Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and Cesar E. Chavez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this bill we are debating today, the immigration bill, will place a significant cost on the American taxpayers. I am particularly concerned that the provisions of this bill will impose a heavy strain on our social security system. That concern is why I am offering amendment number 3985.

The American public needs to understands what this bill would do. If enacted, it would allow the immigrants who receive amnesty to qualify for social security based on work performed prior to their amnesty. It allows people to qualify for social security based on work they did while they were illegally present in the United States and illegally working in the United States. Let me repeat that.

People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security. This bill is the pathway that allows that.

In some cases, illegal immigrants may have stolen an American citizen's identity. They may have stolen an American's social security number to fraudulently work. But it is that illegal conduct and fraudulent work that they will be allowed to use to qualify for social security.

Does this bill punish the people who stole an American citizen's identity? No, it does not. It rewards them. Does this bill consider the impact that the crime of identify theft had on the victim whose social security number was stolen? No, it does not. This bill gives them the full benefit of citizenship, with respect to social security benefits and rewards criminal conduct without any consideration for the victim.

There have been many media reports recently about illegal immigrants stealing Americans' social security numbers. To understand the potential scope of this problem, you have to un1erstand that every year employers are advised that nearly 800,000 employees do not have valid, I matching social security numbers. In too many cases, the number used belongs to someone else. And so, for a moment, I want the Senate to stop. I want my colleagues to think. And to consider the impact this theft and fraud has on the victims.

Rarely, does the Senate ever really consider the impact that crime has on the victim. Today Should be different. And so I am going to take a few moments to share with my colleagues a few of the stories of the victims of identity theft. In order to protect their privacy, I will only use the victim's first name.

Identify theft by illegal aliens has created many problems for Americans. Sometimes those problems involve the Internal Revenue Service. For example, Audra has been a stay-at-home mom since 2000. Over the last 3 years, the IRS has accused her of owing $1 million in back taxes. This is a picture of the first letter she received from the IRS saying she owed back taxes. Since that first letter, she has received many more.

Her story is clear. She has not worked in 6 years. Yet the IRS says she owes taxes for working the last three years. What she first thought was a mistake, later became clear. It was a case of identity theft. Her social security number was being used by at least 218 illegal immigrants, mostly in Texas, to obtain jobs.

Audra has obtained copies of the 218 W-2s that were used in 2004 by illegal immigrants using her Social Security number. This is a picture of the stack of those W-2s. In Audra's own words, she said, ``It was so overwhelming I couldn't be frustrated--I was just completely beyond that.'' She filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Her file at the Federal Trade Commission is very thick. Here is a picture of many of the documents in her file on this chart.

Identity theft by illegal immigrants has made it hard for some Americans to find a job of their own. When my staff spoke to Audra, she explained to them that she was not able to find a job of her own because of the theft of her Social Security number. This is a photo of the letter Audra received denying her employment because she is actually already employed by that same employer. Obviously, she is not, but someone else with her Social Security number is employed at that place of employment.

Audra is not the only American affected in this way. A few years ago, a woman named Linda applied for a job at a chain retailer, but her job application was turned down. Why? Because her potential employer told her that she was already working for that very same retailer. She, of course, knew better. She could not get a job because someone else had stolen her identity. Without knowing it, the thief also stole the job she could have been hired to do.

That is not what America should be about. People who want to work should be able to work. Identity theft by illegal immigrants has damaged many Americans' credit, making it hard for them to buy the basic necessities. In some cases, the victims of identity theft are denied social service benefits such as unemployment because records show they already have a job even though they are not working. In some cases, government records show they have many jobs all across the country.

I want to tell my colleagues about Caleb, who works in northern Nevada. He lives there with his wife and two children. Caleb is actually one of my constituents. This is a picture of Caleb and his daughter at the kitchen table. Caleb works hard as a construction worker to take care of his family. In December of 2003, Caleb was unable to find work because of the seasonal difficulties northern Nevada's construction industry faces. So Caleb applied for unemployment benefits. He was denied unemployment benefits. Why? Because he was told he was already working as a landscaper in Las Vegas. Many of my colleagues are probably not aware of the geography of Nevada. I am pretty confident that Caleb was not living in Reno and working in Las Vegas because that would mean he would have over a 1,000-mile commute every single day. Caleb and his wife contacted the employer of the identity thief. They learned that the person who used his Social Security number had previously given the employer at least 10 different Social Security numbers, and that person's resident alien card had expired.

In this picture, Caleb has many of the documents, including a copy of the expired resident alien card used by the person who stole his identity.

Not only does identity theft by illegal immigrants create problems for adults, it is also creates problems for young children, children who will likely have to deal with the consequences of someone stealing their Social Security number well into adulthood.

For example, Kelly's daughter is quite ambitious. Based on where she lives, and on where she works, she drives 80 miles each day to work at a steakhouse. I am sure her parents were surprised to learn about her commute since she does not even have a driver's license yet. In fact, Kelly's daughter has gotten off to quite an early start in life in the work world--considering she is only 5 years of age. Her Social Security number was being used by an illegal immigrant to work.

Stories like this are all too common. Many Southwest States such as Utah and Arizona, and even my home State of Nevada, have experienced a crime spree involving illegal immigrants using stolen identities of children. In one case in Utah, a child apparently owns a cleaning company and works as a prep cook at two restaurants in Salt Lake City. That is a lot of responsibility, especially for an 8-year-old boy. Another boy from Salt Lake City supposedly works for an express air freight company, quite an important job for an 11-year-old.

These stories are shocking. It is clear that illegal immigrants are purchasing false papers and using stolen Social Security numbers to obtain jobs. They are victimizing hard-working Americans, Americans who want to work. They are also victimizing these young children. The current Social Security policy and this bill will only make matters worse by granting benefits to those who are working here illegally.

I am offering an amendment to correct this problem. My amendment will help reduce this kind of document fraud. My amendment will also preserve the integrity of the Social Security system by ensuring that people are not able to receive Social Security benefits based on their prior unlawful activity.

I will explain my amendment to the American people and to the Senate. Under current law, individuals who work in the United States illegally and later obtain legal employment status can use their illegal work history to qualify for benefits. For example, if an illegal immigrant works in the United States for 9 years, and then receives legal status under this bill, the immigrant would qualify for full Social Security benefits after just 1 year of legal work. Essentially, the illegal immigrants can go back to the Social Security Administration and ask them for credit for his or her illegal work.

What is important to understand is that in order to go back to the Social Security system, the illegal immigrant must get legal status in some way. This bill is an avenue that gives them that legal status. This bill opens the door for illegal immigrants to get Social Security based on their illegal work history. My amendment closes that door.

I know some of my colleagues may argue that the illegal immigrants paid into the system, and as a result they should be able to collect benefits based on paying into the system. To those colleagues who feel that way, I say this: First, the crime of identity theft and Social Security fraud are not victimless crimes. The victims of these crimes are American citizens and legal immigrants. My staff has spoken to

some of these victims. Some victims' Social Security records are such a mess that the Social Security Administration has wiped out all of the work history from the victim's account. That is the only way they believed they could get a handle on the fraud associated with these folks' accounts. By wiping out all work history, the victim's own legal work history is also deleted. Basically, the victims is forced to start over to qualify for future Social Security benefits.

The Social Security Administration advised the victim that the victim's records are so bad that their only option was to erase the victim's work history. The victims can rebuild their accounts if they can produce their old W-2s. How many people in America can produce them? Some, maybe. If you are like me, and keep records forever, you will not have a problem. But for most Americans, who do not keep their past W-2s and old records, it will be impossible to prove their work history. As a result, some victims end up losing their ability to collect their Social Security based on their own legal work history.

At the same time, this bill would open the door to give Social Security benefits based on illegal work history. If Members oppose this amendment, Members are saying they want to reward illegal conduct with Social Security benefits while American citizens cannot collect their rightly earned benefits. This is simply unfair. That is not what America is about.

Second, Social Security is a system based on expectancy. For the illegal immigrants who paid into the system using a stolen Social Security card, they never did so thinking they would earn a retirement benefit. They did so, and I don't blame them, simply to get a job. They could not have possibly ever envisioned we would pass this bill in the Senate. They could not ever have thought that the Senate would let them go back and petition for Social Security benefits. They never had a reasonable expectation we would do this and, as a result, that they would be able to receive those benefits in the first place.

Third, for the vast majority of perpetrators who engaged in this kind of identity theft, the only way they would ever be able to petition the Social Security Administration is if we pass this bill. It is reasonable to oppose, as a condition to amnesty, a requirement that the people receiving amnesty give up or surrender their rights to petition for Social Security benefits for their previous illegal work.

I ask my colleagues to consider the message the Senate is sending to the victims if we do not agree to my amendment. The victim has already paid a heavy price. If the Senate does not agree to my amendment, the government will be saying: We reward the criminal and want to continue to punish the victim.

We will also be inviting future fraud. How, you might ask? If my amendment is not agreed to, there will be no way, none, for the Social Security Administration to determine who actually did the work associated with a particular Social Security number. If my amendment is not agreed to, this bill will create an incentive for people to engage in a second kind of fraud, one that is based on fraudulent use of W-2s to petition for illegal work credit. There would be no way for the Social Security Administration to give proper credit for that work if more than one person petitions for that credit.

I ask my colleagues to consider the burden this will place on the Social Security Administration itself. As of 2003, there were 255 million records in the Earnings Suspense File. That file is where Social Security places records when the name and social security number that is used do not match. How can the Social Security Administration process tens of millions of petitions to receive credit for illegally performed work? Without my amendment, the Social Security Administration will be inundated with petitions with no way to know how to handle them.

The promise of Social Security is for citizens and legal residents of the United States. Social Security was not intended for individuals who enter our country illegally, purchase fraudulent green cards and documentation on the black market, and use them to get jobs. It is wrong to allow people who have broken our laws to receive such a reward, especially when such activity places such a heavy toll on victims.

We should not now reward individuals who have knowingly engaged in illegal activity. We should not adopt a policy that will reward this illegal behavior while at the same time continuing to subject the innocent to further victimization. Rewarding illegal behavior is insulting to those immigrants who have played by the rules to qualify for benefits. It is also insulting to hard-working Americans who are paying into the Social Security system.

My amendment allows immigrants to begin accumulating credit to qualify for Social Security only after they have been assigned a valid Social Security number. It does not allow illegal immigrants to receive credit for their past illegal work. This approach is responsible and it is common sense. Especially when it comes to how the Social Security Administration will function.

I hope one of the principles we can reach consensus on is that illegal behavior should not be rewarded at the expense of victimizing American citizens. I cannot go home to Nevada and tell the people we allowed Social Security benefits to go to people who have worked in the United States illegally, especially when Nevadans are too often the victims of this kind of crime.

Mr. President, I will close now by making one additional observation. Under current law, it is a felony to steal and use somebody's Social Security number. Under this bill, we are waiving that felony. That, in and of itself, is amnesty for the crime of identity theft. I do not think that the Senate should go beyond granting amnesty for criminal identity theft. It is one thing to say that the perpetrator of the crime cannot be prosecuted for that felony, but it is quite another to allow the perpetrator to collect Social Security benefits. It is fundamentally unfair to do both when there are victims, like the ones I have talked about today.

So I hope people will see the common sense of this amendment and will, in a bipartisan fashion, overwhelmingly adopt this amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, could I spend 5 minutes responding to a couple things, and then I would be willing to yield to the Senator for 5 minutes in morning business.

Just to respond to a couple of things the Senator from Massachusetts talked about, that section 614 and a provision in section 601 in this legislation on page 395 would ensure that aliens who received legal status, amnesty, whatever you want to call it, cannot be prosecuted for document fraud. He said they weren't receiving amnesty. If there was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted, that sounds like amnesty to me.

A couple other points he brought up: Legal aliens who were here and who overstayed their visas have a legal Social Security number. They are paying into the system with a legal Social Security number. Even though they are here illegally, they would still be able to collect benefits.

Another point I want to address that the Senator from Massachusetts brought up concerned the Social Security Administration. These illegal workers would come to them and petition for the benefits, and they would have to prove that they actually worked where they worked, they paid in the taxes, and things like that. Let's try to think about the burden that this would place on the Social Security Administration itself.

Currently, there are 255 million earning suspense files. Those are the ones where the Social Security number and the work don't match, 255 million. Try to imagine how many of these are going to come forward with the Social Security Administration where people are trying to prove something to gain benefits. They are going to be overwhelmed. What is that going to do to the normal processing for people who have problems with their Social Security benefits? All of us have case workers back in our States who deal with seniors who have legitimate Social Security problems. Sometimes there are mistakes made. We have had people who have actually received a letter where the Social Security Administration told them that they had died. It was kind of a surprise to them. But they called us, and we were able to bring them back to life. We jokingly refer to these cases as Lazarus cases. It is a situation where they need speedy help. If the Social Security Administration is burdened with all of these millions of potential cases, it just boggles the mind how people could be against this amendment.

The next point I want to make is that the Senator from Massachusetts said that this illegal immigrant who is now legalized or regularized, whatever term you want to put on it, cannot go to the Social Security Administration, and they have to prove with documents. We have seen the kind of fraudulent documents used in the country today. These documents are not that difficult to produce, to defraud. There is a great incentive for them to do that. Once again, it will be an extra burden on the Social Security Administration trying to prove or disprove whether these documents are real.

The last point I want to make, the Senator said the people they are regularizing in this bill have to pay a fine. They have to pay back taxes. We have heard that over and over again: They have to pay back income taxes. They don't have to pay back Social Security taxes, the FICA taxes they didn't pay, only the income taxes. So let's be completely open and honest about what this bill does and about what my amendment seeks to correct.

When we are considering this amendment, we absolutely must consider what it is going to do to the Social Security Administration, what it is going to do to the trust fund and, mostly, what it is going to do to the victims. Rewarding illegal behavior while we are not taking care of the victims in the United States fundamentally is unfair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I wish to ask my friend from Arizona a couple of questions about the bill and about my amendment in particular. The bill does not require that the people whose status is adjusted pay all back taxes. The bill only requires that people pay any back income taxes. There is no mention of FICA taxes in the bill. Is the Senator aware of that distinction?

First, if the alien is self-employed, that is not correct. Remember, the employer pays half and sends in those funds.

That is correct. But the bottom line is if they owe back FICA taxes under this bill, they do not have to pay those back taxes.

I have another question for my friend from Arizona. Is he aware that it is a felony to use someone's Social Security number?

Under this legislation, we forgive that felony. We grant amnesty for that felony.

Right. But, Mr. President, in Sections 601 and 614 of the legislation, it actually ensures that aliens who receive legal status cannot be prosecuted for document fraud, including the false use of Social Security numbers. Is the Senator aware of that?

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Arizona that many people are paying into the system. They paid into the system with no expectation of getting social security's benefit because they didn't know we would be enacting a bill like this. They paid into the system simply because that was the price to pay to get a job in the United States. The immigrant knew they were using an illegal Social Security number but without regards of the impact of the victim. I have reviewed case after case related to identity theft and Social Security fraud. These cases are occurring all over the United States. In every case, in every State, where someone's Social Security number was stolen by an illegal immigrant to use to find work, the victim's credit history is destroyed. Sometimes their work history is too. Earlier I talked about Caleb, a gentleman in Nevada. The illegal immigrant who used Caleb's Social Security number was not trying to harm that person but he did. Caleb applied for unemployment but couldn't get it because the agency said he was working when, in fact, he wasn't. He lives in Reno. They said he was working in Las Vegas. It was an illegal immigrant using his Social Security number in Las Vegas.

I never said this amendment is going to prevent identity theft. What I have said is that it is not right for somebody to steal somebody else's identity--granted for the noble purpose of getting a job--and reward the theft by giving work credit that counts towards Social Security. We should consider the victims who are forced to deal with the terrible consequences of the crime.

I will make two other points. The chairman of the Finance Committee supports this amendment. One of the reasons the chairman of the Finance Committee supports this amendment is because the Social Security Administration will not be able to make determinations with respect to the earnings suspense files that the Senator from Arizona referenced. As of 2003, there were 255 million instances where the social security number did not match the name given the employer. This bill will legalize those who are in the workforce today--the 7 million or so in the workforce out of the 12 million who are in the country. The effect of this amnesty over the next 10 years, will require the Social Security Administration to hire nearly an additional 2,000 employees to handle the cases of people who worked illegally, received amnesty under this bill, and are now applying for this benefit. A benefit they earned illegally.

Point No. 2 is, it is going to cost $1.7 billion in administrative costs--$1.7 billion in administrative costs. It does not include any future costs in benefits that the United States will have to pay. Some may say that the immigrants will have earned the benefit. But the Senate does not even know what amnesty will cost. The cost estimates for these policies are not known. My amendment is absolutely the right thing to do. Illegal immigrants did not expect to ever receive this benefit. They were using somebody's Social Security number or a made up one. They did so to get a job. I can appreciate that. I appreciate somebody trying to come to this country to better themselves. I don't believe we should reward the conduct of identity theft by giving people the right to claim the work history for purposes of Social Security.

Our Social Security trust fund is already in trouble. We all know that. This will further put the Social Security trust fund in trouble. The costs could be potentially huge. We don't even know that in this bill. That is why I think we should adopt this amendment.

Mr. President, we look forward to this. What was, then, the time allocation requested? Is it 25, 10, 10, 5? Is that what the Senator suggested?

So that is 25.

Then I think we would get 15.

Have we added all that up?

We have until 10 o'clock, and that time is divided.

If the Senator wants to speak for a few minutes, we can arrange that. I will withhold.

Can I ask unanimous consent we defer the vote at 10 clock until 10:05?

Fine.

Mr. President, we send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Graham.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

How much time remains?

We have 11 minutes?

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. President, as we all know, yesterday the Senate voted to eliminate the H-2C immigrant's ability to self-petition for green cards after 4 years. I believe that vote was a mistake because it will have a devastating effect not just for temporary workers but for all workers and, basically, for all Americans.

The amendment we offer today would correct the mistake and take the good language from the Cornyn amendment to improve the underlying bill. This amendment will require that the Labor Department certify that no U.S. worker will be displaced by H-2C workers when they adjust to permanent status, as the Cornyn amendment requires. This amendment also restores the ability of H-2C workers to obtain a green card without being dependent on the generosity of the employers.

The self-petition feature of our temporary worker program is innovative and essential to workers' rights. All Americans lose if it is eliminated from the bill.

The reason temporary worker programs failed in the past, going back to the time of the Bracero Program, is because they did not protect workers' rights. For this new program to work without harming U.S. workers, H-2C workers must have the full set of rights. That is why our bill includes extensive labor protections for temporary workers.

Effectively, then, at the time after the 4 years, the individual will be able to make the petition for the green card, and they will also have to have a certification by the Department of Labor that there is no American able and willing to perform that job. There will have to be that kind of a finding. The self-petition gives that worker some rights and respect as an employee instead of being subject to the dangers we have seen in the past of exploitation by an employer that knows that worker can never get a chance to have a petition and can never get on the path for a green card without the employer giving the thumbs-up signal.

When that power relationship between the employer and the employee exists, we have seen exploitation in terms of wages, working conditions, and other unfortunate problems with regard to women.

This seems to be a solid compromise. It takes the framework of the Cornyn amendment, but it will also ensure that these petitioners are going to have to demonstrate there is that gap in terms of the labor market that they are able to fill and that there is not someone out there in the American labor market prepared to take that job. It seems to me to be a very important principle, a very concrete proposal, one I hope we can have accepted this morning.

I withhold the remainder of my time.

I will take 3 minutes for the membership, if they have a chance to review the amendment.

On page 1, second paragraph:

The Secretary of Labor determines and certifies that there

are not sufficient United States workers who are able,

willing, qualified, and available to fill the position in

which the alien is, or will be employed. . . .

So the Secretary of Labor has to make the certification that they will not be replacing an American worker.

Then, how are they going to be able to give the assurance they have had the 4 years that are included in the first paragraph, that ``the alien has maintained such nonimmigrant status in the United States for a cumulative period of not less than 4 years of employment''?

These are listed and include: records maintained by Social Security, records maintained by the employer, employment work verification, records maintained by the Internal Revenue Service, records maintained by other government agencies.

What we are saying, in the four different categories, those categories are government-held records or the employer-held records, not the employee-held records.

I don't know how it could be much clearer exactly what this amendment does. It is very clear. It is the certification that there is no American that is able, willing, and qualified. And to be able to prove it, there are government-held records or employer-held records, not the petitioner's records, not his stubs, but government-held records.

We have tried to craft this in a way which is going to be fair. We are not interested in people trying to ``jimmy'' the system. We have had too much of that in the past.

I get back to the final theme. This legislation tries to learn from past experience. In 1986, we had amnesty but there was supposed to be tough employer sanctions if they hired unemployed. We had vast industries that produced fake identification cards. The system never functioned. It never worked.

What we have tried to do is avoid that. We have a tamper-proof card. We will have vigorous employment. But, also, to learn the lessons of the Bracero Program, we are not going to have the exploitation of these workers by their employers. That is what we do when we deny the opportunity of an employee ever to be able to make a petition. We say you have to be in there for 4 years, with solid record of employment, solid record of achievement, solid record of commitment to work. Then you can make your petition. You have to meet that requirement.

What time is left?

I yield that time to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I have tried to point out this will be a judgment decision that will be made by the Secretary of Labor as to whether there is an American fit, willing, and able. And if there is, they cannot petition.

Now, the Senator says: Well, it is all then up to the employee. But the idea of the whole guest worker is the employer. Why is it good for the employer, who is going to go out and petition and say: Look, I need someone to come work for me. They advertise for 45 days. Then they find out they have someone from overseas who will do that. So the employer is the one who is petitioning there. Didn't have any problem with that.

Now, when we get into the situation after 4 years, they can make the petition on this, if there is a vacancy, according to this proposal, but if there is not a green card available, they do not get it. They might have to wait a year. They might have to indicate 2 years. This is not automatic. There are only a certain number of green cards that are available under this category. They may wait 1 year. They may have to wait 2 years. So it is much more difficult. This is still weighted far against the worker than the employer.

What we were always trying to do in the development of the legislation is to have balance and fairness in terms of the authority and responsibility and the legality on this. I think what we have offered addresses what I understood to be the Senator's concern; that is, that there are going to be American workers out there when this person is getting a green card. Therefore, it is going to be adverse to the American workers. We say, if there is one, they don't get it. That is decided by the Secretary of Labor. And they have to be able to prove their work history through documents and records that are either held by the Government or by the employer. It seems to me that is about as lock safe and secure as you can have in this business. I would hope we would accept this amendment.

Mr. President, I think my time has expired.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

Madam President, we are trying to move along. I see my colleague and friend behind me, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who has been here patiently waiting to address the Senate on this issue generally. That might work, as we are just trying to reaffirm the language on this Inhofe amendment.

Madam President, the Inhofe amendment is enormously important. It is complicated. Members on both sides, including the author of the amendment, are working in good faith to try to work this out. To my knowledge, it has not been worked out. Hopefully, after 25 minutes we will be able to tell the Senate whether it is worked out, whether we will have to have side-by-side amendments. But at this time, we will not enter into a short time agreement.

Hopefully, as we have been making progress in other areas, we will have a chance to do that in this area as well.

Mr. President, I want to cooperate and have cooperated with the Senator. I think it is premature to establish a time on the Ensign amendment. I don't think it will be an undue period of time. But it would be difficult now to agree to a specific time. I hope we would be able to agree after a while. I welcome the chance to continue this. I think this discussion has been enormously valuable and helpful. We can proceed in whatever way the leader wants to proceed. Right now, we would not be in a position to agree to a 1-hour time limitation on the Ensign amendment, half an hour on each side. But we will well work to try to get a reasonable time, if that is the decision.

Mr. President, identity fraud is a major problem, a major issue in this country, and it ought to be dealt with. We ought to do whatever is necessary to make sure we are going to deal with this issue. I think most of us have seen the various national publications and magazines talking about identity fraud. It is there with the use of credit cards. We have it on telephone calling. We have it for purchasing over the Internet, obtaining access of financial records, and with individuals making illegal withdrawals.

All of that is bad and wrong and violates the law, and we ought to deal with that. But we are talking about individuals who are not involved in identity fraud and have paid into the Social Security fund. Should they have that payment they have made into the fund denied to them? So I am with the Senator from Nevada in trying to deal with identity fraud, but I separate myself from him when he says all illegal immigrants are involved in the identity fraud and, therefore, they should not get credit for what they have paid in in terms of Social Security.

Now, who are we talking about? Basically, we are talking about individuals who have the opportunity to try to earn their position, the opportunity to be an American citizen, who have to pay a fine, have to go to the end of the line for those who are coming into the United States currently, who have to demonstrate they have paid all of their taxes, who have to demonstrate they have been free from violating the law. There are all of those conditions that are set up. But once they have achieved all of those conditions, then they have the possibility of citizenship 11 years from now.

So the issue is, should they be denied the credits they have paid into Social Security? The Senator from Nevada thinks they should.

Well, first of all, who are these people? First of all, his proposal would deprive, for example, widows and surviving children of needed Social Security benefits, even if the widows and children are U.S. born. We will have circumstances where the children are American citizens. The widows might be American citizens.

Now, let's say this individual regularizes their position and has paid into Social Security. If that person dies, their survivors would be eligible for survivor benefits, but not under the Ensign amendment. It is interesting, some 85 percent of immigrant-headed households include at least one U.S. citizen. Under the Ensign proposal, citizen children may not be eligible for survivor benefits if their parents had gained legal status or even citizenship but die before they gained the 40 hours of coverage.

The Ensign amendment effectively would deprive the immigrants who have become legal residents of the right to receive Social Security credits for the payroll tax payments they made on the work they performed when they were undocumented. Some do now.

The 1986 act permitted 3 million people--they received the amnesty. That was amnesty. We did not move ahead in terms of the enforcement against the undocumented afterwards. But that was amnesty. Now they are able to receive the benefits today. We are going to say to them, we are evidently going to cut you off from being able to get any credit because I don't see in the Ensign amendment where they are going to respect their position.

It is important to focus on who would be hurt by this highly punitive proposal. Only immigrants who have attained legal status are eligible to receive Social Security. So everyone this amendment would affect will be legal residents under the terms of the bill. Many of them will even be citizens by the time they apply for Social Security. Those are the hard-working men and women this amendment seeks to penalize.

Those are the individuals who really want to be Americans, be part of the American family. They are going to have to pay the penalty, pay their back taxes, abide by all of the laws, continue to believe in their faith. And then they will have the opportunity to go to the end of the line. And then, in 11 years, they will be able to achieve citizenship. They will be working during this period of time.

They are paying into Social Security. And, finally, when they become citizens--11 years from now--the Ensign amendment is going to say: Well, all right, you paid. You have waited your turn. You paid the penalties all the way along. But you are not going to be able to benefit from paying into Social Security because of identity fraud. Well, I have difficulty assuming that all of those who have paid into Social Security have been a part of identity fraud.

Before this bill passed, these workers were undocumented. But once in the country, they complied with the rules of the workplace and paid Social Security taxes on their earnings. Their payroll tax payments and the matching contributions of their employers were paid to the Social Security Administration on a timely basis. Those dollars are sitting in an account at the Social Security Administration today. Social Security has a record of receiving these payments. There is no dispute about that.

The issue raised by this amendment is whether these workers should be given credit in Social Security for the hard-earned dollars they paid into the system. Shouldn't the payroll tax payments they made count toward determining the level of retirement benefits and disability benefits they have earned when they reach retirement age or become disabled?

Now, the amount of benefits a worker receives depends on how many years the individual worked and how much payroll tax he or she paid in. I believe it would be terribly wrong to arbitrarily deny these hard- working men and women credit for all the payroll tax dollars they paid into Social Security on the wages they earned. But that is exactly what the Ensign amendment would do.

Most undocumented workers do pay Social Security taxes. Stephen Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, estimates that ``about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes''--three-quarters of them.

The amounts paid in by them are substantial. Payments into the Social Security system by undocumented workers total $7 billion a year. Unfortunately, most of these workers do not have genuine Social Security numbers, so the money goes into what they call the Social Security Administration's earnings suspense file. This money is identified by the employer who submitted it but not by the individual worker it belongs to.

Each year, Social Security identifies approximately 130,000 employers who submitted W-2s that cannot be matched to a worker. So the undocumented immigrants account for the vast majority of the funds in the suspense file. The unidentified W-2s closely track their geographic distribution and types of employment to that which undocumented workers typically hold. According to an analysis by the GAO, three of the categories of business with the largest numbers of inaccurate W-2s were restaurants, construction companies, and farm operations.

In order to get credit for the payroll taxes he paid in when he was undocumented, a worker would have to prove how much he paid in while working for a particular employer and when it was paid. The burden of proof would be on the worker, and the worker would only receive credit for payments that the Social Security Administration could verify.

Whatever rules and regulations Social Security established, we are for. They ought to be accurate. They ought to be tough. They ought to be fair. But we are not prepared to say that every individual who paid in, who is now in the process, over this 11 years--here, they are paying in. I want to be a citizen. I am paying my fine. I paid my back taxes. My sons have joined the military serving in Afghanistan. We are going to church every single week. And I am paying into Social Security. I wait 11 years, and I finally become a citizen. Under the Ensign amendment, no, no, you are not going to receive any of that. You are not going to receive a cent of that.

So we are all for Social Security establishing whatever requirements are necessary to ensure the integrity of the fund and the accuracy of the work effort by individuals. But I think the only reason for the Ensign amendment is to deny the legal residents the Social Security benefits they have earned and paid for. Their money sits in the Social Security Administration waiting to be matched with an eligible beneficiary. Once those workers establish eligibility, how, in all fairness, can we deny them credit for their past contributions?

This legislation before the Senate sets out a difficult process for undocumented workers seeking to become legal residents. Most of them have very little money. Yet the legislation will require them to pay thousands in fines and fees. It would be wrong to deny them credit for the Social Security tax dollars they have paid from their often meager wages.

Once these workers are legal residents, if they become disabled, shouldn't they be entitled to receive disability benefits based on the payroll taxes they contributed to Social Security? And if they die prematurely, leaving minor children, shouldn't those children--who in many instances are American children--shouldn't those American children be eligible to receive survivor benefits based on the payroll taxes they contributed to Social Security? And when, after a lifetime of hard work, they reach retirement age, shouldn't they be able to receive a retirement benefit based on all the years of payroll tax payments they contributed to Social Security?

This is not a handout. This is not welfare. Social Security is an earned benefit. If these immigrant workers earned it, they should receive it like everyone else. The Ensign amendment would take their hard-earned money and give them nothing in return. That is not the way America operates.

Allowing these workers to receive the Social Security benefits they have earned not only helps them, it serves the interests of the larger American community. They are living amongst us. As I say, many of the children were born here. If they cannot rely on the Social Security benefits they have earned when they become elderly or disabled, on what source of support will they rely? Certainly, the people of this great Nation would not leave them destitute. We all benefit when the earned benefits of Social Security are there for those in need.

So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. President, I have been here on the floor since the Senator started, and in response, I would be glad to inquire of those who are interested. I think there are some members of the Finance Committee who are interested in this amendment and want to be heard since it deals with the Finance Committee jurisdiction. So I will inquire and report back to the floor manager.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, if there is offered side-by-side, that would be voted on after the Inhofe amendment at 4 o'clock. So there is an hour and a half allocated time for debate on the Inhofe amendment, and as I understand, there would be approximately 45 minutes evenly divided.

I thought Senator Akaka's amendment was agreeable or acceptable.

Senator Akaka would like 25 minutes.

If I could suggest, why don't we vote at 4:15. That gives 45 minutes to Vitter.

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for a moment.

Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes. Then I will yield back the time. And then I think we will be prepared to vote.

Mr. President, first of all, I commend the Senator for raising this issue. He has been a constant

advocate for the families he has spoken about today. And he has communicated with us in the Immigration Committee on so many different occasions about the fairness and the importance of the family unifications and the uniqueness of service that so many of these parents were involved in at a very difficult and challenging time during World War II.

So the Senator from Hawaii deserves great credit for bringing this to the attention of us in the Senate. I speak for the Senator from Pennsylvania, who urges the acceptance of this amendment. This will help provide some very important family reunification. It is entirely warranted and entirely justified.

We thank the Senator for bringing this issue again to our attention and for his continued advocacy on this issue. We will do everything we possibly can to make sure this is carried at the conference as well.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as I understand the amendment, on page 350, you strike lines 8 through the rest of the page; am I correct?

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairmen of both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, the Democratic and Republican leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and members of Congress from both parties to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reinvigorate the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The bicameral, bipartisan introduction of this bill reflects not only its historic importance as a guarantor of the right to vote for all Americans, but also the broad consensus that the expiring provisions must be extended this year without delay.

There are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. Like the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the right to vote is foundational because it secures the effective exercise of all other rights. As people are able to register, vote, and elect candidates of their choice, their interests and rights get attention. The very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the result of an historic struggle for civil rights led by such American heroes as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks, who refused to be treated as second-class citizens. That struggle reached a crucial turning point on March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, AL, when State troopers brutally attacked John Lewis and his fellow civil rights marchers who were fighting for their right to vote.

The events of that day, now known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' were captured in newspapers and on televisions across the country, and those powerful images marked a crucial turning point in securing the right to vote for all Americans. A few days after the violence of Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Johnson outlined the proposed Voting Rights Act of 1965, before a joint session of Congress. Within months, Congress passed it so that the Constitution's guarantees of equal access to the electoral process, regardless of race, would not be undermined by discriminatory practices.

The enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 transformed the landscape of political inclusion. Prior to the Act, minorities of all races faced major barriers to participation in the political process, through the use of such devices as poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, language barriers, and systematic vote dilution. We have made great gains since that time, but our work is not finished. The record established in 10 hearings in the House of Representatives indicates that the tools provided by the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain necessary for protecting the voting rights of minority Americans in this country.

Among the Act's most critical protections are the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5, which prevent discriminatory laws from going into practice. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 would extend these protections for 25 years, retaining the most effective measures to fight certain kinds of pervasive and recurring discrimination.

The insidious discriminatory tactics that led to the original Voting Rights Act were deeply rooted. In the annals of our Nation, this fight dates back almost 100 years, to the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870, the last of the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments. It took implementation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for people of all races in many parts of our country to gain the effective exercise of rights guaranteed 95 years earlier by the 15th Amendment. The pre- clearance provisions were one of the primary reasons this Act succeeded where earlier attempts had failed. Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to pre-clear all voting changes with either the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In doing so, Section 5 combats the practices in these jurisdictions of shifting from one invalidated discriminatory tactic to another, which had undermined earlier efforts to enforce 15th Amendment guarantees.

We have made significant progress toward a more inclusive democracy over the past four decades since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. However, I fear that if we fail to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act, our country is likely to backslide. We must make sure those gains do not suffer the same fate as the gains in voting rights made during Reconstruction.

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Act promised that the guarantees of the 15th Amendment would be realized. Between 1870 and 1900, 22 African Americans served in the United States Congress. In 1868, Louisiana elected an African-American Lieutenant Governor, Oscar Dunn, and 87 African Americans held seats in the South Carolina legislature. However, these Reconstruction-era gains in African- American voting and representation proved to be short-lived. Following the end of Reconstruction, the rights of African Americans to vote and to hold office were virtually eliminated in many areas through discriminatory legal barriers, intimidation, and violence. The changes were swift, systematic and severe. By 1896, Representative George White of North Carolina was the only African American remaining in the U.S. Congress, and it would take 72 years after Representative White left Congress for African-American voters in the South to elect another candidate of their choice to Congress.

In Mississippi, the percentage of African-American voting-age men registered to vote fell from more than 90 percent during Reconstruction to less than 6 percent in 1892. Between 1896 and 1900, the number of African-American voters in Louisiana was reduced from 130,000 to a mere 5,000. Unlike their short-lived gains made during Reconstruction, African-American voters' exclusion from the ballot box was persistent. Only 3 percent of voting-age African-American men and women in the South were registered to vote in 1940, only 1 percent in Mississippi-- just 1 percent. These numbers are staggering, and they provide a history lesson we should not ignore.

As part of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 1975, Congress added Section 203, which requires bilingual voting assistance for certain language minority groups. This provision was enacted pursuant to congressional power to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments. Section 203 has been a key factor to expanding the inclusiveness of democracy to all citizens and has led to extraordinary gains in representation and participation made by Asian-American and Hispanic-American citizens. Like Section 5, Section 203 is expiring in 2007. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and

Amendments Act of 2006 would extend these critical protections for 25 years.

Hispanic-American populations have been one of the primary minority language groups to benefit from the protections of the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act. For example effective implementation of the bilingual provisions in San Diego County, CA, helped increase voter registration by more than 20 percent. And voter turnout among Hispanic Americans in New Mexico rose 26 percent between 2000 and 2004 after television and radio spots in Spanish educated listeners about voter registration and absentee ballots.

Voting rights belong to people who are American citizens. They are trying to vote but many of them are struggling with the English language due to disparities in education and the incremental process of learning. It is imperative that all citizens be able to fully exercise their rights as citizens, particularly a right as fundamental as the right to vote. Renewing the expiring language provisions of the Voting Rights Act will continue to help make that a reality.

Rather than merely extending the Voting Rights Act, Congress now has an opportunity to reinvigorate the Act, strengthening and improving its remedies. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 does so by clarifying certain parts of Section 5 to give clear guidance to the Courts and to restore the original understanding of the Act. Two recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly narrowed Section 5's effectiveness and undermined the purposes of the Act.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 remedies the Supreme Court's holding in Reno v. Bossier Parish, by making clear that a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose violates Section 5. Under the holding in Reno v. Bossier Parish, certain voting rule changes passed with the intent to discriminate against minorities could pass Section 5 muster. Because such an interpretation is inconsistent with purposes of the Voting Rights Act to eliminate discriminatory tactics that undermine the guarantees of the 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act fixes this inconsistency by clarifying that a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose also cannot be pre- cleared.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 also remedies the Supreme Court's holding in Georgia v. Ashcroft. Under the test established in Georgia for assessing a jurisdiction's challenge to denial of Section 5 pre-clearance, the court can give greater weight to numerous undefined considerations than to the ability of a minority community to elect a candidate of its choice. This test is as difficult to administer as it is contrary to the purposes of the Act. This act fixes both of these problems by restoring the original understanding that the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to protect the minority community's ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice and by setting forth defined factors.

In addition to restoring the Act's original meaning, this Act makes changes to the expiring Federal examiners and observers provisions to better allocate resources for combating discrimination in voting. The Voting Rights Act provides for Federal examiners to ensure that legally qualified persons are free to register for Federal, State, and local elections and that observers to observe whether citizens who are eligible to vote are able to exercise the right to vote. Federal observers are the most frequently used federal oversight tool in voting and the only Federal officials authorized to enter polls and places where votes are tabulated. This Act eliminates Federal examiners because they have not been appointed to jurisdictions certified for coverage in more than 20 years, and other laws such as the Help America Vote Act now address the concern of voting rolls. At the same time, the bill strengthens the observers provisions to allow the assignment of federal observers upon finding that there is a reasonable belief that a violation of the 14th or 15th Amendments will occur, without having to first certify federal examiners.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendment Act also removes an impediment to effective protection of voting rights by authorizing the prevailing party in a lawsuit brought under Section 2 to recover expert costs as part of the attorney fees already authorized. This will have a significant impact on the ability of litigants to successfully combat discrimination in court.

The process of reauthorization began in the House of Representatives, where Representatives Nadler, Chabot and Watt presided over 10 hearings on the effectiveness and continuing need for the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Last week, the distinguished House Judiciary chairman and ranking member appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and introduced the extensive record from those hearings. I am grateful for the hard work that has been done in the House, and I want to thank Chairman Specter for agreeing to move forward promptly with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the expiring provisions.

Congress has reauthorized and revitalized the Act four times, each time with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. As I noted last week in welcoming the House Judiciary chairman and ranking member, we are repeating the bicameral and bipartisan process of the 1982 reauthorization. In 1982, Chairman Specter and I were both Members of the Judiciary Committee, along with Senators Kennedy, Biden, Hatch and Grassley. Under the chairmanship of Senator Strom Thurmond, reauthorization was reported by the Judiciary Committee and passed both houses of Congress. I am hopeful that our Committee can accomplish the work that needs to be done and report this bill to the full Senate before the Memorial Day recess.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important laws Congress has ever passed, helping to usher the country out of a history of discrimination and into the greater inclusion of all Americans in the decisions about our Nation's future. Our democracy and our Nation have been better and richer for it. While I hope some day these extraordinary remedies are not needed, I urge the Senate to build on the work done in the House of Representatives to extend the expiring provisions so that we can eliminate recurring discrimination and make sure that the gains we have made are not lost. I am heartened that this is not a partisan issue benefiting one party or another. Rather, as demonstrated by the bicameral and bipartisan process we continue for reauthorizing and revitalizing the Act's expiring provisions, this is about making our democracy reflect the will of all of the American people.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairmen of both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, the Democratic and Republican leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and members of Congress from both parties to introduce a bill to reauthorize and reinvigorate the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The bicameral, bipartisan introduction of this bill reflects not only its historic importance as a guarantor of the right to vote for all Americans, but also the broad consensus that the expiring provisions must be extended this year without delay.

There are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American citizenship, as voting. Like the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the right to vote is foundational because it secures the effective exercise of all other rights. As people are able to register, vote, and elect candidates of their choice, their interests and rights get attention. The very legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans have to the political process.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the result of an historic struggle for civil rights led by such American heroes as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks, who refused to be treated as second-class citizens. That struggle reached a crucial turning point on March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, AL, when State troopers brutally attacked John Lewis and his fellow civil rights marchers who were fighting for their right to vote.

The events of that day, now known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' were captured in newspapers and on televisions across the country, and those powerful images marked a crucial turning point in securing the right to vote for all Americans. A few days after the violence of Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Johnson outlined the proposed Voting Rights Act of 1965, before a joint session of Congress. Within months, Congress passed it so that the Constitution's guarantees of equal access to the electoral process, regardless of race, would not be undermined by discriminatory practices.

The enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 transformed the landscape of political inclusion. Prior to the Act, minorities of all races faced major barriers to participation in the political process, through the use of such devices as poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, intimidation by voting officials, language barriers, and systematic vote dilution. We have made great gains since that time, but our work is not finished. The record established in 10 hearings in the House of Representatives indicates that the tools provided by the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain necessary for protecting the voting rights of minority Americans in this country.

Among the Act's most critical protections are the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5, which prevent discriminatory laws from going into practice. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 would extend these protections for 25 years, retaining the most effective measures to fight certain kinds of pervasive and recurring discrimination.

The insidious discriminatory tactics that led to the original Voting Rights Act were deeply rooted. In the annals of our Nation, this fight dates back almost 100 years, to the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870, the last of the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments. It took implementation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for people of all races in many parts of our country to gain the effective exercise of rights guaranteed 95 years earlier by the 15th Amendment. The pre- clearance provisions were one of the primary reasons this Act succeeded where earlier attempts had failed. Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to pre-clear all voting changes with either the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In doing so, Section 5 combats the practices in these jurisdictions of shifting from one invalidated discriminatory tactic to another, which had undermined earlier efforts to enforce 15th Amendment guarantees.

We have made significant progress toward a more inclusive democracy over the past four decades since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. However, I fear that if we fail to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act, our country is likely to backslide. We must make sure those gains do not suffer the same fate as the gains in voting rights made during Reconstruction.

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Act promised that the guarantees of the 15th Amendment would be realized. Between 1870 and 1900, 22 African Americans served in the United States Congress. In 1868, Louisiana elected an African-American Lieutenant Governor, Oscar Dunn, and 87 African Americans held seats in the South Carolina legislature. However, these Reconstruction-era gains in African- American voting and representation proved to be short-lived. Following the end of Reconstruction, the rights of African Americans to vote and to hold office were virtually eliminated in many areas through discriminatory legal barriers, intimidation, and violence. The changes were swift, systematic and severe. By 1896, Representative George White of North Carolina was the only African American remaining in the U.S. Congress, and it would take 72 years after Representative White left Congress for African-American voters in the South to elect another candidate of their choice to Congress.

In Mississippi, the percentage of African-American voting-age men registered to vote fell from more than 90 percent during Reconstruction to less than 6 percent in 1892. Between 1896 and 1900, the number of African-American voters in Louisiana was reduced from 130,000 to a mere 5,000. Unlike their short-lived gains made during Reconstruction, African-American voters' exclusion from the ballot box was persistent. Only 3 percent of voting-age African-American men and women in the South were registered to vote in 1940, only 1 percent in Mississippi-- just 1 percent. These numbers are staggering, and they provide a history lesson we should not ignore.

As part of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 1975, Congress added Section 203, which requires bilingual voting assistance for certain language minority groups. This provision was enacted pursuant to congressional power to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments. Section 203 has been a key factor to expanding the inclusiveness of democracy to all citizens and has led to extraordinary gains in representation and participation made by Asian-American and Hispanic-American citizens. Like Section 5, Section 203 is expiring in 2007. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and

Amendments Act of 2006 would extend these critical protections for 25 years.

Hispanic-American populations have been one of the primary minority language groups to benefit from the protections of the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act. For example effective implementation of the bilingual provisions in San Diego County, CA, helped increase voter registration by more than 20 percent. And voter turnout among Hispanic Americans in New Mexico rose 26 percent between 2000 and 2004 after television and radio spots in Spanish educated listeners about voter registration and absentee ballots.

Voting rights belong to people who are American citizens. They are trying to vote but many of them are struggling with the English language due to disparities in education and the incremental process of learning. It is imperative that all citizens be able to fully exercise their rights as citizens, particularly a right as fundamental as the right to vote. Renewing the expiring language provisions of the Voting Rights Act will continue to help make that a reality.

Rather than merely extending the Voting Rights Act, Congress now has an opportunity to reinvigorate the Act, strengthening and improving its remedies. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 does so by clarifying certain parts of Section 5 to give clear guidance to the Courts and to restore the original understanding of the Act. Two recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly narrowed Section 5's effectiveness and undermined the purposes of the Act.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 remedies the Supreme Court's holding in Reno v. Bossier Parish, by making clear that a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose violates Section 5. Under the holding in Reno v. Bossier Parish, certain voting rule changes passed with the intent to discriminate against minorities could pass Section 5 muster. Because such an interpretation is inconsistent with purposes of the Voting Rights Act to eliminate discriminatory tactics that undermine the guarantees of the 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act fixes this inconsistency by clarifying that a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose also cannot be pre- cleared.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 also remedies the Supreme Court's holding in Georgia v. Ashcroft. Under the test established in Georgia for assessing a jurisdiction's challenge to denial of Section 5 pre-clearance, the court can give greater weight to numerous undefined considerations than to the ability of a minority community to elect a candidate of its choice. This test is as difficult to administer as it is contrary to the purposes of the Act. This act fixes both of these problems by restoring the original understanding that the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to protect the minority community's ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice and by setting forth defined factors.

In addition to restoring the Act's original meaning, this Act makes changes to the expiring Federal examiners and observers provisions to better allocate resources for combating discrimination in voting. The Voting Rights Act provides for Federal examiners to ensure that legally qualified persons are free to register for Federal, State, and local elections and that observers to observe whether citizens who are eligible to vote are able to exercise the right to vote. Federal observers are the most frequently used federal oversight tool in voting and the only Federal officials authorized to enter polls and places where votes are tabulated. This Act eliminates Federal examiners because they have not been appointed to jurisdictions certified for coverage in more than 20 years, and other laws such as the Help America Vote Act now address the concern of voting rolls. At the same time, the bill strengthens the observers provisions to allow the assignment of federal observers upon finding that there is a reasonable belief that a violation of the 14th or 15th Amendments will occur, without having to first certify federal examiners.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendment Act also removes an impediment to effective protection of voting rights by authorizing the prevailing party in a lawsuit brought under Section 2 to recover expert costs as part of the attorney fees already authorized. This will have a significant impact on the ability of litigants to successfully combat discrimination in court.

The process of reauthorization began in the House of Representatives, where Representatives Nadler, Chabot and Watt presided over 10 hearings on the effectiveness and continuing need for the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Last week, the distinguished House Judiciary chairman and ranking member appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and introduced the extensive record from those hearings. I am grateful for the hard work that has been done in the House, and I want to thank Chairman Specter for agreeing to move forward promptly with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the expiring provisions.

Congress has reauthorized and revitalized the Act four times, each time with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. As I noted last week in welcoming the House Judiciary chairman and ranking member, we are repeating the bicameral and bipartisan process of the 1982 reauthorization. In 1982, Chairman Specter and I were both Members of the Judiciary Committee, along with Senators Kennedy, Biden, Hatch and Grassley. Under the chairmanship of Senator Strom Thurmond, reauthorization was reported by the Judiciary Committee and passed both houses of Congress. I am hopeful that our Committee can accomplish the work that needs to be done and report this bill to the full Senate before the Memorial Day recess.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important laws Congress has ever passed, helping to usher the country out of a history of discrimination and into the greater inclusion of all Americans in the decisions about our Nation's future. Our democracy and our Nation have been better and richer for it. While I hope some day these extraordinary remedies are not needed, I urge the Senate to build on the work done in the House of Representatives to extend the expiring provisions so that we can eliminate recurring discrimination and make sure that the gains we have made are not lost. I am heartened that this is not a partisan issue benefiting one party or another. Rather, as demonstrated by the bicameral and bipartisan process we continue for reauthorizing and revitalizing the Act's expiring provisions, this is about making our democracy reflect the will of all of the American people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask that Senators Murray and Cantwell be added as cosponsors to my amendment.

Mr. President, it has long been evident that our immigration system needs reform. The debate on immigration has been a long time in coming, and I am pleased that this body is moving forward on this important topic in such a comprehensive fashion. For our work on immigration to be truly comprehensive, however, we must address those issues that have received less attention in the debate as well as the front page issues.

My amendment is regarding one of those issues that has not received widespread attention but is of great importance. As a World War II veteran, this amendment is important to me personally, to Filipino- Americans, and to veterans. My amendment would grant the children of Filipino World War II veterans special immigrant status for the purpose of family reunification. Making this small change to our nation's immigration policy would go a long way toward making our immigration laws more just, and I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this amendment.

Before I begin a discussion on the specifics of my amendment, I would first like to thank my dear friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye, for cosponsoring this amendment. In the 101st Congress, Senator Inouye authored section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990, which provided for the naturalization of Filipino World War II veterans. Senator Inouye has a long history of being involved in this important effort and it is an honor to have his support on my amendment today. In addition, Representative Ed Case has introduced a similar bill, H.R. 901, in the House of Representatives.

To understand the significance of this amendment, it is important to first provide some background about the historical circumstances that got us where we are today.

On the basis of 1934 legislation enacted prior to Philippine independence, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued a 1941 executive order. Through this order, President Roosevelt invoked his authority to ``call and order into the service of the Armed Forces of the

United States, . . . all of the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.'' This order drafted over 200,000 Filipino citizens into the United States military. Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, Filipino soldiers fought alongside American soldiers in the defense of our country.

Throughout the course of World War II, these Filipino soldiers proved themselves to be courageous and honorable as they helped the United States fulfill its mission. There was no question when they were fighting that they would be treated the same as American troops. For example, Filipino soldiers fought side-by-side with American soldiers in the Battle of Bataan and the Battle of Corregidor. When Bataan fell and the Bataan Death March began, Filipino soldiers were forced to march more than a hundred kilometers from Bataan to Tarlac along with their American comrades. Filipino soldiers faced hardships in concentration camps, and they endured 4 years of occupation by the Japanese. In every sense, Filipino soldiers proved their allegiance to our country through thick and thin.

These Filipino soldiers are war heroes, and they deserve to be honored as such. They served active duty service on behalf of the U.S. military, which should qualify them for the same benefits as other veterans of active duty. Congress betrayed these veterans by enacting the First Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act in 1946, which included a rider that conditioned an appropriation of $200 million, for the benefit of the postwar Philippine Army, on the basis that service in the Commonwealth Army should not be deemed to have been service in the Armed Forces of the United States.

Commonwealth Army members were those called into the service of the U.S. Armed Forces for the Far East. These members served between July 26, 1941, and June 30, 1946. Similarly, Congress enacted the Second Supplemental Surplus Appropriation Rescission Act, which provided that service in the New Philippine Scouts was not deemed service in the U.S. military.

New Philippine Scouts were Filipino citizens who served with the U.S. Armed Forces with the consent of the Philippine Government. They served between October 6, 1945, and June 30, 1947.

This generation of veterans is predominantly in their eighties. Of the 200,000 Filipino veterans that served in WWII, there are close to 49,000 left. Some of these veterans receive U.S. benefits, some do not. By 2010, it is estimated that the population will have dwindled to 20,000.

With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, the courage of the many Filipino soldiers who fought alongside our troops during World War II was finally recognized by our Government, and Filipino veterans were offered the opportunity to obtain U.S. citizenship. According to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, about 15,000 Filipino veterans live in the U.S. and became citizens between 1991 and 1995 under the authority of the Immigration Act of 1990. Between that time, about 11,000 veterans who live in the Philippines were successfully naturalized. These thousands of Filipino veterans clearly wished to spend their golden years in the United States, and I am pleased that the 1990 Immigration reform efforts offered them the opportunity to do so.

Unfortunately, the offer did not extend to the adult sons and daughters of these veterans. As a result, the brave Filipino veterans who fought on behalf of America, and who now live in America and continue to contribute to America, must do so alone. Due to a backlog in the issuing of visas, many of the children of these veterans have waited more than 20 years before they were able to obtain an immigrant visa. Unfortunately, many more are still waiting.

It is no secret that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security is facing significant backlogs. However, it is not as widely known that prospective family-sponsored immigrants from the Philippines have the most substantial waiting times in the world before a visa is scheduled to become available to them. What this means, is that these honorable Filipino veterans who faced numerous dangers to defend this Nation now face the prospect of spending the last years of their lives without the comfort and care of their families.

It is a shameful disgrace that the sons and daughters of these brave soldiers are now last in line to become citizens of our country. This is no way to honor Filipino soldiers who bravely fought on the front lines with American soldiers during World War II.

As a World War II veteran myself, I am proud to have answered my nation's call to active duty. During my time of active service, I was driven by a love for my country, and I was comforted by the love of my family. The support that a soldier's family offers during military service is an invaluable buoy to a soldier's spirit.

A family's role in caring and supporting for a soldier becomes even more important after active military service is completed. I was lucky to be surrounded by my family after my service. My heart goes out to those who were separated from their family for years and years due to bureaucratic backlogs.

As the ranking member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have seen firsthand the difficulties that veterans can face when readjusting to civilian life after serving in a war. For many veterans, the difficulty of returning to a home that has changed while at war is eased by being surrounded by the familiar faces of loved ones. While that window of opportunity has unfortunately passed for our World War II Filipino veterans, there are still many important ways that families enrich the lives of veterans after the initial readjustment phase. Being surrounded by the love and care of family, especially for World War II veterans facing their twilight years, offers a special source of support.

Action on this issue is long overdue, and it would be very meaningful for the Senate to pass my amendment during debate on the immigration bill. As you may know, Filipino Americans are celebrating their centennial this year. Late last year, the Senate accepted by UC S. Res. 333, a resolution to recognize the centennial of sustained immigration from the Philippines to the United States, and acknowledge the contributions of the Filipino-American community to our country over the last century.

The Filipino-American community has grown and thrived over the last hundred years. Today, Filipino-Americans are the third largest ethnic group in the State of Hawaii and represent one of the fastest growing immigration groups in the country. Filipinos have made contributions to every segment of our community, ranging from politics and sports, to medicine, the military and business. One of the foremost issues for Filipino Americans is our Nation's commitment to Filipino veterans, and passing my amendment would be a significant way to honor Filipino veterans during a historic year for the Filipino American community.

Over the years, I have listened to the stories of countless Filipino World War II veterans who have been separated from their families and who are patiently waiting in line. Every veteran has a unique story to tell, but those Filipino World War II veterans who have not yet been reunited with their family members share a universal bond of heartache.

Another important commonality among Filipino World War II veterans is hope. Those Filipino World War II veterans still separated from their families are hopeful that we will use this opportunity to rectify the unjust oversight in current law. The poignant truth behind this matter is that if we don't act now, we may not have another opportunity.

This weekend I am participating in the first annual ``A Time of Remembrance'' event, which honors the families of the American fallen. Family members from all 50 States will come to the National Mall at noon this Sunday, May 21, 2006, to recognize the important contributions our fallen heroes have made on behalf of America. I am proud to take part in this event, which points out the very real ways that families are impacted when soldiers courageously leave their family and fight to defend freedom. For those World War II veterans who are still with us, this event points to the importance of honoring them now, before it is too late.

Let us prove those wrong who say that we are waiting until enough veterans die before we right this injustice. These veterans have been waiting for 60 years to have their benefits reinstated. Unfortunately, our efforts to provide them with the benefits they were promised, the benefits they fought for, have been unsuccessful because opponents have cited the payment of such benefits as too costly.

The Filipino Veterans from World War II have already made extreme sacrifices. They should not be forced to endure the further sacrifice of life without their loved ones. It is time that the United States fulfill its responsibility to these veterans. The least we could do is help to unite these aging veterans with their families. We are a nation that keeps its word . . . not a nation that uses people for our own purposes and then casts them aside.

Ensuring that our World War II Filipino Veterans can enjoy and be supported by their family members in their twilight years is a simple yet profound way of honoring these war heroes.

My amendment has received strong support from Filipino veterans, the Filipino-American community, and the Asian-American community. The Japanese American Citizens League, the Organization of Chinese Americans, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center have all endorsed my amendment. In addition, the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, which represents over 4,000 Filipino Veterans across the country, has wholeheartedly endorsed my amendment with a letter of support that states:

S. Amdt. 2049 will be a timely benefit to address the

veterans' loneliness and will provide them with a partial

measure of U.S. veterans recognition that they were unjustly

denied in 1946.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter of support be printed in the Record.

My amendment has received a letter of support from the Asian American Justice Center. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter from the Asian American Justice Center to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to honor their valiant contributions to our Nation by supporting my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to ask for a voice vote.