of deliberation and consensus and will be informed by the world's foremost experts on this issue. It will be tougher, tighter, and more effective than E-Verify. I believe we can get that done this year.

Let's not do something hasty and counterproductive just to say we are doing something, and, just as important, let's not do it as an amendment to an appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and let's get to work on crafting an employer verification system that really works, prevents identity fraud, and actually curtails the illegal immigration job magnet.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.