John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what we have done with the Child Custody Protection Act--Senator Boxer is correct, it is a bill that passed the U.S. Senate on a bipartisan vote of 65 to 34. What we are doing is setting up a reserve fund that says if it passes this year, the money will be there to enforce it. We know around here a lot of times things are authorized, things are passed, but then the money is not there to enforce it. So what we want to do is set up a reserve fund so that if the law is passed, we will have the money there to enforce it. This has to do with protecting minor children. There are many States in this country that have passed laws--parental notification, parental consent laws--that want to protect the rights of parents and children from being taken across State lines by adults. That is what this bill will allow the enforcement of, to make sure the Child Custody Protection Act has the money to be enforced by law enforcement across this country.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will finish very briefly. This amendment strictly funds the Child Custody Protection Act that passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. We will now vote to make sure it is funded. That is simply what my amendment does.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I wish to speak on two amendments I will be offering to the budget. The first amendment has to do with means testing Medicare Part D, the new prescription drug benefit, by making sure that seniors who are wealthier pay a little more so that middle-class Americans are not subsidizing their prescription drug benefits to the extent they do today. As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to all Americans to ensure that senior citizens and individuals with disabilities have access to medical care. We must maintain that commitment by strengthening the program and controlling costs. We already means test Medicare Part B, which helps cover doctor services and outpatient care. Today, I am proposing that we finish the job. In order to put the Medicare Program on better financial footing, we should means test the Medicare prescription drug program so that beneficiaries with higher incomes pay higher Part D premiums. Five short years ago, many of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, voted with me in support of a Feinstein amendment to require high-income Medicare beneficiaries pay a greater share of their Medicare Part B premiums. Many of these Senators are still with us in the Senate today. In fact, the current chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, supported an amendment to means test Medicare Part B. Other Democrats who supported the measure include Senators Biden, Carper, Dodd, Feingold, Kohl, Landrieu, and Wyden. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize that our entitlement programs are in serious danger. As our Nation grows older, these programs will only devour more and more of our Federal budget. Without reform, our entitlement programs will consume our entire Federal budget somewhere around 20 years from now, leaving no funds for national security, education, transportation, or anything else. Unfortunately, the Democrats are not proposing anything to solve the problem of entitlements in this budget. Today, I am asking my colleagues to again show the courage to make tough choices and to take our lead from American families across the country who make hard choices each and every day. My amendment would impose an income test on the wealthiest seniors to ensure that they pay their fair share for prescription drug coverage. This amendment will extend the existing Medicare Part B income test to the Medicare Part D program, the prescription drug part of the program. By doing so, we will save almost $2 billion over the next 5 years. Under the proposal, single Medicare patients with an adjusted gross income over $82,000 and couples with incomes of more than $164,000 will be responsible for a greater share of their Medicare Part D premium based on a sliding scale. For example, a single Medicare beneficiary with an adjusted gross income between $82,001 and $102,000 a year will see an increase of only about $10.41 in the monthly Medicare premiums they pay. These income levels will be adjusted in the future for inflation. The vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries will not be impacted by this proposal. This chart shows the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries who are impacted: 96.6 percent of all seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D will not be affected by my amendment. Almost 3.5 percent of seniors will be affected, just the wealthiest of those seniors. This proposal does not deprive senior citizens of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. What it does say is that if you can afford to pay a little more, then you should pay a little more. I believe it is wrong for the retired CEO of a Fortune 500 company not to pay a little more so that middle-income taxpayers are not subsidizing their prescription drug benefits. It really makes no sense for someone like Bill Gates' father to have his prescription drugs subsidized by a waitress in Las Vegas or a truck driver in Elko, NV. I strongly believe that American taxpayers, struggling to make ends meet, certainly should not be subsidizing, to the current extent, the Medicare Part D premiums of those seniors who can afford to pay for the cost of premiums themselves. In this instance, means testing is fair. Remember, this prescription drug benefit is a new benefit. It is not something seniors paid for through their taxes, it is a new entitlement benefit that current taxpayers are subsidizing. I think it is only fair to the school teacher, the firefighter, the police officer, and the small businessperson who is struggling to make ends meet, that wealthy seniors pay a little more per month for this new prescription drug benefit. Madam President, the second amendment I am going to be offering has to do with an issue that is fundamental to our country, the right of employees to have a secret-ballot election for determining whether you are going to have a union represent you in the workplace. This issue is also known as ``card check.'' We need to ensure the right of employees to a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. My amendment will create a reserve fund to ensure that the National Labor Relations Board has sufficient resources to conduct secret-ballot elections. The NLRB is a Federal agency that was created by Congress in 1935. It is responsible for administering the Labor Relations Act, which is the primary law governing relations between unions and employers in the private sector. The NLRB works to protect the rights of employees to organize and collectively bargain with or without a union. We need to ask a fundamental question: Should Americans have the right to a secret ballot in choosing whether to have a union represent them? The Democrats offered a bill last year, that passed in the House, which was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. Their bill would say: No longer are we going to allow employees the ability to have a secret ballot on whether to have a union represent them. Instead, they say: We are going to have a card check. The Democrats have offered something they deceptively title the Employee Free Choice Act. As I was saying, instead of secret ballot elections to determine whether or not to be represented by a union, they would pass out cards, have employees sign them, and as long as they get 50 percent of the employees, plus one, to sign a card saying they wanted a union, they automatically have a union. The problem is that when you use these cards, instead of a secret- ballot election, coercion and intimidation can take place. That is why we have secret-ballot elections to elect our representatives virtually everywhere. Right here in the Senate, when we elect our leaders in each party, we do secret-ballot elections. This reduces the opportunity for intimidation. People want secret-ballots so that they are free to exercise their right and their conscience while voting. In whatever they do, whether it is a union or electing somebody to represent them in the Halls of Congress, they elect them through the use of a secret ballot. It is fundamental to the American system of government and the American way of life. Unfortunately, the Democrats have sided with the big labor bosses on this, and not with the union members. If you read the polling data, 80 percent of union members want to maintain their right to secret ballot elections. As a matter of fact, that number is pretty consistent whether you are in a labor union or not. Eighty percent of the American people support the right to secret ballot elections to decide whether or not to have a union represent them. We have had actual experiences with this in my hometown of Las Vegas. Bruce Esgar, then an employee at the MGM, testified in front of a House Committee about his experience. He talked about how, when the union wanted to come into his workplace, he and others asked for a secret ballot vote. They were labeled ``anti-union.'' And when the card check campaign began, they were threatened that if they did not sign the card and the union came in, they would lose their jobs and their benefits. He said that employees were harassed in the dressing rooms before shifts, and that these tactics worked. Employees got tired of being harassed all the time so they signed the cards. Mr. Esgar testified about a coworker whose wife was the union at another casino, and that the union threatened to fire her if her husband did not sign the card at MGM. Another coworker was told that the union knew where his wife worked and where his kids went to school. He was told, ``accidents happen.'' I wonder which of these workers feels that the union is standing up for them? Bruce summed it up pretty well. He said: These are the things that the employees put up with. We did it for two years. And all we were asking for was our right to vote. In America, you vote for your future. My amendment is fundamental. It says, let's preserve the secret ballot right that Americans have in choosing whether to have a union represent them in the workplace. This is a critical issue facing our country today. It literally goes to the very fabric of our society. I realize that labor unions are big supporters of the Democratic Party across the country. I realize this is their No. 1 issue, the labor unions' No. 1 issue. It is and the labor union bosses No. 1 issue, but it is not for the labor union members. We need to make sure we are standing up for the rights of American workers everywhere, of union workers everywhere and make sure that we preserve their right to a secret ballot in the workplace. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. About 20 minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN. I would.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 37, I voted aye. It was my intention to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Iraq. Following the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, our enemies tried to plunge Iraq into chaos, and in certain parts of Iraq they were succeeding. Terrorists and extremists were pitting Iraqi against Iraqi, Sunni against Shia, Shia against Sunni. In Baghdad, Iraqi families were being forced to leave their homes and to resettle in areas where other members of their religious community resided. Iraqi police and army units were nowhere near capable of taking the lead during operations. On the political front, progress was very slow. When the going got tough, many called for U.S. withdrawal and abandonment of Iraq. Thankfully, the President did not listen to the calls for defeat and retreat. The President reviewed our strategy and changed course. This change was needed. I visited Iraq twice before this change of strategy. I can tell you it was a dangerous place. During one of my trips, we had to take a helicopter from the Green Zone to Baghdad International Airport because of an IED threat. In January of 2007, the President and General Petraeus launched the surge of American forces into Iraq. The Iraqi people quickly realized that something dramatic had happened. Those who had worried that America was preparing to abandon them instead saw tens of thousands of American forces flowing into their country. They saw our forces moving into the neighborhoods, clearing out the terrorists, and staying behind to ensure that the enemy did not return. They saw our troops, along with provincial reconstruction teams, coming in to ensure that improved security was followed by improvements in daily life. The surge is now achieving its primary aims of improving population security in Baghdad and reversing the cycle of sectarian violence that plagued Iraq. Although there is much more work to be done, security has improved considerably since General Petraeus began implementing this new strategy that became fully operational in mid-June. According to the U.S. military, monthly attack levels have decreased 60 percent since that time. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent. Although al-Qaida in Iraq remains a dangerous threat, its capabilities are severely diminished. Thousands of extremists in Iraq have been captured or killed, including hundreds of key al-Qaida leaders and their operatives. Iraqi forces now have assumed responsibility for security in 9 of 18 Iraqi provinces and are now leading combat operations all over the country. Iraqi security forces and concerned local citizen groups continue to grow, develop capabilities, and provide more security for their country. The Government of Iraq is committed to one day assuming fiscal and overall responsibility for CLCs, which some now call the Sons of Iraq, and has begun structuring vocational training programs for these CLCs who want to rejoin the civilian workforce. The President's strategy in Iraq has put us on a path to success. U.S. and Iraqi troops, working together, have achieved significant results. Violence is down dramatically and political progress is being made. The Government in Baghdad recently passed debaathification legislation and a pension law, and is sharing oil revenues with the different provinces. Significant bottom-up political progress is occurring at the local level in Iraq, where provincial governments continue to spend national revenue on reconstruction, and many people are engaging in local politics. On the economic front, the central Government of Iraq recently reached its 2007 target of $30.2 billion in budget revenue 1 month before the end of the year. The Government of Iraq recently completed early repayment of its outstanding obligations to the International Monetary Fund. The Baghdad Chamber of Commerce recently hosted a business expo which more than 8,000 executives, entrepreneurs, salesmen, and investors attended. Mr. President, approximately 2 weeks ago, I traveled again to Iraq and was briefed by General Petraeus, other commanders on the ground, and Iraqi security officials. Petraeus and his troops are obviously and undoubtedly doing a remarkable job at turning things around. This was a different trip for me. There was a more secure feeling in the air. I felt optimistic, more so than at any other time since the war started. You can tell that things have remarkably changed for the better. I visited a town south of Baghdad where 3 months ago al-Qaida had been in total control. I felt so safe that, along with two other Senators and our staffs, we walked through a local market without a helmet and spoke to dozens of residents, including children, through a translator. One of the Iraqi people's biggest fears is that America will surrender and leave prematurely. They fear for their lives, their children, and the future of the country if we surrender. Great, almost unbelievable strides have obviously been made, and we are headed in the right direction. Despite this fact, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to introduce defeatist legislation, such as what we have before us today, S. 2633, that call for tying our hands on this front line of the war on terror. So as things get better and better, the Democrats continue to call for retreat. They continue to politicize the war in Iraq, persisting in calls for troop withdrawal, when the surge is demonstrating real success, both military and political. Scaling back withdrawing when we are succeeding so brilliantly clearly equals defeat and makes absolutely no sense. The Democrats have concluded that America has lost and refuse to listen to the judgment of our military leaders. Responding to whether gains made in Iraq would be lost if we abruptly withdrew our troops, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently stated: There haven't been gains. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure. Such defeatist nonsense is not the way to boost the morale of our troops on the ground or to show gratitude for their success. I call on the Speaker to visit Iraq, to talk to our troops, to talk to the Iraqi people, and to see how successful the surge is working for her own eyes. Further, I find it peculiar that the Democrats keep calling for withdrawal over and over again when initially they criticized the administration for not sending more troops to Iraq. When plans for the surge were announced, they roundly attacked it, going so far as to say the war was already lost. Then when the surge began to show great success, Democrats again criticized it and said the only purpose of the surge was to enable political reconciliation in Iraq. Now that both military and political successes are being realized, the Democrats are once again going to have to redefine what failure looks like. When General Petraeus first took command, he said, ``Hard is not hopeless.'' Today, there is hope and optimism in Iraq. Amazing progress has been made. I should not have to say this, but we must support our troops, not just in word but in deed. The Democrats need to stop playing games with the brave men and women who are sacrificing so much for this country. They need to stop introducing legislation that ties strings to money for our troops. They need to stop introducing legislation that would prematurely bring our troops home and ruin all the gains they have made over the last 5 years. Partisan politics need to be set aside. We need to come together as a Congress, as a country, and get behind the effort and the mission in Iraq. Let's finish what we started, not just for today but for the future. We are all Americans first. It is time we started acting like that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today with a truly heavy heart. At Arlington Cemetery, on January 17, 2008, I attended the funeral services of my friend, COL D'Arcy Grisier. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife beloved Roberta, or, as we call her, Bert, and their three children Sean, Kelly, and Darcy. D, as he was called by his friends, was a caring father, loving husband, and a member of my extended family. A patriot in every sense of the word, D spent 26 years serving this Nation in the U.S. Marine Corps. Upon retiring from the Corps in 2003, D decided to continue serving this country in a different capacity. From 2003 until September of this past year, Colonel D was my military legislative assistant. In this capacity D advised me on all national security matters, all the while reminding me that once a Marine always a Marine and that the ``M'' in Marine is always capitalized. Those of us who were friends with D will remember him more for who he was than the lifetime of service he gave to this country. My staff and I will miss D always knowing exactly what the Redskins were doing wrong. We will miss him always saying ``keep your seats'' whenever he entered a room. We will miss him constantly singing Jimmy Buffet songs out loud, and losing at least two sleeves of golf balls every time he played. We will miss his laughter and his camaraderie. Most of all, we will miss his friendship. Mr. President, if D Grisier knew that I was making this statement about him, he would probably be upset. That was the type of individual he was. While he would not have wanted this attention, Americans deserve to know D's story and the caliber of person who spent a lifetime serving them. This past summer at our annual staff retreat Colonel D announced that he would be leaving the office to go and work in the Pentagon as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Budget and Appropriations. This was bittersweet for many of us. We were thrilled for D, of course, but sad to see him go. Unfortunately, he was never able to report to work for his new job, a challenging position that he looked forward to starting. During his tenure on Capitol Hill he had many accomplishments, which D referred to as ``doing the people's business.'' These accomplishments included advising me in my role as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support. In this capacity, he drafted legislation and amendments, wrote numerous floor statements, staffed me in high level meetings, advised me on billion-dollar spending bills, and, on occasion, voted my proxy, or what D would refer to his role as, the ``extremely junior Senator from Nevada.'' He spent a great deal of time in Nevada at our military bases and meeting with veterans. D also took great care in helping the families of our State's fallen heroes. He moved mountains in order to relieve some of the stress and anxiety they face at such difficult times. After D announced to the office that he would be leaving for the Pentagon he told a short story. I believe this story reflects the type of individual that he truly was. D told us that the professional accomplishment he was most proud of was bringing a Junior ROTC program to Douglas High School. The fact that D took pride in accomplishing those less glamorous tasks that directly impacted the lives of Nevadans is what made him the man he was, and made him the man all of us admired. President Ronald Reagan once said that ``Some individuals go through life wondering whether or not they've made a difference. Marines don't have that problem.'' Mr. President, I am here to tell my colleagues that this could not be any truer than in the case of COL D'Arcy Grisier. America is a stronger Nation because of the lifetime of public service that Colonel D gave. I will truly miss my friend. His last saying that all of us used to kind of get a chuckle out of, when he was tired of talking, he used to say: ``My, my, look at the time.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President. I rise today to celebrate the career of Senator Trent Lott--an accomplished leader, a great American, and a true friend. Trent has spent more than three decades in Congress tirelessly fighting for a State and a people he dearly loves. Trent's path in life has followed closely that of the great American story. His humble beginnings, as the son of a hard-working teacher and pipefitter, established the foundation to value an honest day's work. These principles have remained ingrained in Trent's heart throughout his historic rise to the Senate. In his more than 30 years in Congress, Trent has earned an immense amount of respect among his peers. Easily said, he knows all the ins and outs. While there are many things we can all learn from his legacy, the most notable of all is the power of compromise. Senator Lott has proved to every one of us the impact reaching across the aisle can have on this country. It seems simpler these days to say ``I am a Republican'' or ``I am a Democrat'' and to leave it at that, but for Trent Lott reaching across the aisle and working with others has led to results. Trent has shown all of us that we share the commonality of serving the American people in the Congress. We are here to make the best decisions we can for our country and its people, and bipartisan solutions are a vital component to the legislative process. When looking back at Senator Lott's accomplishments, the list is long and distinguished. In the areas of foreign policy and national defense, Senator Lott has been a strong supporter of our armed services, stationed both domestically and abroad. He has fought hard for the security of our Nation and the protection of our service men and women. Likewise, he has not forgotten the commitment our veterans have made to this country and has upheld what he knows is our responsibility to support our veterans at every opportunity. As a public servant, my colleague has fought strongly to keep Government off the backs of the American worker and set the stage for the Republican revolution through the progrowth gang the ``Five Amigos.'' Alongside Congressman Jack Kemp, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator Connie Mack, and Congressman Vin Weber, Trent advocated President Reagan's approach to politics, tax cuts to promote economic growth for everyone in America. Never far from his mind is his beloved home State of Mississippi, the sparkle in his eye. He has stood by the people of his State with unwavering devotion. When the people of his State were devastated by Hurricane Katrina, Senator Lott shared their pain with his own family's loss and jumped into action. He dedicated his efforts to secure disaster relief and restoration construction. Senator Lott has recognized the importance education plays in developing tomorrow's leaders and has been a staunch advocate of improving the education system in Mississippi. Over the past few years, Senator Lott has sent several excess Senate computers to public schools in Mississippi in and effort to increase their students' access to the vast amount of information in the 21st century. His commitment to education in his State will be enjoyed for years to come. I have had the great privilege of working with Senator Lott on a variety of issues. During my years in the House of Representatives, I remember when, as the Senate majority leader, Trent worked tirelessly to help pass the landmark welfare reform bill of 1996, such a monumental piece of legislation that it is already receiving history's praise. It has been a pleasure to work with him in Senate republican leadership and to serve alongside him on both the Commerce and Finance Committees. Last year, on the Commerce Committee, Trent and I worked together to establish broad video franchising reform. This year, as a member of the Finance Committee, Senator Lott has been a very strong advocate for enacting permanent tax relief without increasing other taxes. There can be no question that Senator Lott is a man of results; his remarkable list of achievements illustrates this very point. But it is important to highlight that Trent does not overpromise. He will tell you just as straight as he can, ``I'll be with you until I can't be with you anymore.'' Senator Lott stands among few men in this world; a promise isn't simply a word to him, it is a commitment to make good on a pledge. Trent carries around a small notebook in which he records every promise made to him or by him. Senator Lott is a man of his word who will hold you to yours. For the 7 years I have been in the Senate, I have been in a small group with Trent who have met to pray together and to share each other's burdens. I have seen him on the highest mountain and the lowest valley. Through it all he sought his Lord for wisdom, comfort, and strength. On a personal level I will miss serving alongside my friend. But I know wherever this life leads you, I am certain the Lord will bless both you and your incredible wife Trish. I also know you will bless those whose paths you will cross. As his role as a Senator nears an end, I ask that we remember Senator Lott's legacy to this country, his State, and its people. Senator Lott, I wish you and your family the best of luck. It has been a privilege to serve alongside you in the Senate.

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the National Bible Association and the most influential force ever known to mankind, the Holy Bible. Each day, about 168,000 Bibles are sold, given away, or otherwise distributed in the United States. November 18 through 25 was National Bible Week, which, along with the National Bible Association, I hope increased that exposure to help spread the Good News contained within its pages. The timing of National Bible Week couldn't be more appropriate since it encompasses the Thanksgiving Holiday. As you know, Thanksgiving commemorates the story and the plight of the Pilgrims, who fled to the New World to escape religious persecution and joined with their new neighbors to give thanks for offering their friendly aid and for coming to their rescue in a dire time of need. Like the Pilgrims, the Bible recounts numerous cases of religious persecution of the children of Israel and the extreme hardships suffered by many over thousands of years. But the Bible also gives us hope, and the comfort of knowing God will help us to persevere and endure. The theme of neighborly assistance and thanks, as well as the many other valuable and moral lessons or guidance for treating one's neighbor and fellow man, are imparted in the Bible and even served as a moral compass to our Founding Fathers. The Judeo-Christian Bible became the cornerstone of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As we now find ourselves in the midst of the Christmas season, National Bible Week should serve as an important reminder to always turn to the Bible, recognize its wisdom and Divinely inspired words, and reflect on its meaning in our own lives, especially in how we interact with and treat our neighbors. Beyond serving as a personal moral compass on how to become a better person and neighbor, the Bible reassures us of God's infinite love for His creation. I encourage you to pick up and read the Bible and become awed by the history, lessons, and adventures found within its pages. As we celebrate National Bible Week, let us share the positive message of the Holy Bible with our families, friends, and neighbors.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4(b)(3) of Rule XXVIII for the purpose of proposing to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3043), making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; as follows: To the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 3043. Insert in the appropriate place: Sec. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of funds made available under the heading ``OFFICE

Mr. ENSIGN

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

Mr. ENSIGN. Just to alert the managers of the bill, I probably will not talk for more than about 10 minutes total. Amendment No. 3342 The first amendment I want to talk about is the amendment that deals with the totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico, the latest attempt to drain the Social Security trust fund. In 2004, the Commissioner of Social Security signed a totalization agreement with the Director General of the Mexican Social Security Institute. While the President has not yet submitted the United States- Mexico totalization agreement to Congress, I am concerned that the agreement can severely impact the Social Security trust fund and threaten the retirement benefits of hard-working Americans. The proposed totalization agreement with Mexico does not contain protections against fraud, and there are too many unanswered questions about its cost to American taxpayers. The Government Accountability Office has already warned us that the proposed totalization agreement with Mexico will likely increase the number of unauthorized workers and make their family members eligible for Social Security benefits. Mexican workers, who ordinarily would not receive benefits because they lack the required 10 years of legally documented employment in the United States, could qualify for partial Social Security benefits with as little as 1\1/2\ years of work history. More family members living in Mexico would also qualify for United States Social Security benefits, because the proposed agreement waives rules that prevent payments to noncitizens such as children and spouses living outside the United States. Because the Mexican Government does not keep sufficient records of births, deaths, and marriages, it would be nearly impossible to determine whether someone died so that the Social Security Administration could discontinue sending benefits. The Social Security Administration estimates that 50,000 additional Mexican workers would qualify for these benefits in the first 5 years, for a total estimated cost of over $500 million. During that same time period, the agreement would save U.S. workers a little over $100 million. If you do the math, it appears the cost of the agreement could be almost four times the savings. Before we send scarce Social Security dollars to a foreign country, Congress must first determine whether a totalization agreement is in the best interests of our country. To protect Social Security benefits to U.S. citizens, and to preserve the program for future generations, I am offering this amendment today. My amendment would bar funding for the administration of benefit payments under a totalization agreement with Mexico. Amendment No. 3352 I am also offering a second amendment. There have been many media reports recently about those who are here illegally stealing American Social Security numbers. Every year employers are advised that nearly 800,000 employees do not have valid matching Social Security numbers. In too many of those cases, the numbers that are used belong to someone else in America. Today, I am going take a few moments to share with my colleagues a few of the stories of victims of identity theft. I have shared some of these stories in the past. Last year I spoke about Audra, who had been a stay-at-home mom since 2000. Her Social Security number was being used by at least 218 different illegal immigrants, mostly in Texas, to obtain jobs. The IRS accused her of owing back taxes of over $1 million on other people's illegal work. There was also Caleb, who lives in Nevada with his wife and two young children. In December of 2003 Caleb was unable to work and he applied for unemployment benefits. He was denied benefits that were rightfully his and was told that it was because he was already working as a landscaper in Las Vegas. Las Vegas and Reno are about 500 miles apart. It would have been very difficult for this unemployed worker in Nevada. Stories such as this are all too common. States have experienced a crime spree involving illegal immigrants using the 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 a little 8-year-old boy. A little boy in Salt Lake City supposedly works for an express air freight company; quite an important job for an 11-year-old. These stories are quite shocking. Americans are being denied unemployment benefits and are being unfairly targeted for failure to pay taxes on money they did not earn. My amendment prohibits the Social Security Administration from using funds to process claims for work performed under a stolen or fraudulent Social Security number. We should not reward individuals who have knowingly engaged in illegal behavior. My amendment will ensure that the 218 illegal immigrants who stole Audra's Social Security number will not receive benefits from the Social Security trust fund. The landscaper who stole Caleb's Social Security number will not get credit for his work using one of my constituent's numbers, and the prep cook who stole an 8-year- old's Social Security number will not get credit for victimizing a child either. We should value hard work and reward those who play by the rules. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support both of these important amendments. I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN. I want to talk about two amendments I have offered that hopefully will be voted on very shortly. Is there any kind of unanimous consent agreement?

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up, en bloc, amendments Nos. 3342 and 3352.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, to move this along, I ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc amendments numbered 3242, 3352----

Mr. ENSIGN. If the Senator will yield, if I could call up this amendment and speak for 2 minutes and then yield the floor?

Mr. ENSIGN. Two minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, these----

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, very briefly, I will keep this very short. The first amendment deals with the totalization agreement the United States and Mexico have been working on together. I think there is a severe problem with a totalization agreement between our two countries; not because of our country but because of the recordkeeping and the problems associated with Mexico. What the first amendment would do, very simply, it would not allow the administration to use funds to implement a totalization agreement with Mexico. Our Social Security trust fund is already in trouble. We all know that. This totalization agreement with Mexico would put our Social Security trust fund into trouble. That is why I think this is an important amendment that we debate, we talk about, and hopefully we will support. The second amendment I have, I believe, reflects American values. We hear about identity fraud all the time. My amendment says the Social Security Administration could not pay Social Security benefits to anybody who has used a Social Security number fraudulently. That happens today. They use it fraudulently. They come back and they claim the benefits while they were using someone else's Social Security number. This amendment would stop that practice. It would say Social Security cannot use any funds in this bill to give Social Security benefits to somebody who used an illegal Social Security number. So briefly, those are my two amendments. I appreciate the Senator from West Virginia yielding me 2 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from West Virginia.

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